Writing in LabourList, Graeme Downie, Labour MP for Dunfermline and Dollar, made the case for treating the UK government’s 2.5% GDP defence spending target as a baseline rather than a cap, arguing that global instability demands sustained and significant investment in security and defence.
Highlighting the lessons learned from the slow European and UK response to the industrial challenges of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Downie underscored the need for a clear and collaborative approach to supporting Ukraine’s defence.
Downie pointed out that “the EU and the UK were slow to grasp the long-term industrial implications of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022.” He commended the UK Prime Minister’s recent speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, where it was emphasised that “the further Russian troops advance, the closer the threat becomes…so we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support their self-defence for as long as it takes.”
Downie noted the alignment of EU priorities, quoting foreign policy chief Kaja Kallis, who said: “The European Union wants Ukraine to win this war.”
These statements, Downie wrote, “make it even more vital there is a clear plan on what it will take for the UK and EU to provide the necessary weaponry to Ukraine.” He pointed to the delays in the US defence support package earlier this year, which had “huge implications on the ground for Ukraine” and highlighted the need for a robust European defence manufacturing base closer to the front lines.
Defence spending, Downie argued, is not only a security imperative but a critical driver of the UK economy. “Defence is already a key sector in the UK’s industrial strategy,” he said, referencing the Ministry of Defence’s £28.8 billion spend with UK industry in 2023/24, which supports 329,000 jobs. Scotland’s role was a focal point, with its shipbuilding hubs and nuclear deterrent contributing significantly to national and NATO security.
In the piece, he also welcomed recent Labour government initiatives, including the establishment of a UK Defence Industrial Council, describing it as “the latest sign that this UK Labour government is mobilising British industry for our security and to support Ukraine in a way which supports our economy.”
He called for a strategic approach to defence funding, stating: “We must also ensure MoD funding is being spent for maximum impact, delivering a clear return on investment for the UK economy.”
Downie concluded by advocating for a pragmatic response to ongoing instability, pointing out that “while we will hit the 2.5% target for defence spending after the failures of previous Conservative governments, we should make clear that this number should not be considered a ceiling.”
For him, the coming decade represents an opportunity to “improve links with our allies, support our communities, create jobs and deliver growth and prosperity, and work towards a more peaceful future.”
Not going to happen, Labour are already back sliding on the 2.5% GDP, Defence review will be a cut as always
That’s bollocks, they are literally just about to announce when they will get to 2.5% as part of the defence review and they increased the budget faster than inflation or GDP in their first budget.
Can you please tell me where this backsliding is please?
i would still bet money that 2.5 % will be planned for the next parliament
No I would say it will be by the end of the parliament couple of reasons.
1) The military industrial complex provided very good jobs and economic stability for a lot of regions. Essentially and pragmatically war is good business if it’s not you fighting it and at the moment there are more wars going on since anytime WW2 so a lot of jobs can be supported.
2) The Conservative Party will use security as a stick to beat the Labour Party if they don’t really invest hard..and for some reason it’s one of those areas the conservatives can be shite at but still beat the Labour Party ( the Labour Party have the same sort of power with the NHS..everyone believes the conservatives are strong on defence shite on the NHS and that Labour are shite at defence and good with the NHS..no matter the actual evidence or what happens).
3) The world is going to shite really quickly, there are more wars now since anytime in the last 85 years and there is a very good chance that will slip over into a proper world war.
Great use of the word, ‘shite’. ha..
1941-45 the peak of the second world war was only 83 to 79 years ago. I don’t think we are anywhere near that point now.
Trouble is when you slap a NI charge on every supplier, MoD civil servant and serving person the of course defence spending has to rise. Will 2.5% cover additional costs added by this government is the question
Jim…I’m sorry but where do you get this idea that they are going to announce 2.5 per cent? Starmer has consistently said “if, as soon as. when the budget allow, sometime etc. I’ll also say once again that they didn’t increase anything in the first budget. It was money allocated by the previous government.
They have made a number of statements saying the timeline two 2.5% will be announced as part of the defence review announcements next summer.
Agreed… but they haven’t said they are going to do it any time soon. My case still stands, and as I have said elsewhere 2.5 per cent of what. Reeves is so busy destroying the private sector we could even at 2.5 of GDP be looking at even less real money in cash terms then we getting now.
Jim you can’t logically debate with a Tory supporter. They simply cannot see what an utter cluster F@*k of a mess the Tories made of everything over their 14+ years in power. Considering the mess they left behind, I agree, Labour have made a good enough start and let’s see what SDSR 2025 brings. I’m hoping the cuts are done and we will see real investment and a clear plan on delivering much needed firepower, resilience and attritional reserve capacity.
