John Healey has resigned as Secretary of State for Defence, telling the Prime Minister that the financial settlement behind the long-awaited Defence Investment Plan falls well short of what the country needs and would force him into decisions that reduce the readiness of British forces, in a letter published on Thursday.
Healey, who had served as Defence Secretary since Labour took office in July 2024, set out his reasons in a letter to Sir Keir Starmer dated 11 June, opening with the line that “this is a letter I never expected to write” and that he did so “with great regret and reluctance”.
The letter begins with the record Healey believes the government has built in under two years. He wrote that Labour had “stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine” through the Coalition of the Willing and the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, “established Britain as a leading voice for Europe in NATO”, and “raised defence investment to 2.5% of GDP three years earlier than anyone expected”.
He pointed to “the deepest defence reforms in 50 years”, “the biggest UK defence export deals for decades”, a “first-of-its-kind Strategic Defence Review”, and to having given the armed forces “the biggest pay rise in nearly 20 years”, boosted military morale, “fixed over 1,200 of the worst forces family homes”, reset relations with European allies and signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway and France. “You have led this as PM,” he told Starmer, “earning wide respect at home and abroad.”
From there the letter turns. Healey wrote that the government had come into office “recognising Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defence”, and that this new era “required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan”.
The “excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January”, overseen by the Prime Minister, Healey and the Chancellor, had “confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence”. Since then, he wrote, “you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources” the nation needs at a time of rising threats.
Those demands, Healey argued, have only grown since January, and the letter lists them: conflict in the Middle East, “with the UK now leading the multinational Strait of Hormuz military mission”; High North security, “with the UK now leading NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission”; “increased Russian activity towards the UK and NATO nations” and increased attacks in Ukraine; and the Paris Agreement “confirming a British deployment to Ukraine after a ceasefire”.
The Defence Investment Plan he had worked to secure, Healey wrote, was meant to do two things, dealing with “the increasing operational demands on defence now” while stepping up the actions of the Strategic Defence Review, and setting “a clear path” to the new NATO commitment Starmer agreed, to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, through the next Spending Review. He added that he was certain “a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set”, a commitment he said “would have strong cross-party support” and one other European allies are making.
The settlement he was finally shown did not match that ambition. Healey wrote that the DIP financial settlement, “which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week”, “falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”. The extra support, he said, “is backloaded”, arriving late when “the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years”, and rising “to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030” when the country will already reach 2.6 per cent next year on investment in train. He acknowledged the strain the plan placed on other departments, writing that he knew “how hard you have worked to get to this point” and that he was grateful to colleagues who had supported switching spending into defence, while insisting “there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally”, as other European nations are doing.
Healey then turned the Prime Minister’s own words back on him, quoting Starmer’s warning of last week that “it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030”. “You know what defence needs,” he wrote. “You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February.” Without a plan that met the moment, he said, he was “being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe”.
After explaining that he could not accept a settlement “that does not give our Forces the resources they need”, Healey wrote, he was “now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary”. He closed by wishing Starmer “all continuing strength in the exceptional challenges you face as Prime Minister”, adding that the Labour government “will continue to have my fullest support”.
The resignation blows a hole in the centre of the government’s defence agenda days before the Defence Investment Plan was due to be published, and leaves open the question of whether the document can now appear before the NATO summit in anything like its planned form. It also lands on a government already under sustained internal pressure, with the Prime Minister having faced calls from his own backbenches over recent months and a string of senior departures since the start of the year. Downing Street has yet to respond to the letter or to name a successor, and the immediate question for British defence is whether the next Secretary of State arrives to publish the settlement Healey refused to sign, or to reopen it.
Here is the letter itself.
Dear Keir,
This is a letter I never expected to write, and I do so now with great regret and reluctance.
I am proud of what we have done in less than two years as a Labour Government. We’ve stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine with the Coalition of the Willing and Ukraine Defence Contact Group, established Britain as a leading voice for Europe in NATO, raised defence investment to 2.5% of GDP three years earlier than anyone expected, launched the deepest defence reforms in 50 years, won the biggest UK defence export deals for decades, published a first-of-its-kind Strategic Defence Review, gave our Armed Forces the biggest pay rise in nearly 20 years, boosted military morale, fixed over 1,200 of the worst forces family homes, reset relations with European allies and signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway and France.
