Andy Burnham has said he will ensure the Defence Investment Plan is fully funded, in his first direct public response to the £4.7 billion funding gap left in the plan for him to resolve in his first Budget.
The commitment came during a question and answer session on the r/ukpolitics Reddit forum, where the Labour MP for Makerfield, expected to enter Downing Street later this month, was asked for his thoughts on the plan.
“The world is changing fast and the challenges are multiplying,” Burnham replied. “The Defence Investment Plan represents a step change in Britain’s response to this new reality and I will ensure that it is fully funded.”
The plan, published on 30 June, is backed by a £15 billion increase in the Ministry of Defence’s spending power over four years, but the accompanying Treasury statement revealed that only around two-thirds of that sum has been secured. The government’s own funding explainer states the package is funded primarily by reallocating budgets across departments, with £10.3 billion identified now, drawn from a 1 per cent contribution from every department’s capital budget along with larger contributions from the transport roads budget and the energy department.
Analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies identifies a further £4.7 billion listed as to be funded at Budget 2026, a fiscal event that will fall to Burnham and his Chancellor.
Sources close to Burnham have said the funding hole came as a surprise to his team, and a defence minister has suggested he learned of it only on the day of publication, although he is understood to have known the bulk of the plan’s contents through access talks with the civil service and had reportedly pushed for the document’s release to be delayed so he could address the challenge himself. Burnham has previously said he will retain the current fiscal rules, which would rule out borrowing to close the gap, leaving only further departmental reductions or tax rises as available options.
Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis has rejected suggestions the deferral amounts to a hand grenade for the incoming Prime Minister, telling broadcasters he had received the assurance that “as prime minister Andy Burnham will make sure that we have got the investment” coming into defence, while conceding that conversations with Burnham would be necessary and arguing that finalising such commitments at a major fiscal event is not unreasonable. The Conservatives have attacked the arrangement, with a party spokesman calling it “a delayed-action poison pill,” and former defence secretary Sir Liam Fox describing the situation facing Burnham in similar terms.
And add another 13 billion to fully fund what’s needed.
No idea how you calculate that as we currently haven’t a clue how much this tech will cost. I would have been happier if he had committed to fund what was needed. We either have what is needed to defend ourselves or we don’t.
Because the MoD asked for 28 billion and they’re getting 15 billion. 28 -15=13
Lol. What makes you think the MOD know how much they need?
Well it was reported quite a lot that 28 billion was needed to implement the SDR.
Well the MOD might guess a little about the cost of drones etc. from the Ukraine conflict however their experience is limited by what has been ordered so far. If it does turn out to be £28 Bn I will be impressed.
No Drama Andy, the press keep trying to paint Andy Burnham as some supper lefty. The guy is a former blairite cabinet minister. He is probably one of the most centrist MP’s I have ever met and might be the only man in Britain finally willing to end the nonsense of Westminster politics and Britains obsession with looking after London above all else.
Good news is labour is going to win in 2029 now, The Kremlin stooge propped up by suspicious crypto money from a “British Guy in Bangkok” will be either in jail or too old to run in 2034 and best of all we don’t need to have another defence review for a decade.
No one will ever be as daft as kier Starmer to set up a defence review run by three amateurs with no one in the room counting costs while coming up with hair brained schemes like deck launching long range missiles off an aircraft carrier.
One just wonders how much damage could have been saved if the Government told the MoD what it could afford and they built the plan around that rather than some fantasy like a normal defence review.
For everyone who is going to tell me how it should be the other way around and a governments first duty is to defend the country and we are under threat of war I will point to exhibit one, The DIP, which despite a massive uplift in funding contains next to nothing for UK mainland Defence. No GBAD ABM capability, No extra fighters, No extra AWACS and keeps all our expeditionary force components.
This is probably the right move as maintaining ENATO is vital but if your only putting in £700 million to UK air defence out of £300 billion and that’s all going on a radar and control room you can’t tell me we are under immanent threat and I need to gut the NHS and through disabled people out on the street to pay for a big military less the talking heads tell me we will all be speaking Russian soon or worse the Americans will be displeased with me.
