In the House of Commons, John Healey, the Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne and Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, vehemently criticised the government’s defence strategy and spending.
He was supported by Matt Rodda, Labour MP for Reading East, who raised concerns regarding the retirement of the Hercules fleet.
Healey opened his remarks by asserting that the government’s spending on defence as a percentage of GDP indicates its priorities. He stated, “It was 2.5% of GDP in 2010. We have got nowhere near that in any of the 13 years after 2010 under the hon. Gentleman’s Governments.”
He acknowledged some positive changes in the 2023 integrated review but emphasised that these were mere rebalancing acts and not substantial reforms. He said, “that was a rebalancing of defence plans, not a reboot.”
Healey went on to criticise the UK Government for reducing the size of the Army, mentioning that “the Government are cutting the Army still further, to its smallest size since Napoleon.” He contrasted this with NATO’s efforts to increase its high readiness force and cited Germany’s commitment to boosting its defence budget by over €100 billion.
He further admonished the government for breaking the promise made during the 2019 election, “We will not be cutting our armed services in any form. We will be maintaining the size of our armed services.” He provided evidence by stating that there are “45,000 fewer full-time forces personnel,” and added that “one in five Navy ships has been axed, and over 200 RAF planes have been taken out of service.”
Matt Rodda then took the floor to ask Healey about the retirement of the Hercules fleet and its implications. He asked, “Does he agree that today, it is particularly worth mentioning the potential capability gap with the retirement of the Hercules fleet?”
Healey agreed with Rodda and emphasised that the questions regarding the replacement of Hercules with the A400 have still not been answered satisfactorily by Ministers.
Healey also shed light on the waste in procurement, asserting, “since 2010, we have seen Ministers waste at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through MOD mismanagement in procurement, with £5 billion wasted since 2019 when the Defence Secretary took up his post.”
He closed by posing questions to the Minister regarding the Command Paper, asking, “Will the defence Command Paper put an end to the Defence Secretary’s hollowing out of our armed forces? Will it halt deeper Army cuts? Will it pick up Labour’s plans to conduct a NATO test of major defence programmes to ensure that we meet our NATO obligations?”
There was no response offered in the debate.
Why no response? Are they aware and ashamed-particularly given the money wasted during Covid? When did the defence of the realm drop so low on our priorities?
As I recall Labour said Covid funding wasn’t sufficient, Starmer criticised Tories ending lockdown early! So show both parties are really not fit to govern.
I must admit both main parties are just as bad when it comes to their primary duty, Defence of the Realm. Unfit to govern is an accurate assessment in my humble opinion. I wonder how Farage would do as PM or should we just go straight for a military run state.
Er No. Not a good idea. Labour is simply critising the Government in a effort to undermine it like it does in every area. If it has any posibility of working Keir will try it. It bears no relation to what they might do in office. There will be little if any pressure from their base to spend very much if anything on defence. Keir may need to commit to not increasing taxes so defence spending could well be a target. In reality the UK needs a credible deterent which it has especially when considered as part of NATO. How… Read more »
And what we need to remember is had Labour won the last election Starmer would have been championing Cobyns defence of the realm, vast increasing defence spending on pens and paper to write strongly worded letters to……………………..
the US to stop sending arms to Ukraine.
Labour that great funder of the UK military….!
Successive UK governments have cut defence but Labour have done it more then the others. I have no confidence that a Labour government would build up our armed forces.
Historically both of the main parties have cut defence spending and capabilities at some points and invested at others.
Unfortunately it’s not something the general public get angry about or notice so its not a vote winner and politicians across the political spectrum or only really interested in popularity and balancing this years budget.
It’s not a popular topic with the electorate because they are mostly kept ignorant of the terrible state of our armed forces. The blame for that must rest with the Monarchy, top brass and the veterans community. The only people who could capture the electorates attention and back up their warnings with facts, figures and photographs.
In the last 44 years labour have been in power for just 13, the other 31 have been Tory.
The last 44 years we’ve hardly has an real challenges around defence. It not been a feature of Tory or Labour policy.
I feel that you just might remember the 1981 Defence review which would have decimated the UK armed forces if it hadn’t been for the Argentine invasion of the Falklands.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Paper#:~:text=The%20regular%20army%20was%20to,giving%20a%20total%20of%2055%2C000.
Indeed it precipitated the invasion of the Falklands.
Erm.
44 years
Falklands – couldn’t do it now
Northern Ireland – ditto
Gulf War 1 – ditto
Sierra Leone – maybe
Fmr Yugoslavia – maybe
Gulf War 2 – not a chance
Afghan – ditto
No, you’re right. 100%
I don’t see why the UK military could not ‘do’ the Falklands now?
I don’t think the Argentine military could take the Falklands now.
The greatest difference & enabler for us being “able” to do a Falklands now is the far worse state of Agentine forces. Their navy & airforce is too small to overwhelm the garrison down there. Unless the PLA help the Argies, which is not too far from a possibility. Very matey with China is Argentina.
While I agree the UK forces has shrunk badly. In fact the worse the threat the more our capability has shrunk. However – You list. “Falklands” Not sure how you work out “we could not do it now” With a garrison in place and could be reinforced, we could do it again. With the F35B and HMS QE – probably more firepower than last time. Now counting Typhoons that could fly from the Falklands. “Northern Ireland” Why could we not do that – I think at most UK had 10,000 troops there, I am sure that could be matched. The… Read more »
Hi
I did not mean defend the Falklands, I wrote do a Falklands.