You have led this as PM, earning wide respect at home and abroad. Like me, I know you are exceptionally proud of our Forces and all of those who work in UK Defence.
We came into government, recognising Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defence. The SDR we jointly commissioned set the 10-year vision to transform our Armed Forces, strengthen alliances, invest in the technology that is changing warfare and back British industry to make defence an engine for growth.
This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January – overseen by you, me and the Chancellor – confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.
Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.
Since then, the demands on defence have increased still further, as have the UK commitments you have rightly made to allies. Conflict in the Middle East, with the UK now leading the multinational Strait of Hormuz military mission; High North security, with the UK now leading NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission; increased Russian activity towards the UK and NATO nations and increased attacks in Ukraine, with the Paris Agreement confirming a British deployment to Ukraine after a ceasefire.
We have worked to secure a Defence Investment Plan that does two things. First, deal with the increasing operational demands on defence now and step up the SDR actions to meet the increasing threat. Second, set a clear path to meet the new NATO commitment you agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035 through the next Spending Review.
As we have regularly discussed, I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support. Other European allies are stepping up in this way.
I know how hard you have worked to get to this point. And in funding the DIP, I fully recognise the strain this places on colleagues in other Departments, both now as you have required spending switched into defence and in the future. I am very grateful to those colleagues who have supported this, and I appreciate how difficult their choices will have been.
As I’ve outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour Government.
However, your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time. The extra support is backloaded when the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years and it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6% next year with the investment we are already making.
You spelled out the threats last week: “it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”
You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February. Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.
After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.
I wish you all continuing strength in the exceptional challenges you face as Prime Minister. As always, our Labour Government will continue to have my fullest support.
Rt Hon John Healey MP
I think we probably all knew the DIP would be the dampest of damp squibs. Credit where it is due to Healey for falling on his sword instead of attempting to sell us on a weak and ineffectual plan, not often you see politicians acting on principle instead of on what’s best for their careers.
Surely this is now it for Starmer and Reeves. All the big talk on defence, and it’s not even that they aren’t interested in following through on it – they actively do not want to. Total humiliation for them, the party, and whatever is left of this country’s image
Another Starmer mis management, it’s time for him to go. He just lost is health secretary and now his defence secretary. He had a chance to claim some credibility by getting the DIP out the door and for the want of £5 billion he has turned this into an embarrassment for himself, the Labour Party and the government.
How a PM with a majority of 160 and an almost completely united PLP can find themselves as a Lame duck like this is beyond me. Starmer is just not cut out for the job and neither is Rachel Reeves. Both are high academic achieving former civilian servants just not cut out for the roles they are in.
@Jim
Why on earth do you continue to post complete crap and bullshit like this on this blog? You know nothing about defence matters whatsoever, have never served in the forces, you cut cut and paste eveything from Wikipedia and regularly write incoherent nonsense when you are under the influence
We can disagree without this sort of rancorous – insulting – comment.
If you think this is “Insulting” then you’re quite new to the internet. And clearly soft.
This comment seems like you have an axe to grind with Jim as the response does not reflect his post at all, his post is an opinion about politics more than defence for one.
Secondly an issue with defence funding is that not enough people that have never served in the Armed Forces (most of the voter base) care about it, which is why Governments get away with underfunding it in favour of vote winners, it’s important to bring more people into the discussion on defence to raise its profile so that it is taken seriously by Government, places like UKDJ have been pretty good at making Defence information and discussion more accessible for the general public where the mainstream media failed to.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,,..,.—>> LIVEJOB1.COM
Well done to John Healey for having some principles. I can’t remember the last time a defence minister resigned over cuts much less budget increases being insufficient.
Why don’t you resign too?
Well said Jim, John Healey was a bit of old school but at least he cared, Starmer will never shift priorities, just continue throwing welfare money on potential voters
At last someone with the moral courage and the balls to stand up! BZ JH!