I am amazed that you think Labour have made a good start. If this was the equally uselesss Tory government you would be screaming blue murder. Wanting to make something true because of your own political beliefs does not make it true. All Labour have done to date is pass on the the £2.9 billion already agreed by the outgoing Tories and made cuts ahead of the so called SDR.
I think the financial crisis, a global pandemic, mass imigration and war in Ukraine and the following inflation impact on the cost of living impact had a lot to do with the last government’s policies. All those problems would have massively affected any government in power over the last 14 years. They did make plenty of mistakes. But I don’t believe the nation would be any better off if we had just had 14 years of Labour.
The R in SDSR is Review not Reduction.
If they are honest then it shouldn’t be less than 3% next financial year and probably will need to be higher the following year, but that will depend on what happens in Russia. The only way we won’t need to spend more is if Russia is comprehensibly beaten and Ukraine gets all its territory back by the middle of next year. That will allow for a slower build up of ammunition stocks etc.
pointless if it takes forever to make anything
It is irrelevant, due to anti-freedom, socialist – pardon the redundancy – ideology of the current government, the economy will contract and what 2,5% can pay will be much less.
Martin, why do you think Lahour is backsliding? What was said and by whom?
Congratulations. We need more people publicly arguing for 3% or more. Over the last three years the conversation has moved backward to 2.5%, which most of us here know is not enough to provide conventional deterrence. The real situation has become a dirty little secret not to be mentioned.
3% is too much.
2.75% will get you to where you want to be. It is a massive increase.
Thing is to avoid it just being spent on a few mega projects which is the MOD way. It is a bit like the NHS if you prioritised spending on smaller stuff you have a fraction of the problems you seemingly have.
With the armed forces in such a terrible state that in Europe it is said that Great Britain is no more than a medium power or less, the army could barely fight with one armoured division, the RAF with 120 aircraft at most and the navy without amphibious capacity or auxiliaries is never too much, Russia and China are there and they are not going to stop being there.
Just as long as European NATO, including the UK can keep Russia where they are currently, that is fine. China are not a direct threat to the UK or Europe now, our allies in the far east Japan, South Korea, USA, Phillipines, Australia will need to contain Chinese empire building. It’s all going to kick off around or just before 2030. That’s when the UK needs to be match fit and ready as President Xi has already declared Taiwan will be reunited with his dictatorship in China by that date.
I actually think we should have a trajectory to 3%..there are a lot of holes in defence that need filling..we could burn 4 billion on nothing more than a decent national air defence system, we need to recreate a proper civil defence structure etc.
I think that would be about £12bn per annum extra, and of course we could do an awful lot even with small amounts here and there to counter the current penny-pinching mentality, but there are major areas that need to be addressed too. Unfortunately, Defence is creaking in too many places.
The renewal of the Defence estate, including service accommodations, and a consistent programme of maintenance to ensure they stay in good condition will cost significant amounts, as would any programme to increase the number of people in uniform. Restoration of numbers to the 1990 level is politically impossible, even though we probably have a significantly greater threat condition than 1990. Nevertheless we do need something. The Army, Navy and Air Force are all sufferring from insufficient personnel. As late as last year, the Command Paper Refresh only talked about increase in salaries, while refusing to talk about increase in numbers. It could be argued (and was argued by the Deputy Director General of RUSI) that the only way to pay for better pay and conditions under the Command Paper was to further reduce the size of the Armed Forces. That can’t stand.
I’d also say that domestic GBAD is another large and shiny bauble we simply must have, sooner rather than later. I expect you can think of a few.
It’s a real putty Graeme didn’t make it in to the defence select committee, it’s a rare change to hear from an MP that gets its on defence.
Pitty
Instead we have the light weight Michelle Scrogham.
i’m not an expert but i don’t think it’s about how much % of GDP you’re spending on defense. You just don’t seem to be getting enough out of what you spend. There are countries that spend less for more
That is certainly a big part of it.
HMG shoved all sorts in and no sign they’re being removed
Nuclear, GCAP, AUKUS are ruinous for the budget over the next decade.
HMG have little interest in conventional defence beyond what jobs are available and where.
