In response to a series of written parliamentary questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge, the UK government has reiterated its commitment to achieving 2.5% of GDP expenditure on defence.
This comes despite recent remarks from the armed forces minister, Luke Pollard, indicating that increased military spending is contingent on economic growth.
Cartlidge’s questions covered a wide range of defence priorities, including the Land Environment Tactical Communications and Information Systems programme, upgrades to the existing fleet of Typhoon fighter jets, and the development of the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank. Each query received a consistent response from Minister of State for Defence, Maria Eagle.
“The Government is fully committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible. The Government will set out a clear path to 2.5% at a future fiscal event,” stated Eagle in her responses.
She also mentioned the government’s aim to deliver a defence programme that is both affordable and capable of countering the diverse threats facing Britain in the 21st century.
This commitment is framed within the broader context of recent comments by Luke Pollard, who highlighted the dependency of increased defence spending on economic growth.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Pollard stated, “The way we deliver increased public spending on defence, on schools, hospitals or prisons, is by growing our economy. If we don’t grow our economy, there won’t be the money to support those public services and the ambitions that we have – and that includes defence.”
Cartlidge’s questions also touched on the impact of the defence spending timetable on various other projects, including the replenishment of munitions stockpiles, the delivery of the Shadow Mk1 fleet, and the procurement of a new mobile fires platform. In each case, Eagle reiterated the government’s commitment to the 2.5% GDP target, ensuring that the defence programme remains aligned with the nation’s strategic needs and economic capabilities.
The Labour government’s stance on defence spending contrasts with the previous Conservative government’s promise to achieve the 2.5% target by 2030. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer has expressed a “cast-iron” commitment to the 2.5% target, he has yet to provide a specific timetable for reaching this goal. Starmer’s approach underscores a cautious balancing act between national security priorities and economic growth.
As the UK prepares for a strategic defence review, the government faces the challenge of aligning its defence spending ambitions with economic realities. The outcome of this review is expected to be reported next year.
The biggest stop or contraction for economic growth would be a war, therefore if you want growth increase defence spending as a deterrent to prevent it. I believe pollard said this himself, that war would make a programs like GCAP unaffordable due to the contraction in global economy. So they seem to know the impact just taking them awhile for the penny to drop on the solution 😀. I’ll give them time, its politicians we’re talking about after all.
Indeed, I suspect they know very well they need to move swiftly to 2.5% but the present Labour leadership are always looking to avoid the..”your profligate”attack line that will inevitably come out from the right and the “should spend it on poverty reduction not warmongering” from the left..sucks to be a social democrat.
I think it’s more targeted spin tbh. The direction was set pre election. Look at the announcement on Germany, why do this pre defence review not make sense if the defense review finds Germany has very little to offer the findings of the review. But we know Healey had coauthored a paper pre election on German cooperation so.it was going to happen irrespective of the reviews findings. The review itself won’t be completely independent the government will have provided input parameters like jobs Europe, pay and conditions, NATO test , leave CASD and AUKUS out, don’ttouch it. It’s a tool.to… Read more »
I disagree. Wars are usually good for GDP, because of the forced increase in government spending. They are particularly good for GDP per head (because fewer heads). But they are of course bad for the standard of living, because resources have to be shifted from personal consumption into defence spending – and this is achieved by raising taxation.
Erm big assumption is that your not on the loosing side, secondly if you lucky enough like the US to be a maon supplier whilst not having the domestic disruption of bombs actually falling on your infrastructure. Also economies are far more interlinked globally so parts will cease to function properly in a global conflict. Take financial sector it would collapse.
That’s great news, now let’s see the money and hardware.
There is just one simple truth that controls everything that any Government can do. Money and to get 2.5% GDP can only come at the expense of either cuts elsewhere or Taxes. I suspect everyone who posts on here wants more £££ for defence, but it’s the only Budget Target that is expressed as a % of GDP. I’m like most folks on here a bit of a Political Sceptic, but so far Starmer has stuck to his guns as demonstrated this week by suspending 7 MPs. Previously Sunak had committed to 2.5% by 2030 but when you looked at… Read more »
That isn’t that hard when you have got some growth.