Yes, notice no one in uniform is willing to resign although I can image everyone of them in a few years from now after retirement will be on sky TV decrying the current situation as untenable and telling everyone the coutry is undefended and please buy their new autobiography to find out more 😀
I mentioned earlier that I’d love CDS to resign.
Didn’t expect the DS. BOOM.
Credit where credits due, now join us on UKDJ John and learn how many escorts the RN has? 😉
“Credit where credits due, now join us on UKDJ John and learn how many escorts the RN has?”
Haha!
Healy has dropped a depth charge on Starmer and deservably so. Today, Starmer (with a serious face) will attempt to pour oil on troubled waters, but plainly he is not giving British forces what is required, and that will be his death knell. The British people are becoming aware of our fragility in terms of defence, and any outward hostility from Russia will start a panic in social circles. Every day there are encounters of one form or another with Russia, and the chance of there being a serious event is not if but when. Today the UK’s attack sub fleet is inoperable; there is nothing at sea apart from the deterrent. That is simply unacceptable, and the DIP appears to be doing nothing in the short term to improve matters.
If things are as bad as they seem this is going to have a massive negative impact on serving personnel. Sailors without ships, submariners without submarines, gunners without guns. My advice, go and join the Polish forces.
Hi D – 1.3 Billion on Universal Theme Park, 1.25 Billion on five T31, no wonder!
Was that the photoshoot I saw Reeves standing outside the other week?
We are a rich country.
It is ALL a question of priorities.
Defence isn’t and never will be for a left wing government dedicated to giving benefits to their voting base.
Tories were not better either, but when was the last REAL Tory government.
I’d suggest Thatcher, a REAL leader, like or loathe her.
Jim, Daniele,
Why should anyone in uniform, such as CDS, resign? It is not they who have not secured adequate funds from the Treasury.
I don’t think it’s being mooted as a punishment, but as a way to stick the knife into politicians and a government who are weakened by this and would be further weakened by resignations from senior military bods – show them up for their total lack of control, willpower and ability to make any kind of strategic decision at all
Integrity, service before self are 2 reasons Graham
Hi Graham.
Two reasons, one of which just became redundant.
1. We have a never ending troupe of ex CDS,CAS,CNS, coming on TV and media lamenting cuts they kept silent on when in charge themselves. They put their own career ahead of their service in the never ending fight with their no 1 enemy, our blasted government and especially the faceless cowards in HMT who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Example, Carter a few months ago lamenting lack of Tanks…..it was HIS PLAN when CGS to reduce them!!!!
2. The political embarrassment and headlines such a move would cause the government who creates this mess by their actions.
BUT…a DS from government resigning, a much much bigger impact. This has utterly discredited every word these charlatans say, every word.
COME ON STARMER….COME ON OUT AND TELL THE WORLD AT SWINDON TOMORROW HOW WE ARE PREPARING FOR WAR AND ARE ON A WAR FOOTING.
Utterly incredulous, he was saying a few days ago that we may be at war by 2030!! Well? Hello? Is anyone in at Downing Street and HM Treasury?
Do they not see how idiotic the contradiction is between their words and quibbling over a few paltry billions?????
Sorry, I get worked up, I’m passionate about this subject and HMG make me so so angry.
Well done John Healey.
Don’t apologise mate, you have once again hit the nail on the head. This is simply a shocking decision from HMG and treasury and falls way short of what is needed. I fear the public won’t care as war is “Far away” so it will just get buried.
Fuck Starmer and his cowardly cabinet.
Bunch of syhesters, the bloody lot of them. Not a backbone left in that cabinet, just a bunch of invertebrates.
Shelters.
So, if Healey goes, is this not just handing the matter to the Treasury? I don’t understand how this galvanises Starmer and Reeves to spend more on defence; it simply removes the biggest block to further reductions, which was Healey.
It was said for a while that £18b meant delays, £15b meant cuts and delays, and £12b was cuts. Given what Healey says in his letter about ‘decisions that would reduce the readiness’ of the British military, I reckon cuts are on the way.
Furthermore, the acknowledgement that he did not receive the DIP settlement till Monday casts an ominous shadow over commitments made in recent weeks – for example, the threat of reductions in ship-building orders.
(It’s very amusing to see all the sudden praise for Healey from people all over the Internet who have spent the last two years yelling at him).
