The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that work is underway on a new Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) Action Plan, but its publication will be delayed until after the Defence Investment Plan is completed.
In response to a series of parliamentary questions, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the department remains committed to publishing an annual plan, describing it as “a key element of Defence’s work to improve opportunities for SMEs.”
He confirmed that development of the plan is being led by officials within the Defence Office for Small Business Growth (OSBG), stating that “work led by a senior civil servant and civil servants from [OSBG] are responsible for developing the Plan and its implementation.”
The forthcoming plan is expected to focus on procurement reform and industrial policy, with Pollard noting it will set out “key priorities on procurement policy and strategy, aligned with the Strategic Defence Review and the Defence Industrial Strategy.”
However, ministers indicated that publication is dependent on wider defence planning, with Pollard stating that “once work on the Defence Investment Plan has concluded the plan will be published.”
The government pointed to a number of existing measures intended to support smaller firms, including “a new £20 million fund offering accelerated contracts to innovative UK startups with little previous MOD engagement,” as well as a target to increase defence spending with SMEs by £2.5 billion by May 2028.
Pollard also said the department is engaging directly with industry to shape the plan, noting that “the OSBG is engaged with SMEs to shape its delivery and ensure it reflects the practical experiences of SMEs seeking to do business with Defence.” He added that the combined measures are intended to improve support for SMEs compared to previous years, as the department seeks to broaden participation in defence procurement.
I came here for the comments. TBH I’m actually not surprised the DIP is delayed. The way wars would be fought now is changing faster than ever and it’s probably a good thing that while this is needed ASAP, the government is actually taking everything into account. I imagine very few people commenting know what is needed and I would rather this is considered very carefully and we don’t just splurge a load of money on something that will be obsolete very quickly. I don’t envy the people making these decisions.
Trouble is, by your thinking the DIP will never be published and the government would be able to delay indefinitely
Doubtful. Maybe show some positivity.
Maybe show some common-sense, if war is changing rapidly and there is no logical end to that ongoing change (which presently there isn’t) then delaying the DIP only makes its conclusions obsolete whenever it is implemented. Fact is the structure, if itself set in concrete becomes unfit for purpose and lacks the agility and flexibility required to successfully achieve its goals. If you wish to point out the erroneous choice of equipment most other medium powers are ordering then we can properly judge perhaps the likelihood of that equipment itself becoming obsolete due to the rapid changes to war fighting you are concerned about. I would say for example not having drones that have been proved effective in Ukraine and Middle East in this fast changing environment because you are analysing whether, what and how they are needed, used and financed you have become about as obsolete in your thinking as it’s possible to be and as ill equipped to fight the next war as it’s possible to be. As I say there is area where common sense comes into play between the extremes of nothing till it’s proved perfect approach. Ukraine has learned what’s best by trial and error, having little to trial hardly informs the decision making process.
We are not at war. We won’t be any time soon and if we somehow do end up at war we will be at war with most of Europe. Common sense would be admitting that no one is this comments section knows better than the government about what is happening and what is possible. You can say all you like what should happen and you can claim that the government are somehow purposely holding back so they can pay for immigrants taxi fares but at some point you have to consider that not everyone in government is working against us.
“We won’t be any time soon and if we somehow do end up at war we will be at war with most of Europe”
The first part of this statement is impossible to determine, and the second part is completely laughable. The chances of us being at war with any European nation is slimmer than the eye of a needle.
If you look at those nations being aggressive around the world, it’s easy to see there is a possibility of war. All it takes is a person unhinged enough to start something. There are plenty of those people in the world and they are not leaders of European nations
Padre, I think you misread “We won’t be any time soon and if we somehow do end up at war we will be at war with most of Europe”. I believe RobRoss is suggesting that we will be fighting any such war ‘together with our allies’ in Europe, not against them.
Slow down, parse and digest the “statements”.
Your “statement” makes many assumptions. I simply read it as it was written. There is no need to come up with such a condescending response.
Firstly, you assume to know how his statement should be interpreted. Secondly, you assume I got it wrong. Finally, you assume I was speedy in my response and failed to invoke thought before responding.
If people have issues with how their statement comes across, perhaps some literary pointers to them would be a much wiser use of your time, than making assumptions about me with little to no justification.
Re: “We won’t be any time soon and if we somehow do end up at war we will be at war with most of Europe”.
I made an assumption regarding your comment and came to the conclusion that you had “simply read it as it was written”. Sure, the quote isn’t well worded at first glance (sorry RobRoss), it is ambigious and open to interpretation, and THIS is the reason we need to slow down, parse and digest each others comments. Not all of us have George Orwell’s technical command of the English language, I certainly don’t, which why I take my time to understand people’s comments and go to great lengths to make sure my comments are worded, punctuated, spelt correctly … my notions deliberate; to the best of my abilties and knowledge.