UK does gave about 1.5% growth so using a relatively small part of that does the job.
That is a 0.3% up uplift over six years which is a not very impressive ramp rate of 0.05% per annum of GDP which is a rounding error in Treasury calculations.
I think you’ve got it there. Its not that hard. The economy took a long time to start recovering from Covid, probably because of the Brexit hit, but there is some growth in the economy now. Labour seem to be moving fast on the planning reforms and are making some clever moves on their GB renewable energy so I would expect private sector money to flow into the country and growth rate to increase. Next event will be Reeves’ revamp of the taxation system in the autumn budget. One paper mentioned her raising £25billion by taxing various types of unearned… Read more »
Taxing the ‘unearned’ looks very tempting.
But at that point don’t expect pensioners to be very happy.
That will include a lot of public sector retirees on pensions that are unbelievable in todays terms.
And do expect a lot of money to move out of the country following the enormous amount to that left when non-doms sunset by Hunt.
Unfortunately we need very rich people to live and spend profligately in UKPLC .
Ye, the top rate tax allowance on pension contributions would be a possible target. Apparently Ms Reeves is off to the US in August on a charm offensive to attract US investment into the UK, which apparently has fallen by 42%. She is targeting Wall St looking for $10’s of billions. Private dinners with heads of property investment companies etc. I don’t think she is depending on wealthy UK tax payers and conservative party donors to make the economy grow. I also expect the govt to get the UK pension funds to invest in GB energy and infrastructure initiatives. I… Read more »
With that recipe the pension destruction started by Gordon Brown would be complete.
BTW no US companies will invest unless the sums add up.
So you either need huge tax breaks for them or a genuine competitive advantage which isn’t just the usual UK Gig of fleecing a captive market…
Regarding the pensions industry you could take the cynical view; use it or lose it. I did see that the govt are enabling consolidation of pensions which will increase the value of your pension. Don’t know what her sales pitch is, but wish her well. Lots of schools, hospitals, pylons, rail tracks, power plants need building. Point taken on captive market….welcome to ripoff UK.
I wish her well for the sake of UKPLC. Hunt wasn’t charismatic or imaginative but he did start moving the dials in the right direction. I can tell you as an owner of multiple SMEs that two majors sectors of the economy are on their knees and will take years to recover. If she tries anything around increasing taxes the number of business insolvencies will be unreal – it is very bad out there. Good businesses can’t get credit. What UKPLC urgently needs is reasons to invest and investment funds. There is a reason the funding dried up UKPLC is… Read more »
Important to hear from the SME ‘coal face’. More power to your elbow. The country is dysfunctional on many levels. Is any other country flagellating itself with mega inquiries over how it handled covid? Or screws its post masters? Or knowingly infects its own children with infected blood? Why do we have a tax system which incentivises creating wealth through ‘rent seeking’ behaviour and short term shareholder gain rather than rolling up your sleeves and working for longterm growth and profitability?
Answers on a post card. Best wishes with your businesses.
The core issue is actually breaking feedback loops because it is claimed to be efficirnt. Justice 900 odd (decent postmasters) are given criminal convictions because PO I has decided a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is the solution to not fixing its computer system. The problem, however, is the 900 incompetent stupid useless prosecution barristers 900 incompetent stupid useless prosecution barristers and solicitors at Wombles and other places (so did more than one prosecution so just square it each time) 900 incompetent stupid useless judges and court clerks 900 incompetent stupid useless defence barristers and solicitors. Why… Read more »
Like Labour bragging about 2.5% GDP , and in fairness so we’re the Tory party .But really it should be at least 3% ,take a look at Poland 4% 🙄 🇬🇧 oh dear
Realistically, it needs to be 4% to allow one-off investments in infrastructure. We need to be able to, for example, produce ammunition with the ability to increase production quickly. That means having a lot of slack in the system – something that has been frowned on in the past.
To be honest the % GDP is a load of old horse shite..you should decide what you need to defend your interests and then fund for that…if that’s 2% because your economy is a burning hot cauldron of wealth creation or 4% because is a stagnant pool of mud, the required capability and the actual cost of that is all that really matters…
A percentage of GDP number is merely a convenient placeholder summarizing a detailed budget process. Presume no serious individual believes in managing to a periodically fluctuating number.