Not across the board. You could point to Italy, perhaps, but Britain’s maintenance of a sovereign nuclear deterrent and many logistics and support capabilities is what distinguishes it from it’s most obvious comparisons. The percentage we spend on procurement over maintenance needs to be increased significantly, rather than the “make do and mend” mentality that lags our technology and shrinks the industrial base. However, the biggest problem is very much about total money. You can only increase efficiency a bit, while the requirement is for something like a doubling or trebling of power, as the Chief of the General Staff has said. You can’t get that through efficiency alone, and the jam tomorrow prescription of no more money until we are fully efficient results in constant cuts.
Well, that’s questionable. The French spend less, have a sovereign nuclear deterrent (including procurement) and yet, their capacities are in (much) better shape.
The French have some very large holes….and it’s wrong to say they are in a better place..they have differing needs and go lighter with reduced capabilities but more numbers…
1) SSN..whatever you say about the UK SSN fleet by 2025 we will have six of the most modern and deadly SSNs on the planet at 7000 tones each, with a 7th on the way in 2026. The French are still only halfway through their SSN upgrade programme and only have 3 modern SSNs with the 6th and final Suffren not commissioned until 2030/31…in the meantime they still have 3 30-35 year old 2000 ton Rubis class SSNs which were not that great when commiserate in the 1980s.
2) AAW destroyers..the French navy have only 2 dedicated AAW destroyers and a pair of upgraded FREMMs vs the RNs 6.
3) high end anti submarine..French six dedicated ASW FREMM vs the RNs present 8 Type 23 and 8 future T26.
4) Light General purpose frigates..this where the French navy makes up its numbers ( its down 4 high end 5000ton+ escort on the RN). It has 5 3000 ton light patrol frigates..that over the next 8 years will be replaced by 5 new 5000 ton light frigates..but in that time the RN will have 5 new 6000 ton general purpose/strike frigates.
5) carriers french 1 RN 2
6) the only place the French navy exceeds the RN is in OPVs and larger patrol craft ..with a mixed fleet of 24 vs the RNs 9 ( with the addiction of the 2 new RFA vessels for 11j
7)mine warfare is about even with then both commissioning down their old mine warfare hulls for new autonomous capabilities.
8) oilers France navy 1 31,000 ton oiler and 1 17,000 ton oiler vs the RFAs 4 40,000 ton oilers and one 35,000 ton multi replenishment ship.
In every way apart from light constabulary vessels the RN outweighs and outnumbers the French navy.
Let’s look at the airforces
1) fast jest the French have 135 4.5 generation modern fighters and 90 40 year old 4th generation fighters..vs the RAFs 130 4.5 generation fighters and 34 5th generation…so the French airforce have a few more aircraft but half of their fighters are old 4th generation and the have no 5th generation fighter.
2) AEW the French are still using a 4 old E3 sentries with no planned replacement the UK has modern wedgetails.
3) ISTAR recon..France has exactly 2 light props beachcraft superkings, RFA has 6 light prop beachcraft and 3 rivet joint.
4) martime patrol and ASW..the French have a lot more 22 but they are 60 year old Atlantic 2s vs the RAFs 9 ultra modern P8s
5) tanker fleet France 12 A330 and 5 60 year old KC135s vs UK 14 A330
6) strategic airlift,France 24 A400 UK 22 A400 and 8 Globemasters
7) tactical air lift France 41 tactical fixed wing aircraft. UK 60 heavy lift rotors.
So in reality the UK has far better high end capabilities, France has more mass of lower end capabilities.
Sorry, not taking joy into it as UK’s is French northern border so security is key but you can’t say both have same capabilities when you need to add docked ships or planned equipement to make the numbers.
Not sure that’s true, we seem to punch above our weight considering what is spent. I think it’s all the key enablers other nations don’t have. Although we don’t have many of these unique capabilities and precious little attritional reserve.
I’d like SDSR to realistically increase RAF airpower to +200 jets using typhoon, new batch of typhoon and F35B whilst pushing on with Tempest and UAVs/ loyal wingmen.
Poseidon MPA fleet needs increasing by 5-6 aircraft to provide a resilient patrol pattern.
A400M , we could use maybe 6-8 more aircraft.
Wedgetails order needs restoring back to 5 initially, especially as the radar sets were already ordered for 5 and then ultimately back to at least 7 aircraft.
GBAD needs sorting out using land Ceptor and mobile Aster 30 NT launchers supplemented by radar guided guns 40mm Bofors and Phalanx as well as direct energy weapons like dragonfire. The MOD must be able to throw up a protective umbrella around key infrastructure and military sites. Supplemented by the TA/ armed police/ RAF regiment guarding these sites on the ground.
