At the Labour Party Conference, Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey shed light on the party’s approach to defence.
Drawing directly from his speech, here is a detailed recount of the commitments he set forth.
Healey underscored the unwavering support the party has shown towards the Ukraine conflict, stating, “Labour has stood with Kyiv since day one.”
Highlighting the profound implications of the conflict for Britain, he affirmed, “That’s why the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine.”
Direct Criticism of Current Spending Delays
Pointing out the perceived inefficiencies of the current government, Healey remarked, “But just when Britain should accelerate our support and rebuild our stockpiles, the government is on a go-slow.”
He further detailed some of these delays, noting, “It took 287 days after Putin invaded for Ministers to sign a new contract for vital anti-tank weapons. 503 days to agree a contract for more ammunition.”
Labour’s Proposed Actions
In a pivotal procurement-related section of his speech, Healey announced, “I can announce today, Labour in Government will accelerate this £2 billion spend to rearm Britain, resupply Ukraine and boost British industry.”
Historical Defence Records
Healey also drew parallels with past figures when Labour was at the helm, mentioning, “When we last left government … Britain was spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. The British Army had 100,000 full-time troops. Satisfaction with service life was at 60%.”
Critique of Conservative Policies
He continued to highlight perceived shortcomings of the Conservative government, stating, “In 13 years, they’ve … Cut the Army to its smallest since Napoleon. Scrapped 1 in 5 Royal Navy ships. Taken 200 aircraft out of RAF service.”
Healey’s words at the conference offer a lucid outline of the Labour Party’s stance on defence; you can read them in full below.
“Conference, it’s an honour – as always – to address you. And it’s a pleasure to follow David. We work a great deal together, including this month’s visit to the US – our most essential UK ally. As we said in Washington, with threats increasing and war in Europe, security is now at the heart of every nation’s interests.
These words have special, shocking significance for Israel today … we utterly condemn the attacks and support Israel’s right to defend itself. We pray all hostages will return safely. Conference, a year has passed since we last met here, in Liverpool. Back then, we all hoped by now the Ukraine conflict would be over. But war still rages. Cities still bombed. Civilians still raped and killed.
When President Zelensky addressed Parliament earlier this year, he said: “London has stood with Kyiv since day one”. Mr President, I’m proud to say: ‘Labour has stood with Kyiv since day one’. Now on day 592, we will we continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win. Ukrainians are fighting a tyrant ready to redraw borders by force. Who murders his own people, targets our democracy, disregards UN law. Ukrainians are fighting for the values we share – freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of international law. That’s why the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine.
So from this Conference, let Putin be in no doubt: There may be a change to Labour next year but there will be no change to Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. I want to be proud still in six months’ time. But just when Britain should accelerate our support and rebuild our stockpiles, the government is on a go-slow. It took 287 days after Putin invaded for Ministers to sign a new contract for vital anti-tank weapons. 503 days to agree a contract for more ammunition. And still – seven months after announcing £2 billion pounds for new stockpiles – Ministers have not spent a penny of this money or signed a single contract.
I can announce today, Labour in Government will accelerate this £2 billion spend to rearm Britain, resupply Ukraine and boost British industry. Conference, from the troops deployed as part of NATO to submariners at sea with our vital UK deterrent, Labour is proud of our Armed Forces and our veterans. This is now a different era, demanding different decisions but Labour will always do what’s required to defend this country.
When we last left government … Britain was spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. The British Army had 100,000 full-time troops. Satisfaction with service life was at 60% … Labour levels that have never been matched in any Tory year since.
Britain is weaker in the world after 13 years of Conservative government. Ben Wallace said himself, our Armed Forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” by the Tories. In 13 years, they’ve … Cut the Army to its smallest since Napolean. Scrapped 1 in 5 Royal Navy ships. Taken 200 aircraft out of RAF service.
In 13 years, they’ve … Left forces families living in damp housing and let service morale sink to record lows.
In 13 years, they’ve… Failed to fix the ‘broken’ defence procurement system – wasting billions and too often creating jobs abroad, not building in Britain. The greatest risk to UK defence is another five years of the Conservatives.
My pledge to the British people – and to the men and women who serve – is that Britain will be better defended with Labour. First, we will reinforce protections for our UK homeland. Second, we will ensure our NATO obligations are fulfilled in full. Third, we will make allies our strategic strength by developing deeper Indo-Pacific partnerships and striking new defence pacts with Germany, France and the European Union. Fourth, we will renew the nation’s moral contract with those who serve and create a strong independent champion for our forces and their families. Fifth, we will drive deep reform of defence procurement to direct British defence investment first to British jobs and British business. This is how Labour will make our country secure at home, and strong abroad.
Conference, Tony Blair once said: “The difference between Opposition and Government is this: in Opposition you wake up every morning and think ‘what can I say today?’ In Government, you ask yourself ‘what can I do today?’
Conference, we have this one single purpose: to win a Labour Government. Together – we can win. Together – we will give Britain its future back.”
Only tangentially related but I saw RFA Proteus moored up this morning alongside HMS Belfast on my walk to work. She makes HMS Belfast look tiny by comparison! Wish I could work out how to embed a picture in this comment…
Would love to see that. I did it in the way I use for other forums but doesn’t work here so tried a link instead. link
Levi:
Already on the net
Upload it to another site, right click, copy image link, and then paste the link in here.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Challenger_2_Main_Battle_Tank_patrolling_outside_Basra%2C_Iraq_MOD_45148325.jpg/1280px-Challenger_2_Main_Battle_Tank_patrolling_outside_Basra%2C_Iraq_MOD_45148325.jpg
It should end in the file type eg .jpg
Ukdj is a bit funny these days sometimes it formats it as a link and sometimes it embeds the actual image.
It depends on the angle. Proteus has a huge bulbous forward section and no superstructure aft at all and is much shorter, she is actually about half the displacement of Belfast.
It’s the high high bow freeboard that gives the illusion.