Now, if you read Big Boy’s Games, Big Boy’s Rules and served inside some units, you’re looking at circa 70K involved in ‘security.’
Do you think we could stand up that many now?
Daniele and I have reached a consensus both main political parties are a shower…
I think at a push we probably do a Falklands. at a push, I think we have 76,000 troops plus marines.and 34,000 Volunteer Reserves. To answer your question – Falkland,s is one matter, Partnering the US in a Gulf type operation – It would be on a tiny scale if we tried. To be honest I am not sure our rotten political parties would even try. Both political parties are dross – worst in my lifetime and I can’t see it getting better. I remember Boris in his review saying MOD was getting a large cash boost – What was… Read more »
There’s a queue for disillusionment – you’re at the back 😉
NSM. Mk41. CAMM on T45. Army uplifts to come, especially in artillery. NCF, Artificial Intelligence, Space Command, Tempest, AUKUS SSNR thus, Barrow, Faslane, Raynesway. Typhoon radar, munitions stock increases, Boxer order to number 1,000 plus, and on an on. Much also vanishes in inflation and delays/cock ups.
Yes, there was an uplift. Twice, one by BJ and one recently from Sunak, but way below what BW was requesting.
And yes, both are utter dross and as bad as the other.
Impressive list – Most of Tempest cost will be in the future. AUKUS will pay for itself. A lot of things are going on as you say – But fact remains we only have 76000 regular troops. 18 Frigates and Destroyers. Hercules C-139 gone. 1000 Boxer’s good – shame about how much was wasted on Ajax before it finally may be OK, Which proves you right on delays/cock ups.Inflation will come down, True to say since Thatcher, no government has taken defense seriously If war was to happen, we would have to have large numbers on conscripts if it was… Read more »
Money wasted on Ajax?
https://defence-blog.com/uk-army-resumes-training-on-ajax-armored-vehicles/
yes it’s late but the money being spent would have gone on anther AFV! Also note Ajax is still actually under budget.
The British Army’s £5.5 billion armoured vehicle has a new in-service date of 2025.
When the programme began in 2010 the initial expectation was for it to enter service around 2017. This had shifted to 2020 when the manufacturing contract was awarded in 2014
$5.5 Billion and was expected to enter service around 2017..
It is late by 15 years.
After all the delay – it’s to be hoped it’s worth the money.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9764/#:~:text=The%20British%20Army's%20%C2%A35.5,in%2Dservice%20date%20of%202025.
Its not just the money though is it..its the time taken to deliver and the impact that has on the structure of the forces and what and how they deliver. Time is a resource in its own right and failure to deliver to timescales has a financial impact regardless of other fiscal costs. For example if they said if was gong to be another 5 years what would the impact be…what about another 10..at what point would you say fk it and move on. Ajax has failed to deliver against it’s time based requirements..and just saying it’s under budget is… Read more »
Ok let’s bin it after all this time, it is a disgrace I agree but if we do then that is the money wasted! How long would it take to source and buy a replacement afv?CV 90 we would go to the back of the queue to buy them by that time Ajax should be ready 🤞
At the height of the troubles there were 28,000 troops in N.I
Falklands Conflict – we clearly could not bomb the enemy strategically, and we haven’t yet got enough STOVL aircraft embarked on carriers. Is that what you mean? I don’t think we would need as many surface ships as in 1982 as modern ones are more capable.
Northern Ireland – we would have to re-create the UDR, but if we did, we could surely do Op Banner again.
Graham
Regular forces: 1 fielded Bn needs 3 in rotation.
The PSNI of old (RUC).
Army Air Corps (breathe Daniele!)
UDR
Them
14 Int et Al.
5 and 6, GCHQ
Royal and RN
Civi support.
We couldn’t do another Op in N.I. at the scale needed but, the IRA could and with the latest tech, we’d be mincemeat.
Yeah, there were 2 Infantry Bdes in the ORBAT HQNI I recall, don’t remember how many Battalions each, we no longer have them spare. NI today has 2 regular Bns usually stationed at Palace and Theipval Barracks, plus the varied AR units. Army also has EOD elements, Royal Signals ECM specialists, what remains of 5 AAC, other minor bits and pieces, and the successor to 14, reportedly, has a detachment. You say we’d be mincemeat, and mention tech, yet that works both ways, the tech of the intelligence services is of a magnitude far greater than in the troubles. We… Read more »
Daniele, we had three infantry brigades under GOC NI – 3x (headquartered in Armagh), 8x (HQ in Londonderry), 39x (HQ in Lisburn). In Dec 1989 for example – (source is Wiki/Headquarters Northern Ireland) there were: 3x – 1 x reg bn, 3 x UDR bn 8x – 1 x reg bn, 1 x TA Bn, 4 x UDR bn 39x – 2 x reg bn, 1 x TA bn, 3 x UDR bn 10 x UDR bns in this example ie UDR were the mainstay back in the day which was why I said we would have to recreate the… Read more »
Thanks for the detail Graham. The operation would in effect be the sole effort of the entire army, such are the reductions.
Yes, I believe the UDR was the largest regiment of the army?
I don’t think there would be the same scale of trouble, no.
Yes, UDR was at its peak some 11 battalions – incredible. I especially take my hat off to the Roman Catholic members – very brave.