The Navy needs at least another batch of type 31s as well as 2-4 more type 26 added back onto the programme. Speed up current type 26 and type 31 builds.
Aukus…needs to be pushed into production asap with sequential build alongside dreadnought SSBNs. The RN needs more attack submarines and probably should consider retaining the last 1-2 Trafalgar class (even if that involves an expensive refit) until Aukus subs enter service.
I’m comfortable with the loss of Albion and Bulwark just so long as the navy retains the ability to lift and land by air and sea/ over the beach the ability to deploy commando or a reinforced commando so 3000+ troops. Eg close to operation corporate and the Falklands campaign.
The industrial base needs investment, especially around munitions and ammunition. Russia has learnt that it’s so called precision munitions are not very precise. So have upped production to around 100 cruise and hypersonic missiles per month. UK weapons are much more accurate but we should still aim to be able to replace storm shadow, spear 3, future anti ship attack missiles, land and sea Ceptor and Aster series weapons at ease.
Mrs/ rocket rounds, mortar, tank and canon rounds as well as atgw and artillery shells, all should be on the industrial capacity programme.
I think the MOD is wise to this having stress tested UK military/ industrial responses to a major war in exercises as they try to determine exactly how resilient our defence industry is. This is the first time in decades such an exercise had occured and shows Labour government are much wiser, sensible and forward thinking then the loony Tories who managed defence with a cross the fingers, hope and pray approach.
I agree with the majority of what you’ve suggested, though I’m not sure about the additional A400s. The RAF has a reasonable amount of heavy lift aircraft now, there is, however, a capability gap in medium lift. A sqn of CASA C-235 or similar would be great for tasks where a massive transporter would be overkill
How much you spend is one thing, but what you get for it is arguably even more important.
They’re still pootling about in grandad’s APCs, for example.
Well, germans spend more than UK and France in nominal value but can’t move a brigade….
Problem is with new overseas leases, salary increases, supplier price rises from increased NI contributions, service personnel paying more NI via their employer, housing improvements, made in the UK plan etc will 2.5% be enough. We saw money put into defence at the budget but still saw cuts. And what if the economy doesn’t grow or shrinks then we could see defence spending in cash terms shrink.
2.5% of GDP isn’t enough. It ought to be 3% next year and possibly more the year after. Putin doesn’t care about quality but recognizes spending, as spending represents commitment. There is a high chance that we won’t spend on the right things, because we don’t know what we will face. We need flexibility that’s why the current mixed RAF – FAA F35b makes so much sense
Besides arguing over the percentages isn’t more pressing that any new money needs to be spent on getting acquisitions actioned to fill in any gaps right now if not already done!? Buy what’s needed!
Before any new money is spent on equipment we must address recruitment and retention. There is no point ordering more tanks, planes, ships, if we cannot crew them. That should be the first priority. After that key enablers, without which new kit is again pretty useless. Munition stores also very important as we have been reminded about due to the Ukraine war. If the SDR addresses these issues without further cuts then it will still be a success, as long as the roadmap to spending increases is realistic.
100 % agree. Look at what a country is investing in defence currently. Canada is a prime example. Committed funding to F-35 fighters, P-8 surveillance planes,T26 Frigate replacement, Submarine replacement, Arctic OPV builds (almost done)and Arctic defence funding, investment in NORAD and various Army programs including a standing Mecahanized brigade in Latvia.
Tactical helicopter procurement is also on the agenda but no funding yet.
Canada is a very large country, wealthy but the infrastructure (Roads, Rail, Power, Gas infrastructure, Health care etc) costs a lot of money in its budget. The federal government is in partnership with the Provincial governments to maintain this infrastructure. When speaking to European counterparts, they forget how big Canada is.
Canada is bigger than the US physically but has just over 1/10th their population as well. The US forgets that too.
Yes. The SDSR needs to be a response to a threats based requirement. Eg what are the forecast threats against our peer enemies and what do we need to defeat those threats. That is not just about capabilities as some current capabilities might need to be lost (like the LPDs) to allow the military to focus on entirely new never before perceived capabilities so the military is fit for the future.
I’m hoping the USMC or Aussies will buy Albion and Bulwark. One thing is certain they shouldn’t be sold to China to become “floating casinos”
He is absolutely right. 2.5% of a flat lining GDP won’t be enough to do more than fund properly current force levels. Defence nuclear will account for nearly 40% of the equipment budget over the next 10 years leaving too little for any conventional expansion.