But our politicians do..they actually put 2.5% in the political manifestos we all just voted on in the UK….
The Treasury hates hypothecation…..the MOD budgets are not linked to GDP so they don’t fluctuate in that manner.
😳👍
pretty much – yep!
Can’t do it. There are no boundaries to what you ‘need’. You need to be able to assess things that are affordable – otherwise, why not 10%, 20% of GDP? There has to be a known cut off point – you can’t afford everything.
Hi Rob, no that’s not true, there is a difference between what you need and what you want…you simply must pay for what you need, if you don’t “something nasty this way comes”..if you know a war is likely if you don’t prepare to defend yourself, then your finances will not matter…if you don’t spend what is needed on Critical requirements..you pay big in blood and treasure. As An example we spend around 410billion on the covid responce..NewZealand spent 26 billion..which if you balance for a population up to the UKs would equate to around 300billion…the difference was that NewZealand… Read more »
You will note I didn’t say need, I said ‘need’… One person’s wants are another person’s needs – and if there are no financial constraints ‘needs’ takes over from needs. Basically bloatware.
Hi Rob, no if you actually truly define the “need” that is not an issue..what you are describing is a system where people define “wants” as “needs”..if you have a mature system of discourse and robust needs assessment that’s not an issue..if you have an immature system where negotiations are based on wants..then you have an issue…one of the most interesting realities is that if you place significant false restrictions on a system( imposed financial constraints that in no way match what needs to be delivered) ..it tends to revert to that Immature system that negotiates on wants as needs..if… Read more »
OK, Example. One person thinks the main concern is the submarine threat so considers more ASW assets to be a need. Another person says ‘no, the threat comes from enemy aircraft. We need more AA systems.’ Both agree that they ‘want’ both, but neither agree that they ‘need’ both. In reality, you aren’t ever going to cut out waste, it’s endemic. In some cases this is because the threat changes and you’ve ‘wasted’ a fortune on the ‘old’ threat… Think it’s time to agree to disagree?
Let me just give you an example the UK health system vs the french and German systems.. The UK system is essentially a cash restricted system, we don’t pay on need we pay on what the government is willing to give…this has essentially lead to a very cheap but profoundly ineffective system..as we let people get sicker before we treat them and down stream care is probably 10 times more inefficient that upstream care…in the end we screw ourself in poor health and bad outcomes that in the end have vast financial impact. The German ( and french) system is… Read more »
Agree Jonathan. Various commentators and defence specialist state that we should throw out the % argument and simply ask ourselves what do we need to ensure the defence of our national interest and defence of the realm and then give the armed forces that capability.
When you answer that it looks very very much different to our current anaemic forces structure and numbers.
Something like 50,000 personnel for RN and RAF and an army around 100,000 troops.
Labour have a mess to sort out that’s for sure, our armed forces have never been in such a perilous state as now.
that is a very good observation Jonathan.
Healey says the armed forces are in a “far worse state than we thought” and Reeves makes similar noises about government finances. OBR forecasts are detailed and generally reliable, and the state of the armed forces( and the funding of them) has been regularly revealed in great detail. So they were fully informed about both or should have been. In the same speech, Healey refers to decades of under investment leading to the hollowing out of forces. Indeed, the decline goes back 30 years for nearly half of which Labour were in power. So there is no reason to trust… Read more »
I’m pretty much at the same point in this.
Thank you for being one to acknowledge, rather than flat deny, that Labour themselves are equally to blame for the numbers available to our military. The rot set in way, way before 2010 no matter what % of GDP Labour had in defence pre 2010 or how many carriers they ordered.
Both own this situation.
Part of the problem was trying to maintain the facade of too large a force level on a shoestring.
That made things an awful lot worse and just less to hollowing out starting.
Whilst at the same time running constant wars.
Yes it’s aways the same issue of ‘expectation of delivery’ not matching the resource or the funding..unfortunately it’s bit of a British delusion that we think we can get something without paying the actual cost.