I hope the ability to restock ammunition is part of this. It is useless relying on ‘sufficient’ for short term low intensity ‘policing’ operations. Ukraine has served as a timely lesson! It is all very well gearing up for instant success, which is what Russia did February last year, and the expectation of instant counteroffensive success this year. But the enemy has a say in that! Reality means we need to be able sustain combat operations, which means adequate reserves, resupply, and replacement equipment manufacturing capability. As long as these can be rapidly ramped up with sufficient raw materials then… Read more »
Yes it’s easy to mock the relatively Patric performance of the zrussians but it scares me that if a right wing US Govt decided Europe wasn’t a priority as potential new Presidents on present indicators might do, how long could Europe alone stay in the fight? The in balance between what Europe had/has in weapons and munitions compared to Russia was/is scary and must change. Clearly Europe decided not only to spend its money elsewhere as part of what is now clearly a mythical peace dividend, but operated under the delusional belief that being outnumbered some 10 to 1 would… Read more »
I have said it here before, but I think attrition is part of Putin’s game in Ukraine, if he can make or procure weapons and ordinances faster or in greater quantities than the West can supply Ukraine, then Russia will win.
Spot on re the possibility of a right wing US govt. I think that’s the reason for the reference to defence pacts with France, Germany and the EU.
wish could believe it but with benefits winning far more votes than defence I think its same old rubbish both sides spout for last 45 years of my life.
All of them take our safety and freedoms for granted
Agreed and been a long time since that delusion has been so clear, yet sadly still to a minority in our cosy lives. I think I said it before but just read a book about the late thirties RAF expansion. Despite its belated state the powers that be did everything to hide their rearming not just to hide it from the Germans but to hide it from the population which still intent on appeasement and peace at all costs. Has similar overtones to today I fear.
Have a read of this, you may find it interesting.
https://bfpg.co.uk/2023/07/2023-annual-survey/
I think it’s possible to have a good defence and help people that need it.
And what about the thousands that scam benefits and before you say that’s not the case I know it is because I’ve lived a checkered life. We have multi generational houses with three generations brought up on benefits.
I was asked by a new immigrant last month where the “free bank” was. Turned out he meant the job centre. His family had said come to uk and they will give u free money.
Ok whatever! Immigrant asking for the free bank while looking for the job centre. Well they would have walked into to that free bank and been told you need to apply online. If u don’t have access to the internet go to a library. And no they wouldn’t get any money until they did their universal credit application form, then had a face to face interview with an advisor. Then they will get a payment of £280 a month after 6 weeks waiting. That advisor would have told them they must detail on their online journal what they are doing… Read more »
When u get your facts right I’ll read your answers. Since I deal with them in local government every day I should know
I’ve also claimed benefits and if you think they actually make u apply for jobs I’ve got a bridge in London I can let you have at a great rate
I spent 3 years looking after a family member and those descriptions are things I was made to do. I also got sanctioned for not complying.
If it’s easier for people to have more money not working that is the fault of the benefits system for not making low paid work pay more than being unemployed.
If people are on the sick that shouldn’t be again that’s the fault of the system not the people.
Can’t blame people for taking the easy way through life.
I’m on PIP myself so I have more experience than most and yes I blame people that lie and cheat the system to claim money they don’t deserve, they are the reason that often real people struggling are hounded by the system as an easy target while the real cheats get away with it. I will never blame a severely sick person but i can personally name at least four people that get over 20k a year from multiple benefits and openly say to me “why would you bother working when you can get more claiming” The system is very… Read more »
280 a month? Try 30k a year once all the perks are included. The welfare bill this year is 180 BILLION not including the state pension. 6 million people paid for idleness when there are labor shortages everywhere In France you need to have paid their equivalent of NI for122 days within the last 2 fiscal years before you can take a penny of welfare. No exceptions In Australia all welfare recipients are required to do a day a week of work in the community in return for their benefits. Fail to turn up and you lose your benefit for… Read more »
The U.K. spends nearly 3% gdp on income related benefits compared with 5.3% in France.
The UK has one of the least generous out-of-work benefits systems for workers on average earnings in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) the institute for fiscal studies says.
Even if 1000s were scamming benefits it’s a tiny amount compared to the overall budgets. Most get caught at some point. Then can’t claim benefits and have to pay it back.
Plenty of other loopholes need sorting also. Not just the poor that scam.
That’s totally not true, I was part of the criminal world till a spell away changed my outlook. I’m not talking about professional scammers although they exist and claim millions in different identities. I’m talking about whole estates where everyone is on the sick in one way or another, yet there is very little wrong with them, while seriously disabled actually push themselves to work to have a better life. Trust me I’ve known people say to me, why work for £11 an hour, I can claim just less claiming housing, Pip, disability attendance allowance and others and they have… Read more »
They have a point tho. Why work in some dead end minimum wage job if it’s easy to get the same or more money not working. For some people that’s the option.
Again that’s the system that’s broken. The fact people take advantage of it is just human nature. Fix the system is my view. Work should also pay more than not working. If that means giving people on low income top ups then unfortunately that’s what’s needed.
Well some people take advantage. I gave up my previous life and started work on minimum wage until I worked my way up to more. Personally I was brought up to work even if I earned the same money because it gives u self respect.
If that’s not enough I pity what our nation has become. There is a lack of work ethic. People shouldn’t have to be brided to do the right thing.
Having recently seen Singapore where most people strive to better themselves and earn more, I can’t help but feel our nation has taken a wrong turn
Talk’s cheap.
yeah how actions going atm…cheaper I’d offer..
It sure is. The UK conservatives could also match Labour or simply do better right now if they chose too. Waiting to see what more Labor does for defence here in Aus especially with Navy.
There was no new money there – just accelerate spending.
Problem is that you cannot accelerate most of that as it involves adding plant and machinery as well as training more people.
The present plant is having more shifts added to maximise thought put on the machinery already in place.
I agree that waiting 500+ days to place and additional order or to up production capacity was pretty crazy stuff.
Whereas the actions of the tory Party are real and there for all to see.
So nothing of any real substance. And no pledge to get to 2.5% of GDP. Just a pledge to speed up spending 2bn that’s already been allocated. 2bn is peanuts. That won’t even fund Typhoons P4E upgrade.
Exactly. When they actually commit to something, in stone, one can judge.
These are irrelevant sound bytes with no commitment to back up.
I think they will just match the Tories spending on defence. Unless they pull some magic cash out of the magicians hat. 😄
As usual, mere generalities with nothing concrete. Only a commitment to speed up spending the £2Bn but no mention of any additional monies. Outlined Tory cuts but nothing about how they would reverse said cuts.