Well, one would, first decent thing any DS has done in modern times? Would be a bit hypocritical to complain, wouldn’t it?
It’s also amusing to see if all the people on this website who have been defending the government on the little they have done since 2024 will show their faces?
I’ve had countless debates/rows on here over the years about them.
Well done Healey, credit where credits due. Now Trump and ENATO should have their say, I hope it’s plastered all over the BBC.
Aye. I had high hopes following the Tories, but since Christmas, it’s been a shitshow.
Problem is, I don’t see Burnham doing any better (though I know expect him, should he be elected, to sweep to the top job).
I’ve seen it all before, mate.
I sat through 13 years of Labour cuts 97 to 2010.
The Tories were the great saviours, supposedly.
No. Utter shambles.
Rince and repeat, another 14 years of Tory cuts and spin, now Labour are seen as the big hope.
This is where I’d clash with people, never trusted them since last time.
All the parties are words, all of them. The blasted Tories are making big noises now and utterly failed when in office.
I’m hoping Healey goes down in history as the bombshell that exposed the rot to a wider audience.
I’m done giving them the benefit of the doubt, they just proven it was misplaced. Problem is there is no credible alternative. The country is royally screwed, probably past the point which can be recovered.
Top story on the lunchtime BBC News. Linked to a possible leadership challenge.
Starmer has to go now. No other option, or the Labour Party is toast, not that I care about that so much as the nation’s vulnerability. It would be laughable it if wasn’t so serious. Starmer is too week to stand up to the Treasury and HIS Chancellor. He must go.
Trouble is I can see no replacement in any of our politicians. Absolutely none of them are capable of leading the country at this dangerous time as far as I can see.
Healey has done the honourable and he has left the party and the country in no doubt as to the consequences of the DIP as it currently stands. I hope that he sticks the boot in from the back benches on defence at least.
I wonder who will replaced him, Cairns might be a good choice, unless he and Pollard resign as well…!
One livid CR
Cairns mate, has to be. At least he has the military background.
He might well have BUT he gave it up to be a politician!that doesn’t exactly fill me full of confidence mate.
But who would you rather give the benefit of the doubt, an Ex serviceman or one of the other career politicians who will only see defence as a stepping stone with no interest in it whatsoever.
It doesn’t.
Can you see an alternative in the Labour Cabinet who knows his brief?
I don’t see any there with any experience of running a business either? Yet they run a business called the United Kingdom.
Thus politicians are utterly obsolete.
He’s just come criticising the DIP, so I doubt it will be him.
Is he the first DS to actually resign?
Finally. Did something I can respect and applaud.
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
Starmer, Reeves, and Labour generally.
GO TO HELL.
Didn’t Ben Wallace also resign?
🤔 Hmm, don’t honestly remember! I think we can agree that there are resignations, then there are resignations, I’m thinking regards major things like SDRs and such.
Got me wondering now…..Hesiltine! Over Westlands.
Yeah, that’s fair. I can’t remember a defence-crisis resignation recently.
Didn’t he resign because he thought he was going to get the Nato job?
Not too sure to be honest.
He did. I guess the difference is Wallace stepped down to retire from being an MP and to spend more time on other areas of his life. Healey’s resgination is because he doesn’t agree with the deal that defence is about to be given, so it’s more on his principles.
Wallace resigned for “family matters” and claimed he had left the MoD in a much better state that he found it. I think we can see by the massive chasm in defence spending that was left behind he wasn’t being entirely honest with us.
More absolute bullshit
Another complete fabrication
Mason, late seventies I think.
The only one I can remember resigning on a priciple was Heseltine.
Yes, that was a bombshell.
We had large forces then, not in the crisis they are now.
It was principle, which I support.
It’s dark days for defence spending labour will always but defence to the back of cue .
Is anyone surprised that DIP appears to be a failure?
Left wing parties that don’t have the options to raise tax or borrow find funding defence next to impossible because their voter base won’t accept the necessary cuts elsewhere. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait for a General Election and hope we get a government that takes defence more seriously.
… and which party is that. The conservatives were an absolute disaster for defence. We’re now complaining about defence increases not being big enough. It’s not great but it’s better than it has been.