Agreed. That’s why I say we need a rapid rise initially to try and fill in some of the gaps – then perhaps fall back to 2.5%
I will always harp on about the 1997 review and 1998 white paper..that is the force structure we should have always had in place in a unipolar peaceful world..( so no cuts from 1998) as soon as the world turned into a bipolar world heading for conflict we should have increased the force levels from 1998..( so a 2010 review that increases capabilities a bit from 98j at the point Russia invaded Ukraine and china pretty much broadcast to the world it will invade Taiwan we should have been heading north again at a rate of knots( a 2022 defence… Read more »
Hi Jonathan. I often share my view with DM that the 2004 defence review force levels were “about right” – 50% force capability post cold war. This left the RAF with 16 fast jet operational sqns, the RN with 24 surface warships and 8 SSNs. We see a broad (but unfulfilled) commitment to return the RN to 24 surface warships, a good thing off course. However, the RAF currently has only 8 operational fast jet sqns (7 Typhoon + 1 F35) . Begs the question- what is in it for the RAF? Excuse my gripe, but as an ex air… Read more »
Yes the fast jet squadrons numbers are profoundly worrying and if there is one thing the UK needs to defend itself in any European war as well as support allies is fast jet squadrons. Personally I’ve always thought the RAF should be aiming for a minimal force level of 12 frontline fast jet squadrons ( 8 typhoon and 4 F35) + the Falklands flight, OCU and test and evaluation squadrons for both jets as well as 12 squadron..but personally I’m not sure how they will even maintain 7 front line typhoon squadrons after losing the Tranche 1s..106 airframes is not… Read more »
Despite being told, first sort out training, the former head of the RAF, Mike Wigston was ineffectual, and not only in that regard. The current head, Richard Knighton has an engineering background and that might be exactly what the RAF needs. I was going to say the first engineer, but the Chief of the Air Staff in WW2 had done a brief stint in the Royal Engineers in WW1 before joining the Flying Corps. First sort out training should continue to be the priority until it’s sorted. An increase in the number of flight hours during training should be high… Read more »
I agree the government should let the RAF hang on to it’s trench 1Typhoons .Better still order new Aircraft like Germany and Spain.But can’t see this happening 🙄
thanks for the detailed reply Jonathan. Co- indecently, I too have long held the view that 12 fat jets sqn sgn is the number!(plus 2 for the Fleet air arm). 👌
It is very strange how much attention is devoted to the issue of warship numbers and how little to the size of the fast jet fleet. Under the 10 year plan, £billions are to be spent on new warships ( with a possible increase in overall numbers), army equipment will be totally replaced or upgraded. But for combat air just a possible buy of 24 more F35s and investment in Tempest – which is an industrial development of no actual use to the RAF until at least 2035. With the F35 still having problems with TR3 and full block 4… Read more »
Good commentary on the fast jet issues Peter.
Hi DM
“Healey says the armed forces are in a “far worse state than we thought. ”A couple of weeks ago I pinged you with a small prediction:
Labour comes to power and says: ‘the state of the government books is far worse than we were lead to believe”
The oldest trick in the book.😀. The price we pay for 20 years of poor defence stewardship.
You did mate.
I hope it just means taxes will go up to pay for defence.
Fat chance.
How many of those illegals are going to be given amnesty, asylum status, and housed?
Absolutely
Hi DM, and on and on it goes – it’s so sadly predictable.
P.S. -sorry for the late replies, took a few days off.
“I don’t trust a word any of them says”. the voice of experienced wisdom, well said Sir!
Are not our.
Either we are facing threats now, or we are not. A large war was expected in 1944 and worst case 1942. It came late in 39. Pray we do not face or get in any war.
OK, time to display an outsider’s ignorance:
requesting a link for the wiring diagram of MoD civilian leadership. Armed Forces Minister v. Minister of State for Defence; relative ranking? Divergent opinions settled by discussion? Duels (pistols at 10 paces)? Does every MP of the ruling party have a defence title (e.g., Deputy Assistant UnderSecretary for (fill in the blank))? Thought only Uncle Sugar’s bureaucracy indulged in this degree of specialization. 🤔😳
There are three levels of minister: Secretary of State (top level Cabinet position), Minister of State (mid level, occasionally Cabinet but usually not), and Parliamentary Under Secretary (junior minister and not to be confused with Permanent Under Secretary who isn’t a minister at all, rather the top-level civil servant for a department, and who may be more powerful.) There are three second-level jobs after Prime Minister: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and typically in that pecking order. Health and Defence vie for the most powerful of all the others that the Prime Minister doesn’t care about,… Read more »
Thanks for the explanation! 😊👍. Apparently differing perspectives from different ministers engenders some confusion; it helps to understand the pecking order.