Worth pointing out with the extra funding the UK will be spending £79 billion a year on defence in 2029 vs France that will be spending £66 billion despite having near identical GDP’s and needs and responsibilities to each other.
Or France know that as their defence process is a lot more efficient they will get a similar capability for their £66bn.
Protectionism pays, in the long run.
“Protectionism pays, in the long run.”
That’s what Trump thinks, and like most things he believes, it flies in the face of history and facts.
Protectionism pays in some areas, because neoliberalism only works if everyone is playing the same game, we now know that a planned state can exploit dogma driven neoliberalism if its willing to expend capital to destroy another nations industrial infrastructure.
We “know” do we?
Looking forward to hearing you cite historical examples of planned economy states have destroyed a neoliberal state’s industrial infrastructure.
Meanwhile I can state one example where the reverse happened, the USA v USSR…
Umm have a lot of industry left in the UK do we… no it’s all off shore… China has been systematically using state funding to undercut other nations industries.
What part of 10th largest manufacturer in the world don’t you understand?
I notice you failed to cite an actual example to prove your hilarious claim.
Yes French people are so smart, far superior to us stupid British people with our daft ideas of free market. 😂
Works for them, doesn’t it?
The government just needs to make the corruption institutionalised enough that it works in their favour.
No it doesn’t, judging by their eye-watering national debt 🫣
To be fair loads of new suppliers will be entering the market which should drive down costs. Additionally the big suppliers will need to justify their prices and look carefully at the speed with which they can bring their products to market.
I’d debate this with you but I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re delusional and probably not entirely sane. Certainly the way you constantly contradict yourself supports this thesis.
Indeed. Certainly not a commentator with any depth of relevant knowledge. Life is too short.
I love you to show me where I contradicted myself.
I do however change my mind from time to time often when reading well informed opinions on this website which is why I like to come here.
Nothing worse than an echo chamber.
Morning Jim.
To be fair, I do enjoy reading your comments, there are moments of real clarity and absolute sense but,
You do waver and change your mind on certain topics quite often.
The GCAP thread Is one example and I had to mention your Inconsistency in relation to It’s potential sales, because well, you seemed to flip a bit.
Your Dinner with Rachael with the T32 discussion was another example that still looms large In my memory.
But please carry on and Ignore this Halfwit’s Observations, this place would never be the same without you.
He changes his mind all the time. He’s a clown but entertaining all the same
Next he’ll be promoting Zack polanski and next week Ed Davey
I’m starting to wonder if this is a sockpuppet account. Most of the comments seem to be about painting Labour in a good light. Until recently it was all about defending Starmer, now it seems the focus has switched to defending Burnham instead.
There doesn’t seem to be any real knowledge of defence matters, just repeated attempts to justify cuts. I also struggle to believe it’s one person given the number of U turns. Rather than defending their position when challenged, they just move on to the next ridiculous political comment.
I could be wrong, but a lot of it doesn’t add up. How does the same person perform a complete U turn on GCAP in the space of two days?
Anyhow, it’s entertaining. And Jim, if you are a genuine person who’s just a batshit crazy drunk, then sorry pal 👍
P.S. What’s this dinner with Rachel?
Yeah he is either multiple people or incredibly bipolar 🤪
Could just be a hardcore Labour supporter who’s drunk most of the day, to be fair 👀
To be fair, if I were a hardcore Labour supporter, I’d be drunk most of the day too.
🤣
‘Your Dinner with Rachael with the T32 discussion was another example that still looms large In my memory.’
What’s the story here? I’m picturing Jim spinning dits about how he had dinner with the Chancellor and advised her on future procurement?
He is constantly claiming to know everyone in Westminster!
Hi halfwit I agree on GCAP, I haven’t so much changed my mind as been 50 50 on it and read a lot of opinions on here about it nd changed which side of the fence I have come down upon.
£16 billion is an insane amount of money to spend on a one third share of a fighter program. For that kind of cash you could massively beef up the RAF with F35A or Typhoon.
However with the collapse of FCAS and the political convulsions of both the US Congress and now President in supplying fighters, I don’t think we can pull the plug on the only other western fighter for the next fifty years. We are the only country other than the USA that can lead such a program.