Typical political nonsense.
When it comes to defence, today there really is no difference between Labour and The Conservatives. Both have no interest and their actions show it.
Sadly, I think you’re correct.
Exactly, out of the list of things mentioned 2billion wouldnt even scratch the surface, shows the entire speech of pointing out the problems of the last 13 years they have zero interest or desire to fix any of it.
Labour have said they won’t state any budget information until near an election unfortunately. It seems vague is all we are getting just now. So we get to see what the tories plans are and how they have performed over the past years. With labour we have to wait and see. What we do know is defence spending won’t be cut. Going with what has been said while mr Starmer has been leader defence spending needed to increase to meet what’s expected of the U.K. forces. Really until a party can see the U.K. books and work out budgets it’s… Read more »
We know what the Tories are doing. They’re doing it. Where does it say that Labour won’t cut defence spending, given that Sir Keir was Corbyn.s supporter for years and was promoted by him.
But you see the sense in Labour waiting until nearer the election to publish budgets right? Why do it early and let the Cons swarm all over it, pick it apart and then plaigarise it? And if they don’t produce a coherent budget policy before the election then don’t vote for them. Its called critical thinking.
HERE i WAS THINKING LABOUR WOULDN’T COMMIT TO SAYING ANYTHING ON DEFENCE BECAUSE THAY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. 🙄 I think I pushed the caplock?
Where do you get extra money when the country is kaput? Pray tell.
There is money; successive Tory and Labour governments have simply chosen to not spend it on defence. It’s that simple.
The general consensus is that sooner or later we as in the UK and our NATO allies are going to become embroiled in another global conflict. It is inevitable with Mad Vlad, President Xi, Kim Jong and the Ayatollah all being in power and wanting to reshape the world into something of their liking- eg chaos, a new era of empire building and the rise of Islam as the worlds dominant force.
The sooner the UK government wakes up to this fact and invests in our defence to ensure our freedoms, democracy and right to self-determination survives the better.
Labour never show an interest in defence; they’ll just claim they can do better than the Tories, but really defence is low on their list of priorities.
The Tories are the party of defence for as long as they are in opposition, but as soon as they’re in power they slash defence spending, too.
It was Atlee who commissioned the UK to build its own A Bomb, when Churchill got back in he was more than slightly surprised to find out we were just months from letting it go Bang !
That might have something to do with the UK and US still working together on the bomb when Churchill was in power…
It had a lot more to do with what happened immediately post WW2. The US/UK effectively ended right after VJ Day, the US kept all research, turfed the U.K scientists out and enacted the McMahan act which made it treason to share any info what so ever. Mr Atlee and his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin were lived and decided to build our own “with a great big Union Jack on it” (quote from Bevin). Despite the U.K. being broke and still rationed but we still had an economy on a war footing, fine engineers and superb Scientists. So completely on… Read more »
Blair took us to war five times and launched the aircraft carrier project. Think he was interested in Defence.
Finally a major politician actually stating the bleeding obvious, we need to rearm. Scarce on details but it is a start.
And if they get in if it’s between benefits or defence then three guesses who gets the cash
The benefits bill needs major reform again. It’s gone up drastically under the Tories as they’ve tried to buy votes by giving above inflation rises to all those on benefits. Ditto pensions and triple lock. When then added to the burgeoning numbers of quangos, consultants, private advisors, lobbyists etc paid for by public funds it all adds up to huge savings that could be made. Which in turn could go towards infrastructure. It is infrastructure that drives growth and improves an economies productivity. We all want the UK armed forces to have the fighting strength and power they need to… Read more »
This is absolute rubbish. In 2013 the national debt was just over £1trillion or about 40% of GDP. Thirteen years of Conservative policies of tax, borrow and spend have pushed the national debt to £2.4TRILLION or 104% of GDP. We are paying about £80bn a year in interest on this debt and the nation’s foreign currency reserves amount to only roughly £240 million. Sunak has printed more money than any Chancellor in history. Another 5 years of the Tories mismanaging our financial affairs will bankrupt the country and result in a visit from the IMF In 2021/2022 the Tories borrowed… Read more »
So you would have allowed the banks to crash in 2009/10 and forced people to stay at home during COVID with no support for them or their employer? There wouldn’t be much left of the economy if that had happened. The real problem, which without change will only get worse, is the underlying structural deficit. This has been created by an expansion of welfare support initiated by Gordon Brown and maintained with a bit of trimming by later governments. The issue of pension costs is being addressed by raising the retirement age( it will have to be raised further). What… Read more »
@PeterS I cannot be bothered to argue with your completely mistsken analysis – exept to point out that 13 years of Conservative policies of tax, borrow and spend have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy as a nation Only the skill of the Treasury’s Debt Management Office at persuading the debt markets to provide short term day-to-day finance is keeping us afloat; Britain’s foreign currency reserves are minimal at about £250 million. Having to finance the interest payments on a national debt of £2.4 TRILLION is bleeding us white at roughly £80 billion a year. Whose fault is this?… Read more »
I think a lot of people would disagree with you that have lived under labour governments in the last 60 years. Next thing you will trot out is thatcher closed all the pits when in truth labour closed far more pits that she ever did. Sorry, also but your analysis here is basic to the point of ridiculous. Are you seriously arguing that governments begin their terms with a net zero budget deficit? Of course not. So blaming the Tories for the 10% budget deficit they inherited from Labour is simply not sensible. It is terrible economics, below that of… Read more »
This waffle from someone who steadfastly supported Corbyn when he was leader of the opposition. Corbyn was all about disarmament and ditching our deterrent. Apples don’t normally fall far from the tree! It won’t come as a shock, but Starmer was also a supporter of said policy. The current crop are pretty shite when it comes to defence. The other lot will be far worse I believe.
I wouldn’t read too much into what politicians say at any given time. Some will sell their souls for short term gain and toeing the line with your leader and his views is easy enough to do. I doubt all the Tories were died in the wool believers in Boris either but they’ll have played the game.
As an aside, I’m curious how Corbyn would have dealt with the Ukraine invasion. Thankfully we’ve not had to find out.
You may well be correct, but from what I can make out both Starmer and Healey are and have always been left of centre of their party! I don’t think defence is going to be in for a good time, even after the last few decades of shit!