My assumption and conclusion was that you misinterpreted RobRoss. Did that derive from your reading skills or that you treated your interpretation as a fact and made the assumption that RobRoss was insinuating that the UK would be at war against Europe as enemies, as opposed to the hypothesis that the UK would be at war in partnership with Europe, shoulder to shoulder. I chose the latter.
Making assumptions, are how things just work, from a biological and psychological standpoint, my, your and everyone’s brains literally can’t function without making assumptions, the resulting decision reached by reasoning is what really matters.
So, yes, I have concluded I know how it was worded and I have come to a conclusion I know how his statement should be interpreted.
I’m assuming that your reply was based on a misinterpretation of RobRoss’s words. I don’t know if you were speedy in your response, however, I do think you failed to invoke considered thought before responding.
There is every chance my assumptions and conclusions are incorrect, I do not ascribe to it, but I do recognise the fact.
What a long winded way of saying you make assumptions and get it wrong.
As for your statement “Making assumptions, are how things just work, from a biological and psychological standpoint, my, your and everyone’s brains literally can’t function without making assumptions, the resulting decision reached by reasoning is what really matters.” … This is just rubbish. Assumptions are absolutely not how things work.
In fact, it is how things go very wrong in society and how the world is becoming a very unsafe place, where people make assumptions and then claim that a person intended something that they never had.
In reply to you comment posted – April 26, 2026 At 09:39
Below this one. There wasn’t a “Reply Button” allowing me to keep things in chronological order; I have mentioned this to UKDJ, but i’m not waiting. Here is my reply:
Padre, you are conflating moral prejudice with cognitive inference.
When you say my statement is “rubbish,” you are ignoring the fundamental reality of how the human brain functions as a “prediction engine.” Language is actually impossible without assumptions.
For a simple example, if I say, “I’m going to the bank,” your brain automatically assumes I mean either a financial institution or a river’s edge based on the context of the conversation. You don’t pause to ask for a legal definition because your brain makes an instantaneous assumption to maintain the flow of information. To claim “assumptions are not how things work” is, quite frankly, scientifically illiterate.
You’re ignoring the trillions of tiny assumptions made every moment, like “the floor will hold my weight” when I enter that room, these assumptions allow you to walk across a room. Our brains operate on a principle called Active Inference. We don’t wait for “proof” of every physical law before we move; we assume the world is stable until it proves otherwise.
If our ancestors heard a rustle in the long grass, they didn’t wait to “parse the facts” and see the tiger’s teeth. They assumed a predator and ran.
The Cost of a Wrong Assumption … You run for no reason (wasted energy).
The Cost of No Assumption … You are eaten.
The brain is evolved to prefer an assumption over a delay.
Physical automatism includes you making a massive series of physical assumptions. You assume the floor’s molecules will provide resistance rather than collapse, sometimes those assumptions are wrong and you end up on the ground floor.
Your brain assumes your foot is where your nerves say it is, if you had to “verify the facts” of the floor’s joists and the carpet’s friction coefficient before every step, you would be paralysed. You wouldn’t be able to walk across a room, let alone drive a car or operate machinery.
Linguistic assumptions and semantic consistency, this is where your argument truly falls apart, language is the most assumption-heavy thing humans do. So when I say tree, I assume you aren’t picturing a bicycle.
In linguistics, ‘Gricean Maxims’ – deeply rooted in the foundations of Greek philosophy and Kantian logic – state that we assume our conversational partners are being informative, truthful, relevant, and clear, this is the cooperative principle.
When RobRoss spoke, you applied the ‘maxim of relation’, you assumed his comment was relevant to the real world; where the UK is in NATO/Europe. You chose to assume the comment was irrelevant/nonsensical. Your claim assumptions make the world “unsafe” when in reality, it is the inability to check our assumptions that causes the problem.
The healthy brain makes an assumption > receives new data > corrects the assumption.
The reactionary brain makes an assumption > receives new data > ignores the data to protect the original “outraged” feeling.
In the case of RobRoss’s comment, there were two possible ways to process the ambiguity. In your approach, you violated the ‘Principle of Charity’, the philosophical requirement to interpret a statement in its most rational form. You chose a literal interpretation (the UK fighting the entire continent of Europe) which is a logistical and geopolitical absurdity. You chose this because it gave you a reason to be “right” or “outraged.”
In my approach, I followed the logical intent. I assumed he meant “fighting alongside” because that is the only interpretation that makes sense in the real world.
By choosing the most nonsensical interpretation possible just so you could take a swipe at him, you didn’t just avoid making an assumption, you simply made a malicious one.
This is your “man in the mirror” moment, you are complaining that assumptions make the world “unsafe” because people claim others intended things they never did. Yet, by being in such a hurry to be offended, you did exactly that. You assigned the most ridiculous intent possible to RobRoss and then attacked me for pointing out the error.
