In a recent exchange in the House of Commons, Defence Secretary John Healey reinforced the government’s commitment to reaching 2.5% of GDP on defence but left some questions about the timing and details of that commitment unaddressed.
Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge asked, “In which financial year does he expect the share of GDP spent on defence to start rising significantly, and will he guarantee to hit 2.5% in this parliament?”
Healey’s response focused on the government’s ongoing review processes and the strategic work already underway, but did not give a clear timeline on when the target would be fully met.
Healey underscored the government’s “cast-iron commitment” to reaching the 2.5% target, referencing the Prime Minister’s pledge at NATO and the government’s intention to align the necessary resources through the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR). “We are securing value for money,” Healey added.
While this reassured some, Cartlidge’s key question regarding a specific timeline for when the 2.5% target would begin to be met was not directly answered. Healey’s emphasis on ongoing assessments of defence left Cartlidge’s concerns regarding the immediate future unanswered.
Cartlidge also raised issues about a reported freeze on new procurement, asking how the Ministry of Defence would address urgent operational needs under the current limitations. In response, Healey acknowledged the importance of fiscal responsibility but did not elaborate on how these restrictions might affect the MOD’s short-term procurement strategies.
While Healey’s response reiterated the government’s commitment to defence and security, the lack of concrete answers on timelines and immediate procurement measures left some questions open. Cartlidge’s concerns about the growing defence demands and the need for urgent action were not fully addressed, but Healey did emphasise the importance of the SDR in shaping the government’s path forward.
While Healey reaffirmed the government’s long-term commitment to increasing defence spending, the exact timeline and specifics of how and when the 2.5% target will be met remain unclear. The upcoming Strategic Defence Review may offer the clarity that was not provided in this exchange. For now, the precise details of the government’s defence funding strategy continue to evolve.
Well that’s reassuring then. 😱
I wish they’d move away from this percentage lark like it is the solution to all issues.
Why don’t they mention what is included in it, and how political short termism, meddling, and need for in year savings to meet annual targets screws things up even more?
State the size and capability of your forces you want and build towards that.
Till then, I still see MoD budget as a convenient cash cow to the UK MIC.
The size of our armed forces is largely irrelevant, we could have 10 divisions or a single battalion and neither would make much of an impact on the European defence situation. what’s important is NATO’s capability and to ascertain that funding it’s prudent to talk about a % of the economy being spent on defence.
The major reason for the UK pleading 2.5% was to put pressure on ENATO to match, the reason this was held back at the last NATO summit was to give them something to throw to the Donald so he could tell everyone what an amazing deal he got for America especially given that by the end of the decade the US will be close to spending 2.5% as well.
Indeed at any peace time in the last 300 years outside of the Cold War the UK has maintained a defence budget of between 2% and 3% of its economic output.
10 Divisions wouldn’t make a difference to European defence? The US Army is 12 Divisions.
I think we’d find that adding the majority of the US Army to European defence would absolutely make a difference. I get the feeling that you, like many others, either vastly over, or vastly underestimate the size of NATO’s forces. Adding, or removing, a couple divisions will make a difference, and two British Divisions deploying to the East will, with our without America, be appreciated by our allies, and felt by the Russians.
There are 973 million people in NATO with 3.42 million service personnel so I reiterate my point that even if we had 10 divisions it would make the slightest bit of difference.
With 6000 nuclear weapons in Russia’s possession it likely would not matter if we had 100 divisions.
Sounds like you are expecting the Russians would go nuclear at the outset of a Russia – NATO war, and so therefore conventional force levels don’t matter?
Jim, those 3.42 million service people are not all in deployable field armies.
Good post.
I think we are starting at a pretty low base so if we could generate one fully equipped Armoured Division with all necessary support functions (and sufficient munitions) that would be a result. If that could be readily available and mobile enough to be deployed anywhere from Finland to Central Europe at short notice that would be a real benefit to NATO. If that could be augmented by airborne, amphibious and other light forces that would be in my opinion be our most useful contribution.
Let the continental European powers have the larger standing forces that we can reinforce and support as required.
We can then focus on the maritime domain and air defence where we need to be much stronger and which are essential for successful reinforcement to Europe from North America.
The fourth pillar of defence is a country’s economic and industrial strength and from that perspective things do not look good for the U.K. so whilst I would like to see larger forces I don’t think it is financially realistic.
So yes lets have an uplift to improve our conventional deterrent but we need to be careful in how we cut our cloth.
Couldn’t agree more DM. This magical 2.5% figure has been tabled since Trump president version 1.0. Little evidence to demonstrate why 2.5 % should be the number. I’m suspicious with rounded numbers. It indicates little or no needs based planning or robust analysis.