Well, Corbyn has always stated that he is a friend of Hamas, so I don’t think we would have to look far as to how he might have dealt with the invasion of the Ukraine…..
In fairness to Starmer, he became an MP fairly recently while the Labour party was leaning that way. He may well be the type of guy who bides his time, he’s certainly dragged the party more into the centre in his tenure. Whether that’s his true ideology or purely down to getting votes…. time will tell. I suspect the latter to be honest. I don’t know if you listen to it but the ‘The Rest Is Politics’ podcast discussed it recently. Some will ‘stick to their principles’ while some will ‘play the long game’ and put up with the stuff… Read more »
Was he supporting that though because he actually agreed with Corbyn, or just showing support to his party leader for the sake of unity?
Sorry mate, was responding to @AP when your post appeared, see my reply above.
2 Billion is Chicken feed, and he knows it. The Tories said similar after 13 years of Labour cuts and look what happened. Actions set in stone with wide parliamentary agreement, budgets ring fenced, not words. How about Capita and recruitment? Replenishment contracts from NLAW to Javelin to HVM to artillery and cannon shells are already signed. All true on the cuts he lists, which they themselves also did. So that does not convince. As many no doubt know, I’m happy to list them if asked as many seem to pretend they didn’t happen or if they did it was… Read more »
I am just glad Corbyn has gone, However, Starmer still needs to purge some of the more extreme leftists.
Who isn’t! I’m still terrified, if I’m honest. They’d disarm the UK as a major power at a stroke if given the chance, such is the chip on their shoulder.
The irony is that the Cons have disarmed the Forces.
Go to Specsavers next time.
The right wing zealots on here are incapable of seeing what’s right in front of them. Or that they are being fleeced by the world’s most proficient con artists.
But the left wing Nazis are all full of open eyed 20/20 vision and always know what’s best and know the truth! Wow I have to yaaaaaaaaawn at the party politic sheep who go for party politics not policies! We are right, you are wrong zzzzzzzzz……. Cheers.
I’m on about the far left of Labour, David.
Specsavers? You’re first sentence was justified, but not that comment.
I’m not rising to your bait, yet it’s fascinating that in a whole thread of scepticism about Labour and defence matters it’s me you single out. Repeatedly.
So don’t bother if that’s all you’ve got to say on the individual points I raise, nowhere here do I defend Tory cuts, I despise them.
You’re welcome.
Agreed!
It was the Labour Party that cancelled TSR2 – my dad who worked at Vickers Supermarine in South Marston at the time – came home from work – very upset at the news. Never ever going to forgive that blunder by The Labour Party & Harold Wilson & Denis Healey. Nothing has changed in Labour’s Defence policy since. TSR2 might still be in service? I dont trust any of them – Labour or Tory – all got their snouts in the trough – look at the pay & benefits of MP’s & pensions etc. Lib Dems and the rest are… Read more »
very good riposte Sir! 🙏
Nah, just the usual Daniele BS dirge, with right trash troll Airborne & you licking his arse, as usual. Pathetic.
Do you wring your hands and constantly look over your shoulder? You state ”repeatedly,” on this thread? As to the ”points” you raise, they are generally: Cons bad at the moment but can’t trust Labour because of Corbyn or some such; Starmer worked under Corbyn, can’t be trusted; Labour cut defence – look at my spreadsheets and repeat; You don’t really bring many balanced points to the debate when you state the same old clap trap out of context – and even when you are given context – UKDJ even wrote an article about defence spending since the end of… Read more »
Still not forgiven Starmer for his time as the Director of Public Prosecution and his part with the British troops being dragged over the coals, for alleged “brutality” against Iraqi Nationals.
Facts, my friend. Starmer was a supporter of Corbyn for years and was promoted by him. If you want to get rid of the extreme left you have to disband about a third of the elected party, cut links with the unions and disband the National Executive and Momentum. Then you can start on the Councils
Really ? Never voted for him and was only in a cabnite postion with him to stop WW 3 breaking out in the Labour party. And now he has blocked him from standing as an MP for Labour
Can’t believe it is a Labour politician making such a speech. This has really turned the world on its head, let’s see if they follow through when they win the next election.
Agree. I think they will. Starmer and Co are not Corbyn they are much more realistic, results driven and genuinely sensible. Get my vote over multi billionaire money man Sunak and Hunt whose only desire is to protect Tory party grandees and their own business interests.
I’m loving the fact labour have said today they will go after the billions fraudulent claimed during the COVID crises on things like furlough and lost revenue claims.
A while ago at work we were discussing the latest round of defence cuts by the Conservative government of the time. A colleague who was a strong Labour supporter said that if they could keep getting away with it they’d keep doing it. I said no one would be that stupid. I was wrong, he was right. Let’s see what happens after the election.
What cuts?
We’ll find out whether they are genuinely sensible or not once they are in office. Easy to look convincing when you are not the one having to make the tough decisions and rob Peter to pay Paul when you find the funding isn’t there to pay for everything. Starmer is soft left Labour so it will be interesting to see what happens when things start going wrong (which they will) and the hard left begins to raise its head again.
To be far, the far left never raised its head in 2008-2010…they only popped up after 2015 when the Labour vote collapsed in Scotland and Brexit started up ( you have to remember the very far left hate the EU..,they see it as a right wing neoliberal structure).
I wouldn’t have expected the hard left to raise its head under Gordon Brown. They had been in retreat since 1985 and were very weak and fragmented in the ‘closed vault’ they found themselves in under New Labour. The resurgence began (slowly) after the 2010 GE.
That was a party political statement on behalf of the Labour Party. 😉
“Can’t believe it is a Labour politician making such a speech.” Or a former Bank Of England Governor for that matter. Speaking of which, arguably the biggest surprise of the speech actually happened after it was over. On the big screen here at Liverpool, a video message was played from a “special guest”. That guest was none other than the former Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, who gave an endorsement. “Rachel Reeves is a serious economist. She began her career at the Bank of England and she understands the big picture,” he said in the video. He added: “But… Read more »
Talk is cheap. Easy to big up defence when you are in opposition, a different story once in office. Things started well with Blair and SDR98 I seem to remember but the rosy picture did not last. For example, what happened to the fleet of 32 destroyers/frigates and 10 SSNs they promised to maintain? What will be critical is the budget settlement the MoD receives from a Labour Treasury. Unless there is a meaningful and sustained real-terms increase (unlikely) then another round of cuts is inevitable, whatever they are claiming now.
but the Labour Party did actually maintain an escort fleet of 24-25 across Its Time in government….it was the conservative government that gutted the escort numbers in the end.