Much the same as nuclear, I love us not to be spaffing £100 billion on a nuclear deterrent and have a bigger navy and army but the reality is that our NATO based deterrent independent of the USA or France is the most importantly thing for UK and European security.
I think the key part to the UK’s third share Is not just the Initial cost but the Long term opportunities and Benefits by way of jobs and Money It generates.
It’s my Business mindset !
Yes I agree, great business opportunities but I don’t think the defence budget should be a job creation program. However there is great military utility in having sovereign combat aircraft and even more in having the ability to offer our Allie’s a cutting edge fighter, we are the only nation that can do this so we just have to let the Germans supply more of the armoured divisions and the Fins more of the artillery.
If the French and Germans could have played nice I would have been just as happy having 6 partners in GCAP and the UK only forking out £8 billion and having a 15% work share.
@Jim
This is the biggest load of complete self contradictory bollox that I’ve seen anywhere. Why don’t you get off the drugs/alcohol/nitous oxide and go for a long walk. A ten year walk would be good
Have you taken your medication today Jim?
Agreed with most of that Jim, ignore the Reform people.
I love the Reform people, it’s just a pitty none of them can debate 😀
I think you should check recent by-election results…. Labour continue to loss vote share and this is a consistanr trend across the UK – while Labour might see him as their election savior, the rest of the country ate not playing ball, No it still looks like Reform next. The Conservatives also continue to loose vote share worse then Labour. It is quite clear they are no longer the opposition,
In UK even the conservatives are lefty…
This just goes to show the current government dose not give 2 hoots for defence, by getting the press to concentrate on the £5billion missing they are hoping that we all forget about the £13Billion extra needed to fully fund the the armed forces. With the previous government just as guilty as this one I suspect that neither the Labour or Conservative parties will be in power after the next general election (hopefully quite soon). All Mr Burnham seems to want is adding yet more layers of middle management with his No 10 of the North, I would have thourght that if a government is serious about saving money they would be getting rid of middle management with the average bod in politics costing £100K/year along with their “support staff” the bills soon add up.
Problem is that £13 billion extra figure you quote to fully fund the armed forces doesn’t exist in reality. It’s a quote in the telegraph from a man who refused to confirm it to parliament.
“The Chief of the Defence Staff reportedly presented this internal assessment during a meeting with the Prime Minister before Christmas. When subsequently questioned by MPs at a parliamentary defence committee, Sir Richard refused to confirm the exact figure on the record, stating that his discussions with the PM were “classified”. However, he did acknowledge on the record that the military is not ready for a full-scale conflict.”
So either the CDS leaked classified information to the Telegraph (unlikely) lied to Parliament (unlikely) or the Telegraph is relying on inaccurate figures from a second hand source with agenda who was also leaking classified information.
The more official ranges that the government was presented with for the extra funding where £12 £ 15 and £18 billion and after much f**king around kier Starmer did what all politicans do and picked the middle option.
Could the MoD spend £28 billion, yes, could it spend £50 billion yes. This department can and will eat any amount of money you throw at it and claim it’s underfunded. It’s has always been “underfunded” when we were spending 2% of GDP or 8% of GDP. America spends $1 trillion on defennce and the Pentagon claims to be chronically underfunded and wants its budget doubled.
How ever you like to dress it up the political elite in the UK see the Armed forces as a black hole for money and for a lot of our political elite they seem to have an agenda to get rid of the UK’s ability to defend its self.
We should have the ability to defend our shores and to hold up our end of our Nato commitment as of right now we cannot and under the current government we never be able to.
The history of the British state since the English civil war if not Magna Carta itself has been the rejection of standing armies and seeing defense as a black hole where spending is to be avoided and with good reason. Defence spending is largely wasted. It diverts large amounts of manpower and capital into an unproductive task. (Blowing s**t up)
Yes defence is an insurance policy but being over insured can be just as dangerous as being under insured. Almost every enemy we faced for 500 years including, Spain, The Bourbons , The Nazis and the Soviet Union all collapsed due to bankrupting themselves due to over spending on the military in peace time.