I am not just arguing about a comment anymore; I am arguing about how a rational person processes information versus how the “shoot from the hip” commentator (you) does it, by refusing to “parse and digest” context before you react is the very social sin you are currently accusing me of …
Using reasoning to reach the correct assumption isn’t rubbish; it’s called comprehension.
We have been in a greyzone war for nearly twenty years. Most of our military leadership, CDS, CGS, heads of DI, MI6 all say we are in danger of imminent kinetic war. The former Defence Secretary described us as being in a pre-war state when he was in power. Many respectable middle-of-the-road commentators are talking about WW3 in hushed tones.
Maybe you’re on the right side of this, maybe they are. Common sense is to take a precautionary stance. If we invest in defence and we are wrong, we’ve spent a bit of money, maybe reduced a bit of unemployment, maybe got some exports. If we don’t invest and we’re wrong, millions more people die and there’s nothing we can do about it. What little power we had to deter is ebbing away with our hard power.
I know how to organise both a corporate plan and a capital programme and it does not take nearly two years, nor does it take three postponements. What we have is incompitence.
We are talking about vastly complex defence projects involving tens of thousands of people and lots of billions of £s. None of it is simple or straightforward.
Perhaps that’s why it’s not great practice to try to tie it all into one massive bureaucratic machine to come up with an answer of 42 while chasing the theory of everything perfect defence related. There is no singular answer and seeking one just adds the very complexity that stops answers at all for the likelihood is as in the original you simply get ‘what’s the real question again’ especially when much of the supporting input gets old the moment it’s ingested into that bureaucratic calculator. Setting overall guides, priorities and frameworks is one thing micromanaging every aspect of a complex ever changing all encompassing plan before anything, even vital platforms are ordered is not the way to do it and no other major player is doing it that way for urgently required capability either, so we are an outlier and not a popular one presently. It all smacks of politically motivated priorities over real ones. I look forward to being proved wrong but until then I simply don’t think this is manageable it’s looking like Ajax on political steroids and I similarly expect muddled results if we ever get any.
Once again Robert You are objecting to something I didn’t say. It is not simple or straightforward but it is doable, given the will and the commitment, otherwise why start anything. We have had a meaningless SDR. we know have a DIP that is six months overdue. There is no reason for me to believe that this so called action plan is going to any better.
All the SDRs are meaningless without the financial guarantee with them.
This one was especially. What did it actually say? Force levels? Numbers? Programmes?
It was devoid of detail by design but with “12 SSN” inserted in it as the headline grabber.
Hi Daniele. I haven’t been able to access the site for the last couple of days. Host error? Agrred on yoiur SDR point. I don’t know whether we’ve had ona that has been followed up. Some better than others,of course. This one is farcical. I didn’t believe we would ever build 12 and I still don’t.
Hi Geoffrey.
No, me neither, all of yesterday, host 502 errors.
I agree on the 12 SSN. ABC, who knows the nuclear industry intimately, has explained the expansion underway and the long lead items, uet I still remain sceptical. It’s an easy throw away for HMG to make.
Meanwhile, Healey has no idea how many escorts we have….
There’s not enough money.
The government’s silence is a mix of tactical politics and a very difficult mathematical standoff. There isn’t just one reason, but three distinct ‘locks’ that are keeping the plans from being published before the Easter break.
The first lock is the brutal fiscal reality of the Defence Investment Plan itself, which is reportedly grappling with a funding gap of between £17 billion and £28 billion over the next decade. While the SDR was filled with ambitious recommendations for new drones, next-generation jets, and a NATO-first posture, the Treasury has essentially placed the Ministry of Defence in a chokehold, refusing to sign off on the investment plan until the department can prove exactly which programs will be cut to balance the books. This has created a total stalemate because any admission of a black hole would require the government to publicly name which major projects, be it the Ajax, the Type 26 frigates, or the Tempest fighter, are being delayed or scrapped, a move that would be politically radioactive right now.
The second lock is the looming shadow of the local elections on 7 May 26′ and the strict rules of the pre-election period, or purdah. With the Scottish Parliament and Senedd elections also on the horizon, the window for making controversial or market-sensitive announcements is effectively closing this week. If the government fails to publish the plan before Parliament rises for the Easter recess on 26 March, the purdah rules will legally prevent them from releasing any significant new policy or spending commitments until after the votes are counted in May. This provides a convenient procedural excuse to bury the bad news of potential defence cuts, allowing the government to avoid a difficult conversation about military shrinkage or procurement failures during the heat of an election campaign.