It shrank from 35 to 23 and would no doubt have fallen below 20 had Labour won again in 2010. There would have been another review and another round of cuts, same as with the Tories. Labour promised 32 but cut to 23.
Any evidence . I understand the escorts/frigates were reduced by Labour from 2003 to ‘pay for’ another capability – the carriers. ( The 3 Dukes sold)
yes it was 23 in 2010 , but its reduced now to maybe 15 or so through ghost ships
The Defence review in 1998 by Labour for the RN was
‘The surface fleet force was reduced from 35 to 32 frigates and destroyers with the withdrawal of Batch 2 Type 22 frigates, 25 to 22 minehunters and the SSN attack submarine force was reduced from 12 to 10. ‘
The figures are widely accepted not in any way contentious. When Blair took office we had 35 escorts, which had shrunk to 23 (13xT23, 4xT22, 5xT42 and 1xT45) by the time Cameron arrived. This is 9 fewer than SDR98 stated were needed (i.e. 32, reduced by 3 from the previous 35), which tallies with your comment above. The 2004 White Paper (‘Future Capabilities’ document, p.7) clearly states that 25 destroyers/frigates and 8 SSNs (down from 32 and 10 respectively in SDR98) were now judged to be sufficient capability, along with the future Nimrod MR4A fleet reduced from 16 to 12.… Read more »
Its difficult to keep track of what government did what without adding your own- they would have done this – as a diversion from the really tough Tory cuts in 2010 as part of the hard line austerity they wanted for everyone. The GFC – caused by bankers not miners -had mostly eased by 2010 so it was a lot of bad decisions have come back to bite – especially the 5 year delay on what became the T26 build ( appearing like magic just before the 2015 election) Those with longer memories can point to the Astute contract( a… Read more »
Point taken. There have been deep cuts to defence under all governments since 1945 though. We cannot say with any certainty how a different government may or may not have acted at any given point but I think very few (if any) would have given us a net positive outcome. I do not in any way condone Tory cuts. My issue is with Labour supporters who are most eager to call out the Tories but seem to be blissfully unaware of Labour’s own record when in office . . . and immediately fall for pre-election waffle clearly intended to reassure… Read more »
labours excuse probably is end of cold war, where the Tories were cutting back even before that happened
No, no excuse. Biggest cut in the “modern era” was 1991 Options For Change, that was at the end of the Cold War so at that moment, seemed justified. All cuts since have been totally unjustified and purely for money or ideological reasons. Tory “Front Line First” in 1994, Labour “SDSR” in 97, Labour “SDSR New Chapter” in 2004, the calamitous 2010 SDSR and every one since under the Tories. Of interest, and ignored by most, there were no more SDSRs between the Labour 2004 and the next in 2010. A long time. But the cuts continued throughout that time,… Read more »
You are right. That miserable 2004-2010 period saw the MoD in a state of quiet calamity as it struggled to balance the books and ended up resorting to ad-hoc cuts all over the place to try and stabilise the situation. Everything was hushed up, the situation not helped of course by the revolving door of defence secretaries who couldn’t get out of the place fast enough when they realised the state things were in.
Labour were also pruning back before the end of the Cold War, as evidenced by the 1966 and 1975 defence reviews. The post Cold War cuts necessary had already been made under Major. Labour had no credible excuse for further reductions in the 2000s, it was basically a case of them being unwilling to fund their own SDR due to more important (to them) priorities.
True 1966-75 took our big Aircraft carriers away HMS Eagle etc however ARK Royal went on till 1978 .
The irony being of course that although Eagle was slightly older she was a better ship than Ark Royal.
“My issue is with Labour supporters who are most eager to call out the Tories but seem to be blissfully unaware of Labour’s own record when in office . . .”
Bravo. My stance exactly. Never be silent. Never. I don’t give a **** who likes that or not, I will keep stating the facts as they happened with the previous government ALONGSIDE the current shambles that is the Conservative.
“Its difficult to keep track of what government did” Don’t worry, I do! Paul Cs timeline is spot on regards the numbers. And of course this swings both ways, as I keep saying, BOTH main parties are as bad ( yet I still get called a “Right Wing Zealot” see above ) The delay post 2010 regards Global Combat Ship, T26 has been disastrous, as we are seeing now. The Escort fleet will be back to 19, as I always say, with every cut the new low becomes the benchmark to reach when new equipment comes in. The T32 could… Read more »
Not convinced by Healey at all. He seems like a lightweight to me and doesn’t seem to understand the importance of the RN. Telling that Starmer didn’t see fit to give this position to a stronger member of the shadow cabinet.
Hmm, me neither, but happy to give him a chance. Talking of the dark 2004 to 2010 period, remember Gareth Ainsworth?! Jesus…He wasn’t even a full time DS.
Why ‘lightweight’? I don’t get that from reading the Wiki entry. He is an experienced politician who has broad ministerial and shadow ministerial experience.
He just does not have as big a TV profile as many other shadow cabinet members.
I’d expect a politician given a department as important as the MoD to be experienced. He was a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and seems to be rather adept at saying a great deal about not very much at all. Labour have to prove their credentials in defence and need a highly committed SoS who will fight the MoD’s corner with the Treasury. Not sure that person is Healey but, as always, time will tell.
I’d say both parties have been repeatedly pretty poor on defence since at least the end of The Cold War and arguably a lot longer! The core problem is not that the UK has a small defence budget…..it’s the chronic waste and mismanagement when it comes to procurement, spreading the jam way too thin in an attempt to do everything and continued silo thinking where each of the services does it’s own thing. Until a government has the backbone and patience to address this we’ll be stuck in an endless process of salami slicing kit/numbers whilst pretending we can still… Read more »
It’s about both better procurement AND more money. To make 2.1% act like 3% we’d have to become over 40% more efficient. And that isn’t going to happen. I could easily argue that we need to be looking to return to the days of 4% of GDP and that means improving by over 90%. All the time the MOD talks about expected cost savings, they are making things worse not better. We need to stop pretending we can do all the things we want with insufficient budget. I agree with you 100%, but is the answer to do even less… Read more »
I think money may be part of the solution, in a clearly more volatile world aiming to spend at least 2.5% of GDP is sensible, but more money can only be part of the solution.
