Kemi Badenoch has said Britain must increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, warning that the country could face a major conflict within the next four years and arguing that higher military spending can no longer be delayed.
In a speech on Britain’s defence on Thursday, the Conservative leader linked the spending requirement to Russia, cyber attacks, threats to critical infrastructure and wider instability, while setting out the case for the £10 billion annual increase in defence spending announced by her party.
Badenoch said: “Before the summer, Keir Starmer was given intelligence that Russia could launch an attack on NATO as soon as 2030. Not enough politicians in Parliament have fully appreciated what that means. By that of course I mean Labour politicians. What this means that within the next 4 years, the UK could be at war with the world’s biggest nuclear armed state. Because under Article 5, an attack on any NATO country is an attack on all of them.”
She also referred to Russian naval activity around Britain and threats to undersea infrastructure, saying: “Vladimir Putin has called Britain Russia’s number one enemy. Russian warships have been sailing through the English Channel and the undersea cables which power our internet and power our entire information and communication network have come under threat. People may not see it in their day to day lives, but hostile states are constantly pushing the boundaries with unconventional warfare.”
Badenoch argued that national security needed to encompass more than conventional military forces, pointing to cyber security, energy infrastructure and national resilience.
She said: “National security is not just about tanks, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is about our cyber defences, it is about our energy security, it is about our country’s resilience. National security does not just happen we also have to pay for it, and that means spending more money on defence.”
The Conservative leader compared the UK’s position with increased defence investment elsewhere in NATO, citing Poland’s expansion of its armed forces and higher German defence spending. She also referred to Greece already spending around 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence.
Badenoch said: “Being an island might make us feel safer, but it does not prevent conflict from coming to us. And let’s be honest, conflict is coming. We must act now. Because the defence of the nation is the first duty of government.”
She called for defence spending to rise every year until reaching 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, saying: “We need to increase our defence spending every year so we can get to 3% of GDP by 2030, anything after that is too late.”
The Conservatives have proposed increasing annual defence expenditure by around £10 billion by 2029/30 compared with current government plans. The party says the increase would be funded through welfare reductions and reallocating money from other areas of government expenditure, including civil research and development, the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund.
Badenoch said: “Finding the money to pay for defence means making tough choices, it means making difficult trade-offs.”
She added: “We have now completed our work to get to 3%.
“And today my team have set out our plan to remove the housing benefit and remove the VAT exemption for Motability, alongside savings from the disastrous Chagos Deal,
“And repurposing money from the British Business Bank into defence, we will be able to hit that 3% target.
“And let’s be clear, 3% is the minimum our country needs to stay safe.”
The speech also connected defence policy with the wider state of the economy, with Badenoch arguing that Britain’s ability to sustain greater military expenditure depends on controlling borrowing and public spending.
She said: “Defence is not separate from the economy. Fiscal responsibility is part of national security.”
Badenoch also repeated the Conservative proposal for a £17 billion Sovereign Defence Fund, which the party says would support military readiness and investment in the British defence industrial base.
The Labour Party was approached for comment on Badenoch’s remarks and the Conservatives’ defence spending proposals, but had not responded at the time of publication.
Closing the defence section of her speech, Badenoch said: “Russia will attack a country it thinks is weak. It will not attack a country it knows is strong.
“We need to be strong. If you want peace, you prepare for war.”
By 2030?!?!??!
Should’ve been prepared for now.
You took the words out of my mouth.
Well quite, its 1938 and they still dont smell the bloody coffee…
As well as being already promised and desperately needed it’s an good way of pressuring the current government.
Thanks Kemi. I thoroughly trust the Conservatives and their satellite party with defence. Their record has been incredible.
I don’t know, might just be grass is greener stuff but the way the Conservatives are shaping up seems more sensible than any major party has been for a long time. If they drop the anti-Net Zero and ECHR dogma then that would help a lot.
Still, Starmer pretended he had a plan for Defence in opposition too.
I think the very worst thing that could happen to defence right now (beyond the Greens) would be the Tories or Reform arriving, and immediately spending a year, a year and a bit, two years, deciding on a new Strategic Defence Review and Investment Plan.
We have a strategic posture right now, we have an overall plan. We’re a Europe-centric force, with a navy specialised on the North Atlantic, an air force providing European dominance out to Moscow, and an army doing…army things.
Pity the Tories didn’t do anything about it when they were in power. At least the numbers under Labour are (very) slowly starting to improve: ‘When the Conservatives came to power (May 2010): ~178,400 (full-time trained strength approx. 173,900 regular personnel plus Gurkhas and reserves).When Labour took over (July 2024 election / mid-2024): ~137,000 to ~147,000 (full-time trained strength was roughly 134,000–137,000; total full-time personnel around 147,000).Size today (Latest 2026 data): ~148,600 (total full-time trained and untrained personnel as of April 2026), or ~182,050 when including broader service personnel metrics like all reserves and auxiliary categories.’