The conservatives cutting defence spending, don’t be daft man, never happened 😀
I do wish people would stop the party politics. Defence has been a shambles for thirty years or more. Blair and Brown cut; Cameron and Co. the same and now Starmer is at it. Thay have ALL BEEN POOR for the countries armed forces.
👍
The problem is you’ve just singled out Labour and the Tories (and a little bit of the Lib Dems) because they have been the only ones responsible for defence. If we keep voting for the same parties…we get the same results.
It would need to be a party whose voter base is pro welfare & foreign aid cuts, because that’s the only way to afford a substantial increase in defence. And I agree, the Tories need to spend more time in the wilderness before being considered again.
Who would that be, exactly? As I trust none of the parties to deliver
Maybe a Green/Liberal/ Restore alliance? 😅
We said that last time…
There are no current parties that ‘take defence seriously’, because very, very, very few people in the UK would support additional defence spending if it came at the cost of other departments.
We lack the militarism of American society. We lack the public memory and visual proximity of Eastern, Northern and Central Europe. France, Spain, the UK have little actual visual threat from Russia, and a public who find the prospect of investing in munitions morally repugnant.
Until we experience some kind of major shock event (cruise missiles launched from submarines in the Atlantic flatten a hospital), there will be no impetus for extra defence spending.
Tories, Labour, Tory-Lite (Reform), Eco-Warriors (Greens), Lib Dems…Restore….none of them will invest in defence.
Hum…. In France, people are more in support of military since the terrorist attacks and army recruitment campaigns are successes.
Not to mention France actually follows coherent strategy, policy and maintains its national identity. We could learn a lot from them (just not fiscally)
Are they in support of increased military spending if the tradeoff is less spent in pensions? I doubt it.
The British public are on the whole supportive of the ‘brave men and women’ in our military. They balk at having to pay more tax, or receive fewer benefits, in order to buy a frigate.
The French are the same, though they do benefit from a strong national identity and domestic industry, and so, whilst similar, are not quite as bad.
Leh, those receiving a State Pension such as myself worked hard and paid income tax and NIC from the age of 18 (or earlier in some cases) to the age of 66, and we receive a Pension that is low relative to the European norm.
Surely any crackdown on benefits should address those who who do not wish to work hard as an employee and a taxpayer for 48 years.
Pensions account for more than half of welfare spending; some 8% of GDP is spent on pensioner benefits. Ending the triple-lock alone would cover the DIP shortfall several times over. I think it’s entirely possible that Healy has fallen on his sword in order to create political space for such options.
The military spendings are increasing anyway: senate and governement are currently arguing to which extent increase the budget till 2030 (36b increase vs 50b). Regarding the pension, that’s the big 2027 debate and it concerns all public service but military budget increase is consensual from socialists to rn.
The problem is you’ve just singled out Labour and the Tories (and a little bit of the Lib Dems) because they have been the only ones responsible for defence. If we keep voting for the same parties…we get the same results.
Thus I vote for neither.
This Labour government has no credibility left, it’s high time the king intervened at saved this country some face by having another election because it’s surely now clear to everyone that starmer and labour ,do not have our best interests at heart.
Good idea, let’s advocate for a course of action that would also end the monarchy 😀
Perhaps you would like Starmer as president? 🙃
Twas sarcasm, Geoff. If the monarch intervenes, it’s the end of the monarchy.
👍😊
Credit to him. He at least has the principles to put the country safety above his own personal ambition.
Well done Healey, for not letting party loyalty or personal ambition get in the way of doing what is right for the country. No matter what the DIP now includes, nobody is going to be able to sell it as being credible or sufficient after the Defence Minister’s resignation.
This could prove to be the final straw that destroys Starmer’s premiership.
Exactly. I’m fearful of what might be next if he is replaced, so I’ve typically come down on the status quo, hoping he’d improve with time.
But if the DIP is as bad as expected.
I’m stunned, to be honest. A bombshell in Starmer’s Swindon jamboree tomorrow.
Starmer is no charismatic leader like Blair, extolling some grand vision.
He was viewed as a competent manager, a safe pair of hands. Unexciting but steady.