In my service days, I can’t recall an Infantry Regiment being generally more than 3 or 4 battalions.
But RRS is 5 bns (3 x reg, 2 x AR) plus an incremental coy – and The RIFLES is 7 bns (4 x reg, 3 x AR). Best not to be over-awed – they are only large because of amalgamations etc
David, I mentioned that we would have to recreate the UDR – at their peak they fielded 11 battalions. British Army has 33 regular and 16 AR battalions – albeit in different roles. What does your list mean? The PSNI is the RUC rebranded but so what? Army Air Corps – they still exist but no longer have fixed wing compared to the time of The Troubles – are you saying the AAC could not now do the job they had in NI because they have lost a few B-N Defenders? 14 Int – superseded by the SRR – whats… Read more »
Read my my comment above in line with the comment i responded to. The problem is the politicians believe these were all dealt with adequately. A lot of them we had a choice to participate or not, so to a politician that’s means there’s an option. And let’s get back to the point of the riginal poster even though Tories have been in power more would any of that list driven massive change in defence spending from labour. I’d say no.
Depends what you mean by challenges? Challenges in finding budget to meet commitments? Challenges in recruiting and retaining establishment levels of manpower? Challenges in buying sufficient numbers of affordable equipment?
I mean not me personally but our politicians. We know there challenges but these are not going to reflect badly on politicians so they’re ignored.
Yes I thought I was clear that neither of tge main parties have got a good record on defence – all have under funded. However I think you will find that Labour on average spend less on defence. Also I am not sure Labour can be trusted with the nuclear side given their ex leaders admission that he would never push the button. Also Labour would likely do deals with the SNP that could make Scottish independence more likely – weakening NATO and our defence further. Defence in the hands of Labour would be a farce. The would also ditch… Read more »
Well as cobblers goes, if we ever re-shore shoe making from China, you’ll never be unemployed 😉
If Labour does get in I will look forward to being pleasantly surprised. A 2.5% plus increase to the defence budget. Nothing would make me happier… I do not care what party funds the military well so long as someone does for a change.
Well, they have committed to the NATO level – now if only that was pushed to 3% we’d have pina coladas all round 🙂
And i don’t remember a tory party take us to war on a lie. RN state is due to labour building to carriers but no escorts or support ships. blame can be found at all. so dont bother
As he points out labour were funding at 2.5% of GDP, it was Tory austerity that knocked it down.
So what has been Labour manifesto pledge in the last 3 elections. 2% as I recall? And if there wasn’t the Ukraine war it would still be 2% I suspect, as would the Tories I’ll add. I don’t think either party can claim any moral high ground on defence tbh.
The tory cut is worse when adding in the fact they moved trident into the core budget as well.
Add in the context as well. In the labour era the world looked a more stable place and cold War spending levels really were hard to justify.
What the austerity channel money into the old boys coffers party has done is unforgivable.
The world was more stable under Labour? We fought the two most significant wars our military has taken part in this century under Labour (Iraq and Afghanistan). They caused huge damage to our armed forces and are responsible for the deaths of many UK military personnel through fighting two long wars with a peacetime defence budget. In fact, they even cut the defence budget in real terms while fighting those wars. Gordon Brown had to apologise for lying about that to the Iraq enquiry.
Wars of choice though
They are not in remotely the same scale as the potential conflicts we are confronted with now! Nor were they taking place for a significant length of the labour term in office. The reason they did so much damage to our forces was specifically due to that. They were equipped and re-roled for guerilla insurgency conflict not peer level conflict which is the focus now. Now we find ourselves facing that conventional threat again with forces that for years were forced to not maintain their capabilities to fight that threat Just look at the dismal state of the army’s armored… Read more »
Well said. As a very personal Defence Cut’ under Labour in 1975 (it still rankles) I heartily agree. However, got a Thankyou’ letter from some under Minister, it still hangs on the wall in the b*g!
We did not fight any wars. Conflicts yes.
GW1 – We should have done
GW2 – stayed away.
Afghanistan, go in, slot the tossers and come out. On that we certainly failed. Of course, we could have gone Chinese and stayed a la South Korea and actually changed things; we need to stop following America.
Well none of that 2.5% every went on maintaining kit, I remember the tanks on TV in Germany with broken turrets, when committed to being involved in the Gulf.
In truth there is no political will to spent any more cash on defense – I am sick of both parties, Labour might spent a little more but the danger is – ‘trident’
Tory austerity knocked everything down, apart from bankers bonuses & the super rich’s wealth. The whole of society is poorer & less resilient. The health service was in a terrible condition when Covid hit & all the vaccination research that HMG wants to take credit for(!) had their budgets cut.
Banker bonuses. These are paid to investment bankers who deal with global money, most of it coming through the UK rather than generated from the UK. They get a % as a bonus, all investment bankers will be in the 40-45% tax bracket so that 40-45% to HMRC of money from bonuses generated foreign transactions. The alternative the bonus isn’t paid and then its extra profit for the bank which is taxed at 25% so far less or the profit is booked elsewhere in the world meaning 0% for HMRC. I know which option I prefer, we need to make… Read more »
But the traditionally “strong on defence & law & order” Tories have bought the forces down to historic, unsustainable & reckless lows. So small that we did not deter Russia from invading Ukraine, again, & Xi from making fierce threats to invade Taiwan.
Yes but what would have Labour done….
We haven’t been in power for 13 years, what are you expecting?