We have never bee prepared for war, so no point pretending we can be ready now. We’re going to have to ask nice Mr. Putin to wait until the government and MOD have carried out all their surveys, calculations and postponements. Post 2040 looks a possibility.
Perhaps we could invite him to join a Defence committee and he might be lulled into forgetting to actually attack. It would save rather a lot of bother wouldn’t you say?
Worth considering 🤔
We will have to find out what his favourite cookies and/or biscuits are! Betcha he likes the chocolate Digestives.
Well, he’s swallowing hundreds of thousands of casualties to get his own way, so maybe he’ll choke on the biscuits!!
The decline in the armed forces has not happened in the last 2 years. It was 14 years of cuts with the Tories
Any Tory leader should apologies for the mess.
Rebuilding them is not easy with interest rates and inflation putting pressure on Government finances due to the USA war with Iran plus the mad level of spending on AI from the likes of American Tec’s.
Some how Labour needs to find the money to re-build them as matter of urgency.
Sorry, although all sounds nice, reality is your party has not a leg to stand on regards this subject.
Very easy to vow whatever when your in opposition.
Absolutely mate, Absolutely…..
Its 35 years of bullshit cuts by charlatan politicians.
There’s that magic year 2030 yet again🙄
Yesterday Nigel Farage turned up at Parliament to take the loyal oath, which he did to loud groans from the assembled Members. As is his wont when heckled, he scowled, then left the House without waiting for more abuse
During the session in the House of Commons yesterday Reform UK’s Deputy Fuhrer “Tricky Dicky” Tice got a question and asked our new Prime Minister Andy Burnham when the government would approve drilling licences for North Sea oil and gas fields, specifically mentioning Rosebank and Jackdaw.
Of course, Tice and his net stupid Reform limited company – in which Tice has a 27% stockholding – are heavily funded by Big Oil.
PM Burnham told Tice that he “really does need to look into the facts a little bit more before he makes statements like that in this House”
To prove how renewable energy and the green transition drastically lower the cost of living, the PM used the rollout of electric buses in Greater Manchester (referencing his previous initiative as mayor) as a direct cost comparison – It costs just £30 to charge an electric bus, while It costs £200 to fill up an equivalent tank of diesel. Tice grimaced – and sat down.
In fact the UK government has recognised the financial challenges of transitioning to electric buses through its Zero Emission Bus Regional Areas scheme.
The scheme offers grants covering:
up to 75% of the cost difference between electric and diesel buses
75% of infrastructure costs
50% of contingency expenses
That’s where so much of your swingeing council tax is going.
The study highlights that longer repair times and reduced availability undermine the economic viability of electric buses, especially for smaller operators, unless reliability improves.
The research, which is funded by UK Research and Innovation’s EPSRC, is published in ‘Case Studies on Transport Policy’.
What a load of bollocks you just wrote. Every country on planet earth that relies on fossil fuels has drastically lower energy costs than us. Renewables are way more expensive than fossil fuels when you consider whole system costs. The cost of wind for instance isn’t free like they claim when its windy. We have pushed renewables for thirty years and now have the most expensive energy system on earth.
Whilst electric buses are cheaper to charge than conventional buses to fuel, and in the end come out a fair bit cheaper in lifetime costs, they do require a larger capital investment upfront for the buses themselves (each electric bus is more than double the cost of a diesel equivalent) and the infrastructure to charge them. The latter is covered by a lot of Government subsidies and assistance. If only the Government looked at full project lifespan costs as a rule, defence would be much better off.
And the point of your post is? Nothing to do with the story, just a little swipe at the Reform while blowing smoke up the ass of our pretend unelected current leader. At least as a Businessman Tice (and many others) understand economics, unlike old “call me Andy” and his crop of front bench and back bench clowns. Here’s a question, so lets say Tice does earn a few quid from a new oilfield, and in doing that more people in the country are better off, would you have an issue with that?
Oh and as for Manchester Andy, I’m from there, most people though he was a bell-end and has used his time as Mayor to not only feather his nest (his previous team remain under investigation for some dodgy building contracts) but to plan his move to the top job, while using the mugs of Makerfield as his stepping stone. I give Andy 12-18 months before his backbenchers realise he is a liability prior to the next election.
and yes the UK’s ‘Northern man’- cuts a £1 off bus fares , and creates a No. 10 of the North , wears a T-shirt under his jacket , and drinks pints of warm bitter. A true ‘man of the people’. Naught but a PR PM – a charlatan.
Spot on mate!
Says the Tory party who slashed defence spending in the 90’s, thus shortening my illustrious career in a blue suit.
Should be remembered that Hitler hadn’t planned to start his invasions till the middle of the 1940’s but weak positions from Britain and France led him to believe it was safe to start early. Putin might well take the same view based on the current British government’s stand on defence spending.