Yet first with the appointment of Mandelson and now the DIP fiasco, competence seems to be gravely lacking. Given that was seen as his primary virtue then…
Unfortunately I don’t think Burnham is likely to be better for defence and we already know Farage is pro-Russian. So 🫣
Pound to a penny it’s Pollard.
We’ll done Healey – the mark of a man with integrity
John Healey has always come across as an honourable and decent man. Well done to him for doing the right thing.
Shame on our government including the PM, Chancellor and Minister for net zero etc. The money could have been easily found from a range of wasteful departmental budgets. Where there is a will……
Sky news have just reported there getting a lot of phone calls from MP’s squarely putting the blame on rachel reeves saying she is not interested in defence at all.
Maybe time to get a new Chancellor in the door.
In those circumstances it is the PM’s job to lead and tell her to either fall into line or quit.
Quite right, and from what I have read he is not and has not been offering any direction to anyone- outside of the Defence discussion as well.
Appeasement – and Russian language lessons – are always cheaper than strength.
Now there is a rare specimen of a Labour MP
But then again, maybe he is hoping for a job in a possible future Andy burham cabinet 😄
Healey has always struck me as someone actually trying to do the job properly and get results- in stark contrast to the PM and the rest of the cabinet. Once again he has done the only thing he reasonably could in these circumstances, and- alone in the current government- continues to command my respect as a result.
Come on sexy Al Carns resign as well.
Mmm never trust someone who gives up a promising military career for politics!
At the end of the day, well all is said and done, if you can’t fund YOUR OWN defence review then that is a failure of Government. There is no time for this. The intel is that we have until 2030 to deter a Russian attack. That is less than 4 years away. UK defence now requires a cross party national effort. That means we have a non partisan Defence Secretary and either issue defence bonds or introduce a hypothecated national defence tax. The whole country needs to bite the bullet and get it done. PS, well done John Healey. He is the only politician from any party to resign over the 20 years of the destruction of our Armed Forces.
I truly believe a cross-party approach should be taken to directing re-armament now. If nothing else, it would give them all covering fire for the decisions that MUST be taken on spending, so they can’t point score against each other as regards cuts to other departments. It would also give the MoD certainty over plans for the next couple of years
Sadly gentlemen, Rob and Levi, the Labour party made up of assorted wings can’t agree on a single defence plan so with ten political parties involved?
Well indeed. My hope would be that, if all parties treated this like a government of national unity for one express purpose, tough decisions could be made without being sniped at by other parties.
Best thing he could do really. Moving forward however, I do not believe anything at all will change. The Labour party is overloaded with cronies, wokies and generally allsorts who simply do not care a jot for the armed forces.
I think it may even get worse as the week’s and months go by. Right now I wouldn’t know which party if any, would look after, help, fix and improve the UK armed forces.
The fact that our military is little more than a laughing stock in 2026, does not seem to bother anyone in government at all. I for one would certainly not recommend anyone join the UK armed forces in this day and age.
that’s why they had a review that took a year then another year for the DIP . that’s 2 years passed . now they are half way through the parliament .i believe they never intended to increase defence spending at all . it is all stalling . if they got in next time they would find other reasons not to increase defence.
It won’t make any difference. Starmer is unable to see further than the end of his nose. I came to the conclusion long ago the only way to increase defence spending in any meaningful way was a ring fenced tax rise for defence. It’s probably the only tax rise the general public would support in my opinion. The problem is Reeves is seen as incompetent so no one trusts her.
Certainly quite the parting salvo- I hope it achieves something, although I’m not sure whether it will be enough for Starmer and Reeves to change anything at this point.
Question is, where does the money come from?
Welfare is a very large part pension- who’s going to be the PM who removes the triple lock to free up funds (future though they may be)?
The NHS and other services (education, etc.) have been cut so far to the bone that they need active investment to bring them back the other way (same as Defence). It’ll take a once-in-a-generation PM to fundamentally restructure the NHS- and I don’t think that’s Starmer.
Starmer has already manoeuvred himself into the position of not being able to borrow more without a massive climbdown- can he do that now?
These are just 3, and as a hint I think that these are the ones that need addressing. But any one of them could be the end of Starmer in short order.