I think also that endless arguments about budget size is the wrong way to approach defence. Instead we need a proper, reasoned review of what exactly we expect the forces to be capable of and what equipment and force size they need to achieve it.
We also need to address the fact that defence inflation runs higher than general inflation, putting further pressure on funding. The tendency to specify the best is exacerbated by the awareness of falling numbers. It just adds to the problem. There are many examples where we could have spent less to achieve an acceptable outcome.
Finally, we need realism about what a country the size of the UK can do. Because of close links to the USA, we tend to try to match them in quality, to be a mini superpower. But even if we raise the budget to US levels of GDP, that will only buy us forces @ a sixth or seventh the size.
The problem is …2.5 per cent of what? The way Reeves has waded into the private sector 2.5 per cent of a reduced economic output could be less in pound notes than we are spending now. Percentages are a con and always have been. I want to see how much CASH defence gets OVER AND ABOVE INFLATION. We have had years of dilly dallying. Labour reckon they can find increases for everything backed by the miracle of no more tax rises. Let’s see them do it.
Raising defence spending significantly in an era where government borrowing is no longer essentially ‘free’, would require Labour to scale back some of its ideologically motivated vanity projects by an equivalent amount. Nothing they have done since taking office demonstrates any capacity for pragmatism on their part, so I’m not optimistic.
They are clearly being quite pragmatic in a lot of ways. Sure, they make all the silly noises you expect Labour to make, but when you actually look at what they are doing it is much more sensible.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some bits that are questionable at best (giving away BIOT, NI increase) but all in all I’m quite positive on Labour at the moment.
They say things like “green investment” which sounds like it is going to be stupid, and then you look closer and see it is actually just massive infrastructure spending dressed up with a pretty little ‘eco-friendly’ bow on top.
Starmer says “smash the gangs” because his own party would eat him alive if he said “immigration bad.” However, if you keep an eye to the sky you will notice regular flights deporting hundreds of people.
Basically, don’t fall for Labour’s own internal PR. They clearly understand both what the public wants/country needs, and then how to spin that so it appeals to their voters.
Can you give me one example of something Labour has done to date?
Well by they end of this month they will have deported 15,000 people in just 6 months… Just read the really left wing publications, they are going mental about the number of raids being undertaken on workplaces and deportations as well as changed a couple of laws around fast tracking deportations..where as the last government managing something like 4000 per year.
Well if the government wants to get in trumps good books then defence spending should be 3 per cent of gdp we spent far higher during the Cold War but there is a lot of heads buried in the sand
You ought to say the first cold war because we are well into the second cold war. I’m not sure when it started but no later than early 2022, quite possibly historians will put the date as early as 2011 when they review it with hindsight.
2.5% not enough ? Is even 3% enough ? And will we ever get there 🤔 probably not with HMG . Absolutely agree with some of the comments on the site in a way it’s pointless having Aircraft ,Ships ,Tanks etc if we don’t have the manpower .Let’s get more manpower in the services then bring along the kit ,not likely this will happen but still 🙄. But at the top of the list GBAD is a must really, it’s interesting Germany and Italy buying more Typhoons plus I believe Italy also looking into buying the German New Panther Tank .No doubt someone will mention Germany and Italy don’t have Nuclear weapons, true but at least they both have GBAD.
What do you mean by GBAD I’ve seen it mentioned many times and perhaps wrongly thought it stood for Great Britain Air Defence, which doesn’t tie up with Germany and Italy having it.
🙄
Ground based air defence.
There is a huge problem with defence spending:
The MOD civilian personnel strength (FTE) at 1 October 2023 was 61,455, an increase of 1,502 personnel (2.5%) compared with 1 October 2022 (59,953).
There is where the money really gets wasted! We need a huge cut to the staffing numbers there, especially on procurement.
Isn’t the total spend on civilian personnel strength about £2.3 billion ? <4% of total spending
That BBC Bear gets about.
I don’t see the logoc in Labour coming up with a plan to meet 2.5% after the next election. They need to go in to the election with something to shout about.
Somebody referenced £12bn. If that’s correct, there is hope. I only make it just over £5bn per annum in todays money, which clearly won’t be enough if I’m correct.
Quite obvious that defence spending needs to go beyond 2.5%.
I think it should be raised to 2.5% by the end of 2025 and 3% by the end of this Parliament. Every country in Europe needs to do the same, as well. If we all did that then that’s a massive deterrent to stop Russia in its tracks.
It then needs to be put into law that defence spending cannot be reduced below 3% of GDP.