But if you had won the last election what would they have done, you can’t just say you haven’t been in power for 13 years, as the main opposition you had an obligation to offer a credible alternative on defence, you didn’t! We have political system where were voting for the least worst option. I won’t be voting for Labour or Tory neither are fit to govern imo.
Reminds me of the 1930’s, the Baldwin Government cut defence, then in the run up to WW2 there was a scramble to rearm! Seems we are repeating history.
Yes. But where is the scramble to rearm?
Spot on, no scramble, no … Well nothing really! The problem is we have let defence fall so far below critical mass in virtually all areas, it would take a huge effort and two decades to put it all right. The next question is what exactly is ‘right’? Certainly not Cold War levels, but an ideal snap shot to me would look like this, Regular Army of 100,000, 350 MBT and 5 armoured Regiments, everything else built around it with modern APC’s Artillery etc. Army reserve at 30,000 and flexible too. An Airforce with 12 fighter squadrons, plus Loyal wingmen… Read more »
Just to add to the above, sensible off the shelf procument to equip the mentioned force levels where applicable, otherwise all the additional money would be swallowed up in bespoke hugely expensive programmes.
So off the shelf MBT’s, APC’s, Helicopters, UAV’s and small arms for example.
Keep UK production to our strengths, warship, Tempest ect.
Agree with you about off the shelf equipment. Much of it could be assembled or built under licence on the UK preserving jobs.
And maybe not decommissioning what we already have, let alone have continued to utilise ’til the very end, like C130. Plus skill sets.
Or, more generally, fail to adequately ‘update/service’ equipment in preference to announcing the platform ‘obsolete’ – something that likely surprises many other nations – and then requires a ‘capability gap’ whilst we ponder a replacement in late, miniscule & expensive numbers.
Rgs
You’ve been thinking about this, haven’t you?
😉
Given it some thought, haven’t we all David! Now give me a plush office, a government cheque book and I’ll get cracking!
Sounds good to me – and we are already about there on Army Reserve numbers!
I think the Public and the politicians might need to see a more immediate and dangerous threat to the UK to be supportive of those numbers (even though it is only partially restoring the Forces to what we had 10 or so years ago).
I think you’re right Graham, I personally can’t see any chance, just never ending contraction unfortunately…..
Contraction must stop at some point, surely?
When we reach the point when the armed forces cannot do anything other than minor deployments.
That’s sort of where we are, penny packet deployments and not seriously looking to deploy more than a Brigade.
Talk of Deploying a Division is quite frankly laughable, it would all but break the Army to deploy in the numbers involved…
We currently have two BGs plus Bde HQ and other elements in Estonia with the NATO eFP force – an enduring operation. I doubt we could deploy a full army brigade on an enduring operation without recourse to reservists and RM commandoes.
It has been said for some time that we should be able to deploy 3 UK Div by 2025. That would of course be on a one-shot operation. Not sure of the strength of 3xx – maybe 20,000 – 25,000.
Evening Graham, the only way I could see that happening now is the threat of general war, if the Army deployed 25,000 personal, it would push the strain to the absolute limit . The Army is steadily falling towards 70,000 as numbers continue to shrink, Labour bemoaning the cuts in troop numbers is utterly irrelevant, as the Army will likely struggle to maintain 72,000 anyway…. The Army reserve would probably have to be deployed in its entirety of trained available personnel to fill the gaps, if we deployed 25,000. I just can’t see it, everything is being pared down in… Read more »
Afternoon John, The only reason the field force of the armed forces exists is to deploy on operations and the only thing they do when not on operations is to train for operations. It has been reported widely for some time that the army will be ready to deploy its warfighting division (3 UK Div) in 2025 – the reason for ‘delay’ is that units are currently restructuring and in some cases relocating in line with the Future Soldier (FS) ORBAT. If a NATO or other alliance operation was stood up and eyes looked to the UK to field its… Read more »
Totally agree Graham…
I think it would require a NATO emergency response to deploy a Division now, I would be surprised if we see it actually happen to be honest.
I would thing enduring ops of 3,500 and short term ops of about 6,000 will be what’s offered on the next US led bun fight, putting us firmly on the subs bench with the wheezy boys.
Perhaps a smaller armed forces will stop the next Blair from getting is involved in crazy wars….
John, If we deployed our warfighting division (3 Div) it would be to fight a war with allies against a ‘state actor’ – no other reason. You may be surprised to see it happen – but we have deployed a division on warfighting operations twice in the last 30 years – Op Granby and Op Telic. However in both those cases the enemy was Iraq – and that ain’t going to happen again – Saddam is gone. The only ‘enemy’ that might prompt such a deployment is Russia and then only if they attack a NATO country. Other ‘threat’ nations… Read more »
Afternoon Graham, you read me wrong there, I totally agree with you that the ever shrinking armed forces is absolutely appalling. I’m not making any case for it whatsoever, simply stating that’s unfortunately where we are now in 2023 The main difference in the time line of Granby, Telic and today is the Army is virtually half the size it was during Granby! It’s substantially smaller than it was back in 2003 too, with less of everything, especially tanks. When the Army fought hard to retain 3 Armoured Regiments, it argued that three was the absolute minimum to achieve armoured… Read more »
Hi John, I am very well aware of the contraction of the army (I served 1975-2009). It seemed to me that you were doubting the army could deploy a division because the army’s total size has reduced. A football manager can still field an 11 man team even if his training squad has reduced from 40 to 20. 3 Div is restructuring to meet Future Soldier (FS) and some units are relocating – all done by 2025. However we have a warfighting division in the ORBAT and if a warfighting division is required then it will go. Corollaries will be… Read more »
Totally agree Graham, I personally think the deployment of a division moving forward, will be entirely the preseve of NATO operations, I can’t see another out of area operation of this size, as it would effectively mean our ability to hold the NATO line would be badly damaged. NATO is the bedrock of our defence, especially now as we have effectively dissarmed over the last 30 years, dramatically limiting our ability to act unilaterally Our NATO contribution has to be front and centre. Like you I find the constant cuts a major red light, they will increasingly cast a shadow… Read more »
Britain has world beating complacency in defence matters! We should be perfectly safe if we all adopt HMGs stance & keep our heads stuck firmly in the nice warm, safe sand.