The third and final lock is the direct impact on the industrial supply chain and the government’s desire to avoid a public outcry from small and medium-sized enterprises. By holding back the SME Action Plan until the main investment plan is finalised, the government is trying to prevent a scenario where they promise new support for small firms only to have that news instantly trashed by the simultaneous cancellation of the very projects those firms rely on for survival. For companies like MTE Heat Treatment, which has already collapsed (thanks to RR not divvying out the cash) while waiting for this clarity, the silence is catastrophic, but from a purely political perspective, the government views procurement paralysis as a lesser evil than a public admission of industrial decline.
Ultimately, they are choosing to stay silent not because they are idle, but because they are caught in a trap where the truth about the budget is currently too expensive to tell.
I have read through your post twice and you make very valid points for how the government is avoiding almost everything. In more Anglo Saxon language a lot of what they are doing after a pointless SDR; a delayed DIP and questionable SME “package” is covering their collective arse to save thier jobs. Very simple.
It’s 6 months overdue, any ‘positivity’ has vanished
Just as long as answers about spending and investment don’t transition from “waiting on the publication of the DIP’ to “waiting on the publication of the new Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) Action Plan.” Wouldn’t surprise me much though if it did.
That likely how its going to go, delayed or dragged out. Not their fault etc etc, but more delay means no kit orders and we need some orders asp if we are ever get kit in service within a few years at best.
So An “action Plan” being planned for after the DIP which is still being planned. 🤔🫣
A cleaner reply to Padre, ‘set free’ by not being all squished up on the right hand side of this board.
Assumptions.
Padre, you are conflating moral prejudice with cognitive inference.
When you say my statement is “rubbish,” you are ignoring the fundamental reality of how the human brain functions as a “prediction engine.” Language is actually impossible without assumptions.
For a simple example: if I say, “I’m going to the bank,” your brain automatically assumes I mean either a financial institution or a river’s edge based on the context. You don’t pause to ask for a legal definition because your brain makes an instantaneous assumption to maintain the flow of information. To claim “assumptions are not how things work” is, quite frankly, scientifically illiterate.
You are ignoring the trillions of tiny assumptions made every moment, like “the floor will hold my weight.” These assumptions allow you to walk across a room. Our brains operate on a principle called Active Inference. We don’t wait for “proof” of every physical law before we move; we assume the world is stable until it proves otherwise.
If our ancestors heard a rustle in the long grass, they didn’t wait to “parse the facts” to see the tiger’s teeth, they assumed a predator and ran.
the cost of a wrong assumption … you run for no reason; wasted energy.
the cost of no assumption … you are eaten.
The brain evolved to prefer an assumption over a delay.
Physical automatism requires a massive series of physical assumptions. You assume the floor’s molecules will provide resistance rather than collapse; sometimes those assumptions are wrong and you end up on the ground floor. Your brain assumes your foot is where your nerves say it is. If you had to verify the facts of the floor’s joists and the carpet’s friction coefficient before every step, you would be paralysed.
Linguistic assumptions are where your argument truly falls apart. Language is the most assumption heavy thing humans do. When I say ‘tree,’ I assume you aren’t picturing a ‘bicycle’. In linguistics, ‘Gricean Maxims’ – deeply rooted in the foundations of Greek philosophy and Kantian logic – state that we assume our conversational partners are being informative, truthful, relevant, and clear. This is the ‘cooperative principle’.
When RobRoss spoke, I applied the ‘Maxim of Relation’. I assumed his comment was relevant to the real world, where the UK is in NATO. You, however, chose to assume the comment was irrelevant and nonsensical. You claim assumptions make the world “unsafe,” when in reality, it is the inability to check our assumptions that causes the problem.
The healthy brain, makes an assumption > receives new data > corrects the assumption.
The reactionary brain, makes an assumption > receives new data > ignores the data to protect the original outraged feeling.
In the case of RobRoss’s comment, there were two ways to process the ambiguity. In your approach, you violated the … ‘Principle of Charity’, the philosophical requirement to interpret a statement in its most rational form. You chose a literal interpretation, the UK fighting the entire continent of Europe which is a logistical and geopolitical absurdity. You chose this because it gave you a reason to be ‘right’ or ‘outraged.’
In my approach, I followed the logical intent. I assumed he meant “fighting alongside” because that is the only interpretation that makes sense in the real world. By choosing the most nonsensical interpretation possible just so you could take a swipe at him, you didn’t avoid making an assumption, you simply made a malicious one.
This is your “man in the mirror” moment. You are complaining that assumptions make the world “unsafe” because people claim others intended things they never did. Yet, by being in such a hurry to be offended, you did exactly that … you assigned the most ridiculous intent possible to RobRoss and then attacked me for pointing out the error.
I am not just arguing about a comment anymore; I am arguing about how a rational person processes information versus how a ‘shoot from the hip’ hack does it. Refusing to “parse and digest” context before you react is the very social sin you are currently accusing me of.
Using reasoning to reach the correct assumption isn’t rubbish; it’s called comprehension.