There needs to a rigorous appraisal of what it is we want the services to deliver and politicians with the intelligence and determination to challenge how they operate and strive for better value for money.
As with the NHS simply bunging them some more cash is just papering over the cracks.
Hmm..
Post Labour Govt the questions in the continuous attitude survey changed substantially and became way more in depth and more structured, giving a far better insight into issues.
Under Labour it was “Satisfied with your Job” and got 60%
In later years the questions where more in depth and it changed to “Satisfied with Service Life” and that dropped down in % terms considerably.
“Happy with Service accom” scores actually went from 54% to 56% post Labour Govt (2010 to 2013)!
In short sound bite stats can be made to sound and read whatever you want!
Exactly. Same thing with the claims about ship and aircraft numbers; 13 years of making fuck all progress in most major programmes, plus poorly-executed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, meant there were going to be mass layoffs of kit with no replacements.
Whilst I am skeptical about almost anything a politician says, I would note that the last strategic defence review which at least appeared to be cohesive was in 1998, and that was from a Labour government. Any government must at least have an armed forces that can deter the non-discretionary conflicts without having to resort to nuc’s, the Conservatives have abjectly failed in that.
Agreed. But they didn’t fund it the moment it was announced.
It was cohesive and emphasized expeditionary capabilities so that we could operate alongside the USA in wars of choice, usually theirs. So decisions were made to replace the Invincibles with 2 new supercarriers and the F35s to operate from them. But with no additional funds provided, the inevitable result was a squeeze on everything else. UORs for the wars of choice were delivered at the expense of maintaining,upgrading or replacing vital equipment – frigates, tanks, artillery, IFVs- all allowed to become obsolescent. The 2010 cuts, in the wake of the financial crisis ( there’s no money left) were an unavoidable… Read more »
But they didn’t stick to it, did they? For example, a fleet of 32 destroyers/frigates and 10 SSNs promised (a reduction of 3 frigates and 2 SSNs respectively), but by 2009 the RN was down to 23 destroyers/frigates and 7 SSNs. The 2003/4 White Paper under Geoff Hoon and the additional cuts that followed show how far things had deviated from the optimistic SDR98, mainly due to lack of funding.
Correct.
Thank you!
Not to hi jack your post Paul , however the RAF also had a bumpy ride under Labour re the reduction in fast jet squadrons.
Yes, I know all sorts of things were going on outside of my Navy-centric focus. For example, I seem to remember that the Jaguars were retired prematurely in the early 2000s?
yep re the Jaguars – the 2004 defence review,
I think Healey is right about releasing the £2B. As with HS2 the government is reducing and deferring spending – hoping to have enough for a pre-election tax give away. Be interested to hear more about the idea for an independent champion for the forces and families.
The £2bn stockpile fund was announced in March 2023 to run over the next two years. If that’s FY 23/24 and 24/25, as was reported in the press, the chances of Labour being in power in time to speed it up is nil. First likely election date isn’t until May, ie after the Spring budget in March.
I understand. Nonetheless I think Healey is right when he comments that there is no obvious good reason for a
delay in spending the money. He also free to say what he would do if he were in government.
Surely that would depend entirely on what the delay is?
If for example it’s for say 155mm ammo and the company that makes it is already running at capacity, the MOD might just have to wait(delay) until said order can be fulfilled. It can take time for a company/business to ramp up production to meet delivery requirements. £2Billion is a fair amount to spend in a niche market.
Agreed. I suspect the Tories took credit for an announcement which they knew was difficult to make good on and Healey is fault finding on a technicality. As they say all’s fair in love and war, and politics.
The money is already being spent. The re armament was announced in March
I don’t trust any party to properly ‘rearm Britain’.
What’s peoples opinions on here: Which party would be best (least worst) for our armed forces?
DUP? Very marginally. Between the only two with a chance of being in power, I’d go Labour, because even ignoring the current DefSec, the only way to show anyone you are unhappy is to turf out the incumbents in the hope that they might listen to why, when they get into opposition.
That is in reality the whole point of the system..we don’t really get a choice of how our nation is governed…democracy at its root is more a “could you just fuck off” button for when a the leadership gets stale and out of touch….
Which is why we have a situation in Wales were a 20mph speed limit has been forced on the country much to the annoyance of most of the voting population. root cause is 27 year of Labour and there belief they cant be voted out
you always need a shift of government out…it’s what makes democracy more potent that authoritarian regimes…if you don’t kick em out why have democratic process…..floating voters are the protectors of democracy.
Well it’s Labour Party Conference time and there is a General Election sometime in the next 15 months. So this is their opportunity to display all the things that sets them apart from the Corbyn outing. So a promise to do better on Defence and not abolish it is a good start and let’s be honest promising to do better than Shaps isn’t exactly difficult. The bar set by him is set so low it’s a H&S Trip Hazard. However I actually believe that this is a well thought out and properly researched political turn and may well help them… Read more »
As you’re one who’s opinion here I respect, that gives me hope.
I’d describe myself as you do yourself mate, on all those. The silent majority.
Are the majority silent or is nobody listening?
😆 Beyond the 5 yearly elections I’d say silent. And I don’t think those elected listen either. Of course, re defence, that it is barely on most of Joe publics radar beyond the assumption we are all fine and dandy does not help.
Five absolute promises from Labour about absolutely nothing 🙄
“”“It took 287 days after Putin invaded for Ministers to sign a new contract for vital anti-tank weapons. “”
Note the wording:
“”Ministers to sign a new contract for vital anti-tank weapons. “”
What labour fail to mention is this snippet from the 30th June 2022 (129 days later) which entails the MOD and not government ministers:
Sweden and UK double down on NLAW procurementFollowing the success of NLAW in the defence of Ukraine, the UK and Sweden have signed an agreement for increased procurement of the system.