Enough with the ongoing excuse from both political parties- they need to get it done or just admit they will no do it.
Hopefully Trump’s re-election will spur NATO to get on with raising defence spend.
Presumably that’s the purpose of a strategic review. Define threats v needs and plan and implement accordingly.
One of the major issues i have with this obsession with 2.5% is that includes the CASD. I would ring fence the CASD money and remove it from the percentage of GDP.
Yep, that’s been mentioned on here by a few posters many times…but that would mean spending more money, so we all know that ain’t gunna happen.
Are they waiting until we’re actually involved in a war before deciding to do something about the state of our armed forces?
No, shock horror they are waiting for the results of the defence review before announcing anything.
These crazy politicians, they are all the same
What difference will the Defence Review actually make to the identification of the need to increase defence spending?
Do you think it will miraculously identify that we don’t need to spend 2.5% after all , that somehow its all been miscalculated and we only need spend 2% to meet our commitments- or maybe with a bit of luck even less?!
We all know that we do not/have not spent enough on Defence over the last 20 years or so – we are signficantly underfunded in most(all) areas, and the chickens are now coming home to roost- unless of course you somehow feel differently?
They could easily recognise this and commit to the spend without clarifying where exactly they need to spend it on- but they won’t and the only reason is they are going to kick the can down the road …again.
The wider issue here is mismanagement pure and simple. Look at some of ThinkDefence’s articles on the evolution of programmes and how things starting in the 70s/80s evolve or are cancelled or merged or replaced by other projects spending more and more without ever delivering. We follow a very American approach to procurement but they can afford to do things that way and we can’t.
Rumours now that an Ajax based IFV is coming despite everyone knowing that a warrior replacement was needed years ago. The warrior upgrade projects cancelled after hundreds of millions of pounds poured into them for no benefit. Chally 3 went much the same way with years and years of money going seemingly nowhere until Rheinmetall stepped in. The failure of watchkeeper. Crowsnest due to be out of service when it reaches full operational capability. And still no work has been done on a domestic trophy system just the few units we bought from Israel that will equip Chally 3, but not all of them cause we didnt buy enough.
I am as impatient as anyone else to see a concrete timetable and a clear financial settlement.
Healy has said that future funding plans will follow the 2025 SDSR, not precede it. That seems a logical way forward. We all know that money is extremely tight and anything extra for defence will likely have to come out of some other department’s budget, which is likely to involve a mega tug of war.
He has just squeezed £3bn out of the Treasury, no mean feat. We just have to be patient. If the SDSR is going to be any good, Robertson and crew need time to work through the political and strategic issues and try to get a handle on the MOD’s rather opaque budget and future procurement estimates, which the Commons’ Committee thinks the MOD is greatly understating.
Those framing the SDSR need the space to do a proper, thorough job on it. No doubt their proposals will be trampled over and pruned right back by Treasury and Civil Service bigwigs before we ever see it….
Mate your crazy, the logical way to do things is to leak as many lies to the news papers as possible about all the future plans you have then make everyone think your strong on defence before just cutting everything in mid year mini defence reviews (refreshers)
This labour nonsense about having a defence review conducted by independent experts then discussing the findings behind closed doors worth treasury and ally’s, then actually following through on the review findings is just nonsense. 😀
😂😂😂
If the 2025 SDSR process is not completed before HMG budget is approved in Mar 2025, what are the schedule implications for the MoD? Will any initial implementation be delayed until the Autumn budget adjustment/reconciliation, or until next major budget release in Mar 2026? 🤔
Most of the defence review is the budget discussion with the treasury. It will all be simultaneously announced but future years funding won’t be set in stone until the autumn statement.
Hmmm, interesting. Therefore, no new major programmes initiated until at least Autumn 25? Presume minor adjustments to existing programmes would be authorized w/in the Spring 25 budget process?
It’s a good point.
I doubt there will be any significant increase in the defence budget next year. This because
the recent budget set departmental spending targets and budgets for financial year, 25/26. So the extra £2.9bn for defence is likely not a one-off gift but an increase in next year’s budget.
The Chancellor’s Spring budget will set out the departmental budgets for 26/7 and 27/8. It would seem essential to have the SDSR completed before then, so it can be properly resourced. I wonder if it will be though. Under five months to do the review exercise and the inevitable Whitehall horse trading and get the White Paper through the House, that would be a scamper.
I suspect it would also suit the Treasury not to have to fund a big increase for defence next Spring and to do budget before SDSR.