The big difference is that Germany was highly competent, where as the Russians are complete donkeys. China is on the other side of the world and we don’t have an empire to defend. Countries like Malaysia and India don’t want our help. Countries like Taiwan and Japan do but at the moment none of them spend any where near 2% on GDP although Taiwan has just got back their however if you are facing an imminent threat on your door step you should really be spending 4-8% of GDP. None of that is a good reason to gut infrastructure or… Read more »
We have just seen inflation in double figures in the UK because of a war in Ukraine. If 90% of the world’s top-quality computer chips ceased to be produced, what do you think that would do to the price of the remaining 10% and to our technology-focused economy? What about stopping the UK’s $100bn trade with China if we needed to impose sanctions? Not to mention the disruption of trade with ASEAN and our new CPTPP allies. Our economy would be wrecked for a decade. You have a very limited idea of “complete security”. I’m surprised you didn’t call China… Read more »
Not our issue much rather a global issue. Sleepy Joe and Team America can handle it, they don’t want our help. Taiwan could start spending some decent money on defence. Most people in Taiwan will accept Chinese occupation of the alternative is war, that’s why Taiwan does not spend on defence like Israel.
I think China has an interest in prolonging the war in Ukraine and the suffering, providing some support but not enough for Russia to make big gains quickly. its a great show case to Taiwan, who will look at whats going on and ultimately think is it really worth it. Previously they were probably thinking any Chinese incursion would be short lived with aid arriving from the US and the West, now they’ll be thinking even with Western aid a war could drag on for years.
Absolutely agree. If we prioritise what is needed for the defence of the UK, its offshore assets and its overseas possessions, the current budget,properly spent, should be sufficient.
If on the other hand we try, as we have done since WW2 , to be a mini superpower, we get continuous cuts in numbers and recurring budgetary crises.
Yes, better to reset the aspirations rather than the budget. No benefit in being the worlds policeman we got f**ked before on it and now the guys who f**ked us the most want us to help out. 😂
Certainly our defence budget is more than sufficient for defence of the homeland and the BOTs, by a massive margin. I am surprised you consider that our global engagement started post-WW2 – more like several hundred years ago. Our Global Britain remit (as signed up to by both Tory and Labour Governments over generations) costs a great deal. Some modification has occured such as the policy to withdraw from east of Suez from 1966. But that has been partially reversed recently. We seem to get frequent defence cuts to pay for ever more costly education, health and social welfare programmes.… Read more »
Exactly. The UK does not need Trident, I agree. Italy, Germany, Spain etc do not need it. Why does the UK
Exactly. The UK does not need Trident, I agree. Italy, Germany, Spain etc do not need it. Why does the UK.
They don’t need it because UK and France have it. We provide a nuclear umbrella for our allies.
In the 30s there was a plan though. British shadow factories were the outcome of the Shadow Scheme, a plan devised in 1935 and developed by the British Government in the buildup to World War II to try to meet the urgent need for more aircraft using technology transfer from the motor industry to implement additional manufacturing capacity.
I really really really hope this is some undercover plan the government has today. 😀
Let’s face it a Labour government wouldn’t be any better on defence just like the Conservative government both had bad has each other .Not right that Hercules is gone ,would Labour have kept them ,who knows ?
You can read Nia Griffith’s 2018 RUSI speech. So if they won in 2019 essentially peacekeeping force with lots of humanitarian capabilities 😀 On the plus side Hercs would have stayed 😀
God…so scary. And how many MPs supported that who are still there now?
Well we gave Corbyn the good news.
😉
She did also strongly criticise outsourcing and the resulting Defence PFI contracts – so she gets a few marks for that.
Also, I just looked up Labour’s Policy Platform which might shape their 2024 Manifesto. Section 6 – Britain in the World looks OK but no mention of ‘Global Britain’ in defence terms:
https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/#six
Fairly high level stuff want it all means for defence, time will tell.
In essence there seems to be no difference between Labour and the Tories in terms of Defence BUT can you imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had somehow become Prime Minister? He would not only have destroyed the Armed Forces but compromised the UK’s security with some dodgy nations and would not have been averse to giving away some key overseas territories. The Tories would not be party to such extremes despite their shortcomings. In the 50’s and 60’s Duncan Sandys caused huge damage to the British aircraft Industry with forced mergers and declaring that manned fighters would soon be obsolete!! Harold… Read more »
Very true ,very sad
It is all true, and damning. I just wish he would stop always taking the easy headline talking of personnel numbers in the army as if adding a few thousand back will sort it out. It is not 10,000 personnel, it is 10,000 establishment posts. The army has been way below the establishment of 82,000 for many years, 76,000 I last read. So 76,000 to 72,000 is NOT 10,000 is it? The actual number of bodies being dropped is a lot fewer. If the army is 72, 75, 80 thousand makes little difference if it is not properly organised with… Read more »
Bravo 👍 Well said.