Means testing the state pension, removing the triple lock, and applying much stricter rules to welfare would surely cover the amount needed for the DIP and then some. That will never happen though. Very alarming that cuts were being mooted to transport and infrastructure, one of the very few areas of productive investment in the public sector, so as to leave the state pension and welfare budgets untouched
You speak to exactly the issue we have: some very unpopular choices need to be made.
I expect to have a pretty comfortable retirement, I don’t need to receive a State pension- it should be reserved for those who need it. Personally, it’s my view that the State has already provided me with a safe and stable society in which I can make a living and raise my family- they aren’t obliged to pay me back at the end of my life.
Similarly, the NHS provides a wider array of free-at-point-of-service care compared to tax rate than anywhere I’m aware of. Most European countries that are considered to have a ‘welfare state’ still expect additional payments for certain categories of care that we receive under the NHS- unless they charge more tax than we do.
To me, we go with a French model (mainly because I’m the most familiar with it), where core care is covered under their NHS; additional care is then covered by state-regulated insurance plans that don’t allow the kind of gouging that occurs in the US. If you live a more active lifestyle, then you can select a plan that includes long term physiotherapy (for example), rather than expect everyone to pay for treatment for your own choices.
Both of the changes that you and I have raised here would free up sufficient money to cover defence, re-investment in education and other essential services, and boost transport and infrastructure (I cannot believe they’re talking of cutting that, by the way). But, as you say, who’s going to do that…? No career politician.
Agree with all. I think anyone sensible would do… that’s why we’re in this mess! No leadership, no vision, no strategy, for the best part of two decades. Just a continually building pile of problems with such great inertia that they’ve been allowed to fester
BBC reporting that other defence ministers where willing to follow and resign but Heeley told them to stay for stability.
This is what the Ministerial code expects of him. If you don’t agree with a Government’s decision on a matter, then you must resign.
No mention of the ‘elephant in the room’. DIP is still not published! Some expected it today, as I recall.
I have it on good authority that industry was being told to gather in Swindon today and tomorrow for the PM to unveil the DIP. In fact, industry reps are there right now, sat on their hands wondering what on earth is going on. I really can’t imagine it goes ahead tomorrow anymore
I suppose we should also look at the question now we know the likely settlement (£13 billion over and above over the next four years)
How can the MoD with a budget of £70 billion a year (2027) with an additional uplift £13 billion over four years not provide a sufficient defence force for an isolated chain of islands in the North Atlantic. The strategic defence review was hardly an ambitious document.
It’s pretty clear that the country is not willing to or able to pay much more than that for defence. It won’t matter who comes in at the next election, Reform, Conservatives, LiBDems. Defence won’t be getting any more money.
Is it time to look at severe rationalisation and a reduction in historic defence relationships which offer no security to the UK but come with a great cost (east of Suez)
The MoD is spending 13X more than Finland. It’s spending almost 30% more than France our most comparable nation. I think we really need to ask questions on why our service chiefs get so little bang for the budget they consume.
Not to defend the Treasury on this one (because I think they are bing arseholes) however since Borris Johnson came in defence has had real terms increase since 2021 every year. many of them quite substantial. Yet defence readiness keeps reducing, cuts keep happening. You can see the Treasury’s frustration on this. More money goes in every year less output. The NHS has been much the same but is now turning a corner, defence is not it’s getting worse and the defence chiefs only solution appears to be ever more cash.
GCAP is a prime example, why are we involved, the cost is epic and escalating all the time. The number of jobs it creates are pretty modest in comparison to the cost. Why be involved in production of a 6gen fighter jet, if we are to be involved why do we need to be putting up a third of the cash. Why not stand up to Japan and tell them we need to open it up to more countries to pay for R&D. Neither Italy or Japan can afford it either and they are being carried forward by domestic industrial concerns. Sure sovereignty is an issue on F35 but are we really thinking that Japan will be any more reliable than the USA in future?
AUKUS is the next one, we are in this program to support America and Australia in the pacific. It’s costing tens of billions and we now have a submarine using technology for an allied nation that’s no longer an ally. Does the UK need 10,000 tonne SSGN’s costing a £5billion a pop to counter Russia or defend the North Atlantic. Do we even need nuclear submarines given how much they now cost? When we took the historic decision to go all nuclear bots were not costing £5billion a pop.