That would leave HMG to then set out timetable and plans to get to their pledged 2.5%. That will need an extra £11bn pa, before inflation, a pretty massive increase from today’s budget. The only way I can see them doing it is to increase the budget incrementally over 4, 5, 6 years, £2-3bn a year.
What Trump does regarding NATO and Ukraine could of course change the dynamics and require a bigger and much more immediatr defence increase. If so, we are a bit stuffed, as the public finances are already stretched to the full.
I was reading about it last night and the SDSR is due to be delivered mid-2025. That at least gives Robertson and team enough time to do a proper review job.
(Whether its conclusions will be put forward in unexpurgated form is another matter).
The Chancellor will have to respond to the proposals in her autumn budget next October.
I cannot see why it should take up to a year to do this review. We had an IR and DCP in both 2021 and 2023. What really has changed since the latter?
I am fairly sure that SDRs are published in full.
We get charged so much in tax but the government can’t even take something like defence seriously what a insult to tax payers
You pay one of the lowest levels of tax in the OECD so I would not be too concerned.
Thanks for your assessment. Would anticipate a generally unfavorable “negotiated settlement” imposed upon Ukraine after the reduction/withdrawal of US military/economic aid to UKR. The Donald will probably subsequently announce a reduction (but not elimination) of US NATO specific expenditures, phased in over a relatively short time frame, w/ the expectation that ENATO will be compelled to commensuratly increase defence spending. The UK/US specific defense relationship will remain relatively unchanged, principally because of the AUKUS partnership. The Donald will, however, increase US defense expenditures in the I-P theater, in order to counter the greatest perceived threat to the US. This prediction re the near-term future could, of course, be totally incorrect, but deem it to be reasonably accurate. Forewarned is forearmed. 🤔😳🤞
…commensurately…🙄
How would Trump force or persuade Zelensky to accept an unfavourable peace treaty with Russia? What inducement would he offer?
Sorry, this was intended to be a reply to Cripes’ post.
Pure speculation, but possibly additional economic and military aid, and NATO membership decade(s) in the future. The Donald will argue that West Germany eventually prospered under somewhat similar circumstances.
I much rather we just ignored the most comprehensive defence review done in a generation and instead just went around pre announcing everything like the Tory’s did. 😀
I think what might be as relevant to the outcome of the SDR in terms of future U.K. defence capabilities is what Donald Trump does when he takes office. I fear for Ukraine but Europe needs to seriously up its game beyond 2.5% of GDP to properly deter Russia and take responsibility for its own security. Why should Americans tax payers continue to fund the ultimate guarantee of Europe’s security when WW2 finished 80 years ago.
Yes I agree, what the US does or does not do is actually of far more concern than what Russia and or China may do.
If the USA remains in NATO then defence spending of 2.5% is likely fine. If the US leaves NATO then defence spending of 3%+ is warranted.
I don’t mind waiting until SDR25 for the big announcements, so long as they actually materialise.
Cartlidge might perhaps have aimed his question about the timeline for the rise to 2.5% instead at the Chancellor! Healey does not know the answer.
What is this about a freeze on new procurement? MoD cannot stop buying new kit some 4 months short of the FY end. Pity Healey did not shoot that one down in flames….worrying.
I suspect it will be sooner rather than later thanks to the US election. Anyway, I think Trump is going to be demanding north of 3% in January, and the European side of NATO has no option but to oblige.
I also suspect the pre-ordained outcome of the Strategic Review (cuts) has changed…
Why would the European side of NATO have no obligation but to oblige exactly?
Because Trump will pull US forces out of Europe, at worst leave NATO, if he doesnt get the impression Europe is taking IT’S security more seriously. Same may happen if Europe doesnt support his efforts to stop the war in Ukraine.
Nonsense! It requires legislation in Congress to withdraw from NATO, with support of all wings of a same party. Problematic if with a narrow majority!
Still working hard for your masters in the Kremlin? Sure!
Trump did neither in his first term when most ENATO nations were committing less than 2%. He just made one or two hectoring speeches.
He cannot leave NATO without a Congress vote and legislation.
If Trump’s big idea about ending the Ukraine war in 24hrs is to bully Zelenky (somehow) into accepting a terribly unjust peace deal, then I hope that all of ENATO and EU would fiercely oppose that. We have moral standards, even if he doesn’t.
Yeah of course he will…
Not all of ENATO even meet the 2% (target, not a ceiling) despite Trump’s haranguing in his first term. European countries have an option to disregard any Trump hectoring to stump up 3% in his second term – they are independent sovereign nations. Trump has little sway over ENATO countries spending decisions.
Well of course they do. Liars tend to do what that.
The tablet added “what” for some reason.
.Do not moan if you vote for the lying establishment parties. Don’t vote for them!
thanks for info.