100% spot on.
Daniele, dear, please breathe.
I’m happy about one thing.
Defence is being raised by Labour, and rightly so; Rome was not built in a day and people are pushing for Defence to be pushed higher into the public consciousness.
Take comfort in tiny acorns.
That was not a rant or a shout mate, so I’m breathing quite well, thank you.
2 MPs asking questions, one of whom who has that brief, so it is his job, does not give me any comfort that the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party think the same or give it any concern whatsoever, sorry.
It’s all part of the game Daniele. When you are in opposition the name of the game is to find fault with the government. John Healey is just doing his job – criticising the government so as to eventually to bring it down. Not too difficult since there is a real issue of competence.
Doesn’t say anything about whether a Labour government would be better of worse. To be honest the country needs fundamental cultural and systemic change, starting with the constitution. I’m not holding my breath.
Which is fine, Paul.
Fundamental cultural and systematic change..yes, it does, sadly. It needs to rediscover who it is, and be proud of that, and I don’t think the woke stuff helps in that regard.
Will Labour abolish the Lords? I’d support that for starters.
Tory Lord Fowler has written in the DT more than once I think that we need a complete review of the House of Lords. Boris Johnsons honours list looks could be the final nail in the coffin. Labour are on record as saying they will replace it with an elected senate of the regions. Sounds like way to go. The current system of prime ministerial peerages is an abuse of the system of patronage. Lord Lieutenants the length and breadth of the country are sleuthing out men and women who have given a lifetime of community service for their MBE… Read more »
I agree, it’s a ridiculous insult to those who actually deserve such an honour.
I wouldnt .What you going to replace it with as we cant just have the government (whichever flavour) riding roughshod over laws.I dont want an americanised 2 house structure thanks v. Much..that causes more trouble than enough.I would however restructure it ,and stop or at least curtail the ridiculous peerage given out like sweeties by all PMs….you I know those for ‘services rendered’ like getting the morning latte or folding his newspapers correctly.
It was raised. Shall we count our meagre blessings?
The trouble is your wish list would require a lot of additional funding which we can be pretty sure won’t be forthcoming. To free up resources to deliver at least some of what you set out, something big has to go. The most obvious is to recognize that we cannot afford to operate 2 carriers with the full air wings planned for them. Re purposing one for amphibious operations, as was planned but quietly dropped, would allow the Albions to be retired and their crews redeployed. No additional F35s need be bought with all allocated to RN use. Money saved… Read more »
“lot of additional funding which we can be pretty sure won’t be forthcoming.”
Exactly. So the Shadow Defence Secretary’s complaining is worth….?
Zero.
I know my list was fanciful, even though much of it is already planned. I’d bite the arm off for Labour to even action SOME of it while not hamstringing the UK as a major power with their ideology, which has already been stated by Healey in his comments regards non Europe military activities.
Don’t disagree with your shopping list but we are already seeing unplanned de facto cuts even before the new command paper. Frigate numbers down to 10, RFA vessels tied up because of crew shortages. As you say, a good deal of your wish list has been ordered with funding ( more or less) in place. If more money is needed to cope with supply chain inflation, there are limited options to save money on planned but uncontracted equipment. Not ordering more F35s for a carrier we don’t really need could free up several £b for more necessary equipment. I don’t… Read more »
If we only had one carrier and that was HMS PoW, we would not have a deployable capability due to its current technical problems. At the least that would be embarrassing.
Two carriers gives you a 70% chance that one was available for ops.
I don’t think it was ever perceived to be likely that both carriers would be deployed simultaneously? If so, do we need two air wings?
Exactly. It wasn’t.
The airwing either splits between both, or is on the one, and the other Carrier takes whatever can be put on it.
Which is STILL much better than having but a single carrier.
Apart from having a back up when one carrier is in dock, or if the sh1t really hits – why is it …genuine question.
If we had a single carrier that extra money would have been elsewhere , if we have 2 surely we need to do it properly , and it seems obvious we do not have the funds or desire to do that.
There is surely a consideration having 2 as we do is an overall detrimnent with little gain for the outlay?
I’m not convinced the current approach is/has been the optimal solution.
Pretty much your first 2 points. Though I agree with your logic, it’s a tempting thought isn’t it. What would we save to spend elsewhere, and what extra advantages would that give us over 2 carrier capability? This is RN spend. More T31? Assured T32? More Merlin? Ideally need a flat top for them to operate as a group. 3 or 4 T26? Who would buy the 2nd? Would the RN not have considered that possible saving in their desire for 2 when accepting reductions in the escort fleet? To me, carriers are strategic assets for sea denial and power… Read more »
Thanks Daniele. If money was ‘no object’ perhaps we should have three carriers (so one at least is always available as the ships get older and reliability dips) and plus a LPH (replacing HMS Ocean)!