Hopefully, the Minister for Defence Procurement, Ms.Maria Eagle, is singularly competent. 🤞 Critical for successful rearmament.
not so many the head honchos..secretary state for defence ( reports directly to the Priminister) presently John Healey MP then he has 2 understudies. Ministers of state ( lord Coaker and Maria Eagle MP) who each do a specific specialist thing for the Secretary of State for defence. these two ministers are assisted by 2 parliamentary undersecretaries ( Luke pollard MP and Al Carns MP)..these posts are described as bag carriers..and are essentially without any true power but do run a specific portfolio under the ministers of state. in all the government can have in total no more than 50… Read more »
Thanks for the info! Intriguing, may require some contemplation before framing any further questions.
He wants to be able to deploy a fighting Corps!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDIip1V5c5Y
And this speech will have been authorised by the Ministry of Defence.
Really worth an article on his thoughts because, I can’t see us ever being able to deploy a fighting Corps again in my lifetime?
So 2.5 per cent in five years, ten years, sometime , never? They haven’t re confirmed anything. Simple statement… ” We will increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent”. Unless of course they’re looking for cuts. According to Starmer “nothing is ruled out”.
I thought 2.5% was a minimum, not a ceiling?
The NATO minimum standard GDP defence spend is set at 2%, which, after cooking the books, we crowed about meeting despite actually cutting numbers & capabilities. The 2.5% uplift is an ambition given first by the Tories, then by Labour also in light of the UKR war & very dangerous international situation. The caveat is “when we can afford it”. So if they find it impossible to afford, we never reach it. We hope, however, HMG will wake up to reality & work to meet & even exceed 2.5% to prepare us for future events, or at least deter enemies… Read more »
Yes, I am aware of that, but it is still a minimum not a ceiling. Returning the capital costs of Trident back to ‘central funding’ would help for starters.
Yep , been on about that for some time – however…as it means more money will need to be provisoned overall we all know it will never happen
This does not address the ongoing problems of recruitment and retention.
We want 4(%) & we might still need more!
Better management, better procurement processes, less wastage, seek better value for money, more UK export sales,…surely some of this should all help save and bring in some extra dosh for 🇬🇧 defence too.. hopefully? Lol 😁
Therein lies the naivety of politicians and short sightedness. Defence is a long term investment and shouldn’t be subject to short term economic conditions. No living politician has had to live with a serious military defeat and all its implications (surrender, pows, financial reparation, mass casualties, national humiliation). If they understood the implications they’d change their minds sharpish!
You’d need more than 2.5% just to get the Defence Estate & Accommodation up to a decent standard.
2.5%, 3%, 4% all of this is bs. Possibly defence needs to be done in a diffrent way! Government tells the armed forces what is expected of them over the next 5-10-15 years, the heads of the armed forces tells government what is needed to do the expected with a bit of reserve for the unexpected. Then government either pays for it or reduces expectations. Defence can no longer plan on a year to year cycle as equipment takes much longer to design and build. A project that is started now will come on line in 10-15 years. So if… Read more »
As the funding of the CASD is now thanks to Osbourne and Cameron being funded out of core defence budget and equates to somewhere between 10-15% of the defence budget that means actually raising the defence budget to 2.5% GDP ration is actually only around 2.1-2.2% in real terms. Raising the budget to 2.5% might in the fullness of time deliver forces comparable to what we had when Blair and Brown were in power. that is with repairing the terrible damage done by 14 years of Tory incompetence and chaos and therefore in reality if we want the armed forces… Read more »
True words 👍
Anything from the government about intending to increase spending is simply “Jaw Jaw”, until they do it.
Can’t argue with that one 🍺