Much of our defence spend is on keeping up what the Americans who spend vastly more than we do and get less bang for their buck than anyone else in the world.
Perhaps it’s finally time to change focus and build a force designed to dominate the North Atlantic and nothing else and get rid of all the service chiefs nonsense of “being at the top table” or “punching above or weight”
There is no table and punching above your weight requires a great deal of other people’s money to be spent on things that don’t really benefit them.
There is a serious question around GCAP. It’s brilliant having a 6th Gen fighter, that has all these bells and whistles. But we are spending all this money on it, and will it become obsolete before it even goes into production? What’s the cost benefits of a 6th gen fighter jet, Tempest, when you could have advanced uncrewed aerial systems that could do the same job at a fraction of the cost, and on mass.
‘Do we even need nuclear submarines given how much they now cost?’
No nuclear submarines = no nuclear weapons.
Yes, and no nuclear weapons means no nuclear retaliatory strike to stop adversaries from simply dropping nuclear bombs on us.
First off , serious respect to Healey for putting the armed forces and our countries security ahead of his career.
This is the clearest indication yet that the Labour government priorities lie elsewhere than defence of the realm. If it is true that we could be in a fight by 2030, we are woefully unprepared the those preparations need to start now. Debacles like Ajax do not help. The MoD MUST STOP THIS STUPIDITY of cost plus contracts and designing our own kit when perfectly good alternatives are already available. And save the cash for when what we want is not on the shelf or there is good reason to build our own.While I am a fan of the welfare state , it is out of control and the reasons are numerous, some I agree with some I don’t.
Defence spending is not a vote winner but this country being attacked after the government choose not to build our defence back up WILL BE.
Does that mean the DIP will be the can that gets kicked down the road?
I was under the impression it was meant for release in july.
It’s supposed to release fully on Monday.
even without a sec def?
Statements from the government indicate they’re going to forge ahead, but it’s early days.
OK thanks
The contrast between Starmer’s promises on defence and the reality of what he actually commits to has been clearly exposed. If the presumed financial increase means cuts, what is actually left to be cut? We have 1/2 SSNs deployable, a couple of T45s and 3/4 ageing frigates. The RAF has lost half of its combat air fleet since 2010. Much of the equipment budget is locked into contracted programmes- T26, T31, FSSS, AUKUS, Dreadnought, CH3, Boxer, RCH 155, GCAP.
If we cannot sustain our SSN fleet, AUKUS driven expansion at Barrow makes no sense. Nor does trying to keep 2 aircraft carriers with inadequate aircraft numbers and too few escorts. We need to concentrate funding on getting what we have paid for or contracted for working properly.
Without a DIP, we do not know the extent of the funding shortfall. But the last 10 year plan in 2023 was only in deficit because DNE costs linked to AUKUS were brought forward and the RN included unfinalised programmes including FADS/T83, MRSS, T32. But presumably Healey knows what the proposed settlement means.
Healey fro PM! Hopefully this starts a leadership contest to oust Starmer and those useless cretins Reeves and Miliband.
Just proves what was obvious all along that the delay in publishing DIP was just trying to put off spending. When King Burnham takes over I expect him to order a comprehensive spending review then a defence spending review and that should see him clear to the next election. Burnham is already promising everyone everything, everyone except DCS of course.
The British armed forces are at their weakest point in history. Shame on successive governments.
Theres no way the Trots controlling Labour will ever fund defence adequately. Dark day indeed.
I have never been a fan of Labour but John Healey was a man of principle and as this shows principles and politics do not sit well together what it also shows is that the current government have zero understanding of what is needed to put right the 30 odd years of slash and burn to the armed forces. Unfortunately there dose not seem to be any party in the house at the moment with any plan to rectify the problems the armed forces find them selves in and goes to show that the Defence of the UK should not be in the hands of short sighted, money grabbing, lying ba—ds that currently sit in the house of commons.
Respect to him for resigning, so its show Starmer is playing every one with his lies and empty promiese, who knew.