Remove anything around spending or micro actions on improvement as we are not getting that…we will only know what either gov will spend on defence when it’s in power…what I’m interested in is the geostrategic positioning… 1) There was no talk of rapprochement with geopolitical enemies ( and I use the word enemy with purpose)..so no Iranian, Russian, Chinese rapprochement. It was aggressive holding the line type geostrategy. That’s what’s wanted. 2) discussion of focused strategic alliance with France, Germany and other Western European nations….this is worrying it very much shows that there is concern over future U.S. commitments in… Read more »
Yes, if true I’m pleased with No5, as this is not what has been suggested at all with Healey’s previous comments. Though “geopolitical” does not necessarily mean actual military capability.
Yes number five was my big worry as geopolitical blindness beyond Europe would have been a big issue for me. To be honest I think the really close military industrial work going on with Australian and Japan means that we are bound into the pacific….. I think this speech shows Labour gets that reality.
personally I would have liked a 2.5%- 3% commitment, but I don’t think we are getting any major spending commitments until the election manifesto.
Could someone please explain the UK focus on the Indo-Pacific militarily. It seems to me that we could do much more useful work making sure that the USA don’t need to send carriers to Europe than trying to maintain operations far from home in America’s own backyard
The “Indo Pacific Tilt” so often villified Is a R&D effort, so things like AUKUS, leading to the new SSN and other high tech developments, and GCAP with Japan, so Tempest. All of vital importance strategically and for industry. My beef has always been Labour’s comments that they’d water down or even do away with this “tilt” and concentrate on Europe, not “Where the trade deals are” Well that’s actually very stupid. 1) China is the long term threat and things like AUKUS and GCAP directly feed into that,, and 2) what will they save cutting anything else militarily that… Read more »
Thanks, I agree with you on the R&D and long-term positioning e.g. Gurkhas, my main question was on the urge that the Admiralty seems to have to waste 2 months sending a QE2 around the world and back again instead of taking the place of an American carrier near home.
It demonstrates the capability to deploy to an important region in the world, where tension is rising, upon which the world’s economies depend.
It coukd be the Pacific, Indian ocean, South Atlantic. Take your pick.
That is why we have a blue water navy.
On whether in a hypothetical US China war our limited assets are best placed there, or in Europe, then obviously the answer is Europe for the reasons you describe.
Our carriers exist to undertake global deployments, not to substitute for US carriers.
Yes, I agree that the QE2s are useful assets for global deployments, but in a hypothetical war the US would be able to sustain more effective operations in the Pacific whilst we took over their job keeping the Russians’ focus on the Med and Baltic
That is one approach. But carriers are for operations very distant from land air bases.
Not sure we would need a carrier in the Med – we can conduct air operations from Akrotiri and/or Gibraltar – plus from EU/NATO airbases in Europe.
As regards air operations in the Baltic – they can be mounted from the UK or any EU/European NATO airbase.
The Americans don’t seem to think so
They have a different philosophy. The US Sixth Fleet is headquartered in Naples and has an AO including the Med and the eastern halves of the North Atlantic and the Southern Atlantic.
There was total commitment from the Government well before day one and indeed if that commitment had not been forthcoming well before the invasion it is almost certain that the Russian plan would have succeeded and Ukraine would have been overrun. It would be interesting to compare the Labour leaders PMQ questions on support for Ukraine compared to his time wasting personal attacks on the PM.
I’ve got a by-election coming up here. Facinating to hear one Labour representative chat happily on the doorsetp about the impending massive cuts to defence once Labour were in power and Kier was sidelined. Didn’t even seem to be a secret.
Mark, define massive! Are we really talking about Labour reducing our army to just 50,000 and selling off a carrier and some more escorts – and possibly doing more than that?
Didn’t go into specifics but I got the impression that we would be looking at coastal defence only. Keep the Army – scrap trident. Cut out much of the new procurement. Defend the country and a bit of UN peacekeeping. Seemed unsure about NATO. Perhaps he only represents a small minority in Labour but then again perhaps Kier’s assertions that the party has changed is wishful thinking. The mood music coming from the conservatives is asperations for 2.5% GDP maybe 3% ultimately. Kier is indicating budgets as per current figures but I suspect there may be large swathes of Labour… Read more »
Mark, I really don’t know where you have got that from – John Healey’s speech to the Labour conference?
Whilst I am glad that the army is not to be disbanded (!), Labour has not advocated scrapping Trident in recent years (in fact they voted for its sucessor, Dreadnought), reducing the Navy to a coastal defence force or scrapping much of the new procurements.
Can you explain why you think Labour in power would do more damage to Defence than Cameron’s 2010 cuts? Nothing from Healey in my mind indicates savage cuts.
Hi Graham. No I know the official party line is maintain the conservative spending whilst making it look like they will spend wiser. No I am contrasting that with what I am hearing on the doorstep from not one but now two separate Labour canvasers who are not echoing the party line – far from it. This is a new candidate for this by-election but the left wing of the party seem very much in control & running the campaign.
Thanks Mark. Sounds like your two canvassers are not ‘on message’ – can they really know what a Labour Government would do in a years time?
Graham I tend to chat to the grass roots of each political party when the opportunity offers itself. Just as the conservatives supported “Get Brexit Done” they also supported “Get Boris Gone” once the dust settled and before the next election. There are so many factions in parties nowadays you need to peak beneath the manifesto, in my opinion, to see the difference between what is being said and what is likely to transpire.
I was in the infantry when labour were in our barracks were condemned yet we still had to live in there we didn’t get 95 kit til 98 we were sent to war without proper kit so they need to keep quiet
Considering the tory frauds also moved trident into the core MOD budget their real world cuts to defence are even worse than described.
No doubt our right wing zealots will be along to claim labour will disarm the country as soon as they are elected despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Agreed on Trident, even that back to where it came would be a huge, huge help.
Its not true. For many reasons its become an urban myth . However Pym , Nott etc said Trident was funded within MoD budget even before money was spent on that new program
Hmmmm, I’ve heard that before. What’s your primary source I’d love to read it?
Operational costs for the RN crewing and running the 4 boats, CTF345, and other parts of CASD are fine, and of long standing.
But not the capital costs of Successor.