I followed closely the early years of the carrier plan, from 35/40000 ton super invincibles through ever larger vessels to the adopted solution of the largest ships ever built for the RN. The commitment to F35b was made as early as 2004, with UK contributing $2.5b to development costs. At the time, the decision was criticized by some for cutting carrier numbers from 3 to 2. The plan was never to use just one, rather to have at least one always available. The aircraft numbers announced were broadly a one for one replacement for RN and RAF Harriers, joint force… Read more »
Really interesting. I also recall the story that Cameron wanted to cancel one of the carriers on coming to office, but was told the cancellation charges would be too high. Surely the reason we only have a few F-35s is that we either ordered late in the day or that manufacturing is slow for the B models? Or have other nations jumped the queue? In your answer, you both accept that 2 carriers are required to better ensure that one is available for ops yet doubt the need for a second carrier – I am a little confused. I seem… Read more »
Alternatively, we could recognise that rail privatisation has failed. Paying lawyers and accountants for delay attributed payments could be kicked into touch. Money go round that pays white collars cash for?? Whole fleets of modern EMUs have been scrapped! What happened to cascading stock? Each rail line has their own stock, that can not be cascaded onto other lines – joined up thinking or what? Let’s assemble Japanese produced Class 800+ in the North of England… … we could have BUILT more pendolinos in Birmingham for half the price. Every Bobby needs a degree, discuss. Every teaching assistant needs a… Read more »
I agree with all that, mate. And not one politician will say tighten your belt. Some Tories that suggested people maybe should not be spending money on Sky Tv, fags, mobiles, and Gyms, but feed the family as 1st priority were loudly condemned I recall? Sensiblecomments, but not when it comes from the mouth of a Tory.
Yes, we need to pick Strawberries more.
Nice one Daniele
While I agree with the statement. Partys in opposition always criticise the government on defence, only to make cuts themselves once in No10. Opposition party’s don’t have to take responsibility for what comes out of there mouths, or have the full picture on the state of the nations finances. I’d only believe Labour if they came out with a proper strategy for defence and was fully funded, not just some shouty argument in the house of commons.
Er.
Good answer.
Well presented.
WRONG.
This Opposition has been too quiet on Defence and finally the penny has dropped.
My take is that Labour have played their hand well. Their strategy has been to strike at the government weakest points – the integrity of its members and gross injustices and incompetences. Undermine them and you undermine the government, When you have succeeded in that you can move onto attacking detail policy areas – stick the boot in when they are down so to speak. As I say, just my take.
The issue I have with Labour is that they could have taken the Tory rhetoric and stuffed it up the Con arseholes.
There have been so many instances of misleading parliament, the Tories should have been hung drawn and quartered.
Daniele will argue for well funded Divs supported by CS and CSS.
Labour has committed to NATO, as others have posted, we need to work within our means – I agree with Daniele except does that mean Divs or Div?
Well rounded air component with 32 fleet Escorts – I haven’t heard Labour state that.
And I’m Labour.
Agree re Labour policy silence. But that’s what I would expect this distance from the election. Keeping their powder dry. Show your hand too soon and an entire regiment of Tory analysts, researchers and press have oodles of time to find holes and demonstrate how it can’t be funded without borrowing and pushing up interest rates etc, etc. One thing does seem to be emerging though is that Labour would prioritise NATO and the Atlantic over the ‘Indo Pacific Tilt’ ..cut our coat according to our cloth. They see Russia and the main enemy rather than China. The US and… Read more »
Paul
Your last sentence is where I am at odds with Labour.
I have seen at first hand the malign influence on my daughter’s country: Sri Lanka.
We absolutely do need to engage with commonwealth countries and we need to beatst both China and the US in providing disaster relief first.
America chooses allies when she needs them, the UK should stand aloof as well and that means presence.
You have a fair point. The White Ensign punches above its weight. The UK stands for something. My own view is that our current approach of 2 OPVs and a LRG is about right and affordable. Plus whatever navy exchanges follow from Aukus. The Aussies have just decimated their LAND IFV budget to pay for the Aukus subs. In any case we must get smarter at not wasting money.
“Daniele will argue for well funded Divs supported by CS and CSS”
“I agree with Daniele except does that mean Divs or Div?”
Not so. I support the UK having one deployable Armoured Division, not “Divisions” the army is too small for that. The other “Division” in the army, the 1st, is not deployable as a complete formation, though 1 Bde, the 7th, is. It also has Bdes heavily reliant on reservists and CS formations that would split up to other areas of the army.
The real problem is there is no votes in Defence as it dosn’t figure high in the public minds against other area of Government spending Untill the population decide it is important, funding will continue to leak out of Defence into other areas of public spending . The general public have no comprehension of the decline of our Armed forces. The politicians and Senior Service Commanders are always telling them that we have “world beating”, “best in class” military capability and that one modern sysetm can replace a number of older systems so the cuts are justified and necessary. The… Read more »
Summed the situation up perfectly. The public is blissfully ignorant of the taut numbers and the ageing kit.
A labour government will be the death of Tempest. That should have been the response. “Will the shadow defence minister commit his party to funding the Tempest project to squadron service”.That would have shut him up, but that such a response was not forthcoming was proof neither party cares about defence.
We don’t have access to the budget.
Now.
Will the Shadow Def Sec commit to obtaining all the money spent fraudulently during COVID with Con sponsors and invest that money in Defence, I’d vote for that.