Mrs Badenoch is not saying anything that has not already been said by our previous Prime Minister.
His Defence Secretary having resigned because that Prime Minister declined to back up words with action, we now have to wait for the new Prime Minister and Chancellor to act.
It is the job of the leader of the opposition to hold the government to its word and skewer them if they renege. I have no confidence that this retro 1970s government will do anything useful on defence except possibly put the Royal Navy back into flared trousers.
defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, to little to late
look at it this way. 2030 gets all the cash. [not much before then]
then add the years stretching to over a decade perhaps. to build ships subs tanks planes rockets drones etc etc etc.
we may very well be in the 2040s before we get anything. I’m just saying like?
I would preferer it if the parties stated they were building our defences Now. at least we might make it before the bear come to dinner.
then again nothing may happen at all. And we have nothing to be worried about. perhaps we just wait and see. and hope for the best.
just my opinion chaps. as light at it is?
Control the air control the battlespace – the govt need to significantly upscale RAF FJ mass
The Tories should never have left the country in a position unfit to fight a war in the first place.
Although I support what she’s saying, the Tories have a very very long record of saying what their voter base wants to hear, and then doing the opposite in government.
Anyone would have thought four years would have been enough time to get some contingency plans executed.
By now we should have sped up equipment procurements, sorted recruitment and retention, and be expanding barracks, depots, and maintenance facilities.
But No, we carry on in the slow lane, the only thing happening at pace is the changing of prime ministers
The Tories ned to also realise they were part of the issue, paying lip service to defence while reducing it. They have no right to try to adopt the moral high ground. However, lets not beat about the bush, we now have a clear and present (desperate) danger from Putin and his Russia. Therefore this current crop of clowns we have in charge need to get a grip, understand the actual needs and requirements, and indeed the urgency of the military, and act on it. However with a DIP which has been underfunded and basically kicked into the long grass for after the next election, and a room full of backbenchers who are more concerned with welfare give aways in order to curry favour with their voter base, the expectation is we will still be unready and unprepared for any future aggression, be it kinetic or grey zone. And when you hear the nonsense coming from the likes of old Diane “shoes on wrong feet” Abbott, its just an overt opinion which others in the Liebour party believe but won’t actually say out loud. Perceived weakness will bring trouble to your door, its always been the way and it will continue to do so.
When the Tories were in charge, Boris and Rishi had absolutely zero interest in national defence. Allegedly Rishi’s eyes would glaze over and he would visibly stop listening when the subject was brought to him.
With Labour in charge the decline seems to be getting even worse, more dominoes coming down every week.
‘With Labour in charge, the decline seems to be getting even worse…’
I know that we like to do doom and gloom here NoPoet, but I don’t think we need to be that negative.
Under this government, defence spending has risen from 2.34% of GDP when they took office to 2.7% by next year. That’s a useful 15% increase so far and is the first real increase since the Cold Wat. Not anywhere near enough of course, but it’s a start and we are on the road to 3% and eventually 3.5%.
Already, millions have gone into long-overdue service pay rises, the refurbishment of barracks and family housing, into big infrastucture works at the three naval bases. There are 21 ships and subs ordered and under construction, with a further 7 announced, plus 4 classes of unmanned ships under development. It is the biggest build up of the.fleet for years and all the yards are busy. There are Challengers, Boxers, Ajax, Sky Sabre, GMLRS.and Boxer RCH in construction, with the Light Utility vehicle coming up to tender and the Light Protected and Heavy Protected vehicles on the drawing board, plus a lot of money going into long range artillery PrSM and Project Asgard.
And so on. Of course much more is needed, in larger quantities and on speedier timetables and there are a lot of equipment gaps and service numbers are miles short of what we need. But starting from the run-down, gapped legacy from 2024, there is a mountain to climb to build our forces back up to some credible warfighting capability. At least this government has made a start on it and things are happening, and more money is on the way, if nowhere near as much or as fast as we need.
It is the British way I’m afraid, we always run defence down in peacetime then have a mad late scramble to get on a war footing.
One positive is that the three main parties in Parliament are for once in agreement on the need for greater defence spending and clawing our way back to 3.5% of GDP. A principal problem area is that defence nuclear capability has been run down and neglected and now requires an enormous cash injection to get it back on the rails. DNE is now gobbling over 40% of the entire defence equipment budget, which means there is nowhere near enough for everything else we urgently need and nothing spare to increase the number of service personnel from the desperately small total we have been reduced to.
The reality is that, if we wish to remain a nuclear.power and also have a credible conventional defence force, we are not going to get that on 3.5% of GDP, it would need something like 5%.
ersonally I blamd Baldwin and Chamberlain for not being ready for the second world war… Can we please stop banging on about who did what when they were in power. The Tories weren’t good, neither were Blair and Brown. Now Labour are in government. If there is a problem now it is for them to deal with.