You agree however that we do need some sort of “insurance” ?
If you do agree with that then the people who are expected to put their lives on the line to keep up that insurance deserve the right amount of kit and the right amount of back-up as at the moment they have neither. All we seem to get from this and the previous government is more middle management and just like all top heavy establishments they will come crashing down.
Britain has had a standing army in the form of Royal Housecarls, then Royal Household bodyguards and a navy since the eleventh century. Victories at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Blenheim, Salamanca, Trafalgar and Waterloo were won by professional soldiers and sailors.
Britain’s wars against European powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were funded, won by the ability of the city of London to raise loans rather than taxes.
Far from being a black hole, defence spending permits and encourages the international trade with our allies on which we depend.
Had we still possessed a credible conventional deterrent, consider the leverage that we would now have in Europe as the U.S. withdraws.
Westminster/Whitehall has been staffed for the last thirty six years and counting by a bunch of total numpties.
Democracy: the least worst form of government.
Quite true… neither Labour or the Conservatives have funded the armed forces properly since the 1980s…. it was all cut cut cut… and just gamble on no conflict and a helpful USA. Now the shit has hit the fan they are all blaming each other – it is pathetic. Both parties have failed the country in their first duty to the nation – defence. Hopefully they will be relieved of government at the next election and permanently there after.
He wont plug the black hole and he certainly wont achieve the savings required for the other £10 billion. Too much money being wasted on Trident, no British PM will toast millions of Russians even if they have nuked us, I don’t believe it and neither will Putin/Xi/Trump and the other nutters. The carriers are a ridiculous vanity project so what exactly do we think that was for? They will not last the distance so try and sell them to NATO or Brazil. We cannot even be bothered to replace the T45s so we need to stop pretending we are a world naval power. If we want to spend the £15 billion then best spent on thousands of defence missiles and drones and at least field a full division on mainland Europe. No UK politicians think Putin will ever come banging on our door, only when part or all of Eastern Europe falls will the panic set in. AND don’t be surprised if Tony Blair 2.0 gets us into some pointless colonial war he has already shown his hubris and ego no little bounds.
Well, this Government is putting an extra £15bn into defence, anincrease of 27%. No British government has done so for nearly 50 years, instead it’s been an endless succession of defence cuts by both major parties.
The Tory press is trying very hard to fault the DIP and find things to complain about, as echoed by its aficionados on here. Of course the services and MOD want a 50%/£28 bn increase in defence spend. But out here in the real world, that is just jaw-droppingly excessive. Where on earth is a UK government, whether of the left or right, going to find that kind of money, short of wholesale cuts to every other budget plus big tax rises? Hint: the public are not going to vote in favour of either.
Whether our more political bretheren like it or not, Starmer, Reeves, Healey and the new SoS have achieved something that eluded May, Boris, Sunak and Ben Wallace, namely putting 27% more – indeed any more – hard cash on the table for defence. It seems odd to have people here moaning away about what is a pretty good result for defence.
The Defence Budget Illusion. Giving with one hand, taking with the other. The government proudly announces new defence spending, but quietly claws some right back. The National Insurance hike is a massive, uncompensated tax hit directly targeting the UK armed forces, the MoD, and our domestic industrial base.Because nearly half of all major UK military procurement relies on cost plus single source contracts, higher supplier payroll taxes are legally passed straight back to the taxpayer. The math of this fiscal loop is devastating. The National Insurance hike inflates supply chain and contract costs by nearly 800 million pounds per year. Over a five year parliament term, this quietly drains 4 billion pounds out of frontline buying power. The ultimate political trick is that the government can later refund this exact 4 billion pounds to the MoD and spin it to the public as a massive new funding uplift. Politcally Brilliant but from a defence perspective not smart.
Let not even go there with other cost layered on the defence supply chain!!
So £5b is 0.38% of all governmenrt spending, a decent Lean Six Sigma execrise in goivernment would save this in blink without impacting services, in fact lean methodolgies normally improve services whilst improving efficencies. Its more likely the government will follow Gary’s Economics rather than do something sensible 🙂
Note I don’t reply to comments, lifes too short 🙂