Defense has been nothing more than a backup piggy bank for failed governments,Ever since the collapse of the USSR they have been laughing, even more after the Berlin wall came down, they could not wait to cut numbers and equipment with options for change, and it,s a trend that has continued, not one single government have done anything other than bits and pieces here and there just to hoodwink the people, look new shiny ships yes but not enough 12 destroyer’s reduced to 6..Two nice carriers but with little to escort them with frigates well out of date needing a… Read more »
So all we need now is an absolute commitment by Labour that they will spend 2.5 per cent of GDP. on defence. Meanwhile I shall be searching the skies for a squadron of pigs flying over.
You and me both mate! 🐷🐖🐽😆
Yummy. Porkers!🍽
maybe thats the answer . invest in genetic engineering
👍👽
I don’t honestly believe any party would reverse the decline, but at least it encourages the debate. If the general public cares they can push for it and make it a polictical focus, they won’t of course but debate helps.
Like many of the other comments below, I find it very rich this kind of statement coming from Labour, all their governments have in real terms cut Defence spending….in fact the only governments that ever raised it were Conservative.
Big disclaimer that these were in respect of WWII, post Falklands, and of course Boris Johnsons more recent increases.
The draft Labour Manifesto for 2024 (election year) has been released here is what they are saying about defence: Make national security the first priority · Apply a ‘NATO test’ to major defence programmes in Government to ensure our NATO commitments are fulfilled in full · Defend Article V as the cornerstone of our commitment to Britain’s security and ensure that the UK is the leading European nation in the alliance · Never allow defence spending to fall below our NATO commitments · Do more to lead efforts to secure strategic arms limitation and multilateral disarmament and reduce nuclear risk · Guarantee continued long-term… Read more »
Commission a comprehensive audit of departmental waste at the Ministry of Defence…..
There’s an interesting one, how about…
Commission a comprehensive audit of departmental waste within the NHS…… Some say 30 billion!!!
An amount of money equivalent to two thirds of the defence budget disappears every year through the NHS cracks through waste in all areas…
Odd that that Labour are utterly silent there, not a peep…
Anyone care to venture a figure of waste regarding welfare fraud ect, who will start me on 5 billion, do I see 6 ?
Nice one!
And yet 1. Veterans have been screwed over. You object to supporting them? 2. Commonwealth soldiers have been screwed over. You object to supporting them? 3. Armed Forces Covenant. You object? 4. British first in Defence acquisition. You object? 5. Take Russian assets, the Cons will be totally unpissed as there will be less Russian funded parties. You object? 6. A NATO test to commitments. Let’s see, example, CV90 Mk4 (enhanced) or Ajax? I’ll vote CV90. YOU Object? 7. Commitment to NATO min funding (looking at an increase to 2.5%). You object 8. Do all senior Braid share your thoughts… Read more »
David wrote: “”1. Veterans have been screwed over. You object to supporting them?”” I’m a veteran, (22 years +) and I don’t feel I have been screwed over. I get a damn good army pension , I have an Army veterans Train card , I have a defence discount card and I have a army discount card issued from the council (never used it) I did my resettlement cse (cost me nothing) and then did my resettlement which teaches leavers how to live as a civy (But to be fair as admitted by the instructors, I didn’t need it, as I have… Read more »
David wrote:
“”7. Commitment to NATO min funding (looking at an increase to 2.5%). You object””
The current NATO min funding is 2%, ther 2.5% is what Tories say they will lift it to. Its all in the worlding and when a polictical party (In this case Labour) states they will ensure they will abidie by NATOs min funding they are saying 2% and not 2.5%
David wrote:
“”Take Russian assets, the Cons will be totally unpissed as there will be less Russian funded parties. You object?””
Please be so kind as to point out any of my posts where I support the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I don’t , never have and never will do. The subject in question is currently heading towards its second reading in Parliament. So what labour has stated they will do, is already in motion.
https://i.postimg.cc/9X84mqdd/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-15-213443-bills-parliament-uk.png
You misconstrue Farouk.
I never said you did support Russia.
However, the last 12 years of Conning Administration could have taken the fexking Russians to the cleaners; we’ve had TWO NBC attacks on this country and the Cons still took donations.
The barstewards should be kicked out en masses.
Let me guess, bad for over priced houses, bad for Tory donations and bad for bunga bunga parties.
Well said JH. We’ll be down to 14 escorts for the RN before any new builds get comissioned in 2027. Suicidal madness.
This turns the world on its head. Labour complaining that the Tories are cutting defence too much, almost unheard of until recently. Unfortunately Labour are right. It will be interesting to see what happens when they get into power which is looking increasingly likely as the Tories have gone into self-destruct mode.
It is promising that Labour is criticising the Tories on Defence – maybe the message will get through to the Public?
And then back in the real world UK the 3rd or 4 th largest defence spender on the planet and Europe’s biggest defence spender . And one thing for sure Labour won’t be handing more than 2 % over to the armed forces ..
Wait a minute. I thought all Labour were interested in was establishing their beloved global marxism by destroying all types of nationalism. While destroying the nations religious identity by imposing diversity of both race and sexual perversion. I wonder what they hope to achieve by objecting to a reduction in our armed forces.
Suggestions accepted if written on the back of crisp £10 notes, sent to the usual address. Royal British Legion, SE1 1AA
This is just bait. It is to not be taken seriously.
Spoilsport.
Labour criticizing? Criticizing?? And Corbyn was their leader once … 🙄😬
The pot calling the kettle black!! Once again Labour spouting from their khazi!!
Does he know that other parts of government will have to be cut to fund any increase in defence expenditure? Labour won’t increase taxes.