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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
1) Well, you made the point: one cannot say capacities are fine by using the future tense. In the context, “will” simply means “no capacity available”. Also, De Grasse is to be delivered in 26, Rubis n 2028 and Casabianca in 2029 so no gap between old and new class. 2)Between refits and HMS Daring, how many are operational? Also, MN can launch cruise missiles and FDIs are entering into service 3 and 4) for the Type 23, how many are about to be decomissionned? 5)RN’s carrier spent more time in repair than at sea. https://www.thetimes.com/article/3-2bn-warship-hms-prince-of-wales-spends-longer-in-dock-than-at-sea-hmmhswv8z 8) I believe you… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.