Capital Costs of Trident before that , even when it was still a proposal My source was in earlier answer to similar claim ( which get stuck in Moderation as its a link.) House of commons research briefing from 2023. When Gavin Williamson was DefSec he accidentally made the same claim, as its widely believed even in MOD, and as he was answering a commons question had to be corrected. Ill give the answer here but leave the link out “The cost of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent” However, the Ministry of Defence issued a correction on 7 December 2017… Read more »
Well well, I’ll have to look deeper into this. The CASD into core thing is oft said to be linked to Osborne in 2010 when pensions were also, so its said, put in during his creative accounting to get to 2%
Though I also hear often people saying the SIA was also added, which I’ve never believed myself. Only DI is within MoD on the SIA side.
Thanks.
Yes. Doesnt matter to me either way. As the mistaken belief often originates within MoD it might be what could be called a ‘covert influencer program’ for it to be a sacrificial goat for the other issues and the blame is put on the nasty Treasury for making us pay for it. It seems as of this year £12.5 bill has been spent on the reactors and the Dreadnought design and construction.( including some of the contingency reserve) But its over a number of years , so its a hefty chunk of the defence budget – during the time of… Read more »
Thats a false claim , unfortunately repeated by the BBC and even by a defence secretary ( Williamson) in the house- which was corrected soon after . Im no fan of the Tories but its never been true, costs of trident and now its replacement have always come out of the MoD funding. Pym and Nott said so back when it was still an idea. Liam Fox again said so when he was Def Sec A research briefing from House of Commons Library spells it all out, and includes historical costs from the V bomber days The cost of UKs… Read more »
Thanks.
It’s abundantly clear that these politicians are a bunch of morons Tory and Labour alike. Labour’s declaration of speeding up the £2 billion is nothing but a pathetic attempt to appear proactive while in reality they’re just riding on the coattails of existing Tory pledges. They have the audacity to criticize the Tories for slashing the army size, yet where are their plans to revert these cuts? Nowhere to be found because they don’t give a damn either! They’re all playacting at caring about the armed forces while failing to present any substantial policies to bolster the military. It’s a… Read more »
Israel spends roughly one third of the amount the UK spends on defence. For that they have a standing army of 150k, 450k reserves, 600 MBTs, 300 jets, nuclear triad capability, iron dome air defence & a small (but capable) navy. Just saying….
Ha. I replied to an identical post to this, word for word, and varied reasons why such comparisons are meaningless, on Twitter, which must have been you!
Could you please repeat your answer here as I think I know but you probably know more
Because Israel gets direct US financial aid. Because Israel doesn’t have a network if overseas bases that need funding. Because Israel doesn’t have a large legacy home infrastructure to fund. Because Israel takes defence seriously enough to fast track it’s programmes rather than HMGs of all shades who defer and delay them costing more long term. Because Israel doesn’t have assets like SSBN, SSN, Carriers, need for a blue water navy, so T26, T45, RFA fleet, and a whole list of other things. They’re faced with enemies on all sides on their doorstep. So they prioritise Army and Air force.… Read more »
Thanks for that . It seems that Israel’s Navy is only a small share of its defence budget. Plus they get US$33 bill per year from US for military aid , which must be spent in US , and of course maybe half their procurement budget covered. Theres is also funded joint military developments The previous submarines and the current ones under construction are mostly or partly funded by germany ( as they are built there) plus some equipment – paid by US. The main army is mostly conscripts- but theres lots of exceptions to that so its not so… Read more »
Typo . Should be $3.3 bill per year in US aid . Likely to be substantially boosted this year , maybe a one off but extr ongoing.
never clear why they should do this, as its not a threat to US or its allies territory . but its politics and isreal= jews who are influential in US politics ( and elsewhere)
The Jewish Lobby is well known.
There is also most, a need to repost this about 3-4 time a week on here. Usually it is comparison to France. This time it is Israel, which as you pointed out is even more of a daft comparison
France is a reasonable comparison. We are both former Imperial Great Powers, now major regional powers with some remaining world wide commitments, a P5 seat, and nukes.
The differences between Britain and France are the result of choices that should be kept under review. Israel is a silly comparison agreed.
Yes, that’s fair. Some here have looked more into the FRA UK split before, on sizes, but also capabilities.
Hi Daniele , good points re the IDF, especially your commentary regarding the navy. The vast majority of their forces comprise reservists + National servicemen. (I’d guess 90%) – very cheap to run a big army that way, labour costs next to zero. Some of their army’s equipment is downright obsolescent but well maintained- M113 apcs, M109/Soltam 155mm artillery and “soft stuff” – trucks etc. Most of their equipment remains in storage/rotated – including combat jet assets. So in effect their Opex is far smaller than appears on paper. i.e. as listed in Jane’s other defence journals. As you point… Read more »
Hi Chris. I didn’t know that amount of their AF Jet assets was in storage. Surprising.
I’m actually recalling the mid 80s when the older A4 Skyhawk assets were in storage. Given their air force is smaller then beck then, I may well be wrong re the jets being in storage.
👍 Its capable and professional compared to the rabble around them.
So true Mate!
As long as Hamas approve!
All very well but I could not find a commitment to extra defence spending. It appeared to mainly consist of knocking the other party. No we will provide x number of new ships, planes, thanks etc. so lots of nice sounding words and no commitments to go back on if they get in. The lack of substance is deeply alarming.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Yeah I think as the New Medium Lift Helicopter will be chosen under Labour and not the Conservatives, my suspicion that the AW149 will be chosen because of the old Westland Factory is only growing
As usual, lots of griping about what is wrong, lots of statements about high-level improvements in outcomes, absolutely nothing about how to achieve any of it in practice.
2 Billion let’s wait and see not that it’s going remake much difference.The minister was going on about what was cut fair enough but are there going replace any of the losses 🙄 ? .Absolutely not like most of us on UKDJ we all know who eve ever gets in Defence will be at the bottom of the pile despite what’s going on in the world .😕 🇬🇧
As its a year to go before the next election bringing spending forward is just empty rhetoric. By the time any Labour Administration is in place the £2B will be committed and partly spent. The priorities he laid out could be read as drop the tilt to the Pacific and spend any savings on UK Defence. Could this be a return to withdrawal from East of Suez as some readers may remember which happened under the Wilson Labour Government. Technical and intelligence sharing could still be maintained with Australia and the US but no boots on the ground or ships… Read more »