Putin claimed 88% of all votes in last week’s Russian presidential poll. A total sham of an election but a serious moment for UK defence.
Over the next decade, we face Putin’s regime and an active alliance of aggression from autocrats who have contempt for international law and freely squander the lives of their own people.
Threats are increasing, just as concerns are also increasing over the state of our Armed Forces. And some of the loudest voices now joining this chorus of concern are coming from Conservatives.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
I was in the House of Commons last week as MPs from the Government’s benches took turns to argue that the Conservatives’ defence plans are not good enough, with one saying his own Ministers “should be ashamed of themselves.”
Today, I will be debating two important reports from cross-party Committees, both with Conservative majorities, that have dangerous warnings about the UK’s military power and readiness.
The Public Accounts Committee said that the MOD’s current equipment plan is the worst ever on managing budgets, arguing it is “not credible” and “many defence procurement programmes are being delayed.”
The Defence Committee found that our UK Armed Forces “have capability shortfalls and stockpile shortages and are losing personnel faster than they can recruit them.”
Concern is not confined to Conservative backbenchers. The Security Minister, the Indo-Pacific Minister and even the Defence Secretary are now publicly challenging their own Government’s defence policy in the press. While Putin wages war in Europe, Ministers are warring with each other.
This is clearly a serious breakdown in the collective ministerial responsibility of Government, but I am most concerned about the serious state of the UK armed forces.
Conservative colleagues are right. There are serious problems in defence which need fixing. What signal does it send to our adversaries when our forces have been ‘hollowed out’ since 2010; when the British Army has been cut to the smallest size since Napoleon; when recruitment targets have been missed every year for 14 years; when satisfaction with service life has fallen to record lows?
What signal does it send to our allies when our NATO obligations are being undermined due to delays and mismanagement in vital defence projects such as E7 Wedgetail surveillance planes and a modern war fighting division.
This is now a different era, demanding different decisions but Labour will always do what is required to defend this country. When we last left government, Britain was spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
Defence must match the threats we face, and as we don’t have access to any of the classified threat assessments, costs or military advice in Opposition, we will conduct a Strategic Security and Defence Review (SDSR) within the first year to fully understand the state of our Armed Forces, the nature of threats and the capabilities needed.
Labour has five strategic priorities to keep Britain safe – reinforce UK homeland protections, ensure UK NATO obligations are fulfilled in full, make allies our strategic strength, direct defence investment first to British business, and renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and the families who support them.
Leadership in defence should put country before party. We are proud of our UK Armed Forces and will always listen to anyone who wants to do the best for our personnel, veterans and their families. That’s why all political parties will be invited to contribute to our defence review, if Labour does form the next Government.
We want it to be Britain’s plan to defend our country better, not just Labour’s.
Ben Wallace as consultant to Labour defence policy? Sure, give it a go….we’ve got to change how we do things at present.
Somebody needs to get a handle on how we’re doing things and it doesn’t really matter what colour tie they wear. Warographics – Is the British Military ready for a Major war, on YouTube gives a good summary which doesn’t say anything the more informed on this site have been saying for a long time but does make me wonder how we actually get politicians to sit up and listen? It seems the time for emails to local MP’s and strongly worded letters to cabinet ministers are going to cut it here…
Many of the MPs are not standing again, a lot more will not get elected. We need a reboot asap. Sunak and Hunt need to call election. Continuing this zombie government, putting party before country for another 6 months is really criminal negligence.
I saw that. Warographics was 100% right, and it’s seriously depressing.
Id rather trust Osma Bin Laden than any current British MP regards the defence of the country.
Hi M8, I find myself in a bit of a quandary with this article ! On one hand it’s unheard of any leading Politician to be highlighting Defence as a Major issue in the run up to a General Election. The usual mantra is there are “no votes in Defence” so just pay lip service to it and then ignore it if you get into power. Not even Maggie did it, just the usual general comments and then tried to shaft defence and leave John Nott to take the blame. For Labour to do so well, I’m actually Smack Gobed… Read more »
So Mr Healy, just to be clear, are you stating that you would deal with the mismanagement of the wedgetails by buying 2 airframes to being us up to the original 5?
Will you be committing to bringing defence spending back up to the 2.5% it was when you were last in office?
What’s the best there won’t be a clear answer?
One hopes , certainly the MSM are running the alarm bells .
But I am yet to be convinced anything will change and Mr Gealey will not have a severe dose of Amnesia.
Increase it to trnn percent and there will be no obvious improvement in ten years. The money would be better used to improve the production proses
The hollowing out of the military did not start in 2010 and just because we spent more when Labour was in power that did not translate to investment as much of that spending was on costly wars. We had 37 Destroyers and Frigates in 1997 when Labour took power and the Type 45 being cut from 12 to 6 made the per ship cost more expensive AND directly contributed to the current hollowed out state we are in. Not to just pick on the Labour governments of the past as the Tories have continued the legacy of wasteful decisions that… Read more »
Haters will be haters; just ignore post war perception of facts.
The reality is in the 2000s we were still partially drawing down from a Cold War high, if you look at the defence budget as a GDP% it went from 5%ish in 1991 down to around 2.5% by 2000 and then steadied out…the 2000s were always going to see a draw down…in reality 37 escorts was way to high and never sustainable under the 2.5% peacetime budge..23 escorts was not unreasonable for that risk assessment ( Russia was profoundly weak and had only just started showing the first signs of something threatening, china was seen as a friend)….you have to… Read more »
You make a fine counter point friend and you have my agreement for the most part, especially the part about the Tories being more to blame, I just don’t think Labour has the ability to sit on a high horse when their cuts were clearly too deep (especially in hindsight). What frustrates me the most is the empty rhetoric coming from Labour with no vision nor a clear promise. As terrible as the Reform party looks their pledge to go from 2.5 and then to 3 may fool people into voting for them, so this Labour indecisiveness is pushing people… Read more »
I don’t disagree, I honestly think both parties need to come out and commit to 3%…the problem is that if either party does the other will use the uncommitted spending and your irresponsible around the economy line and most of the British public will swallow that line hook line and sinker..if Labour did promise 10billion extra to defence …they would be instantly attacked for it….as would the conservatives. Its very sad as everyone pretty much agrees we are in a pre war situation and to prevent a war very significant deterrent is needed and if that does not work we… Read more »
Lets be honest its cause and effect, Tories didn’t have to do anything on defence because the oppostiion had no credible policy on defence, government are only as strong as the opposition that takes them to task. This is why I refuse to take sides with either party, they blame each other when they both played a part.
To be honest Expat on this one I as much blame the voting public as anything..if either party had suggested a 3% spend the other would have gone…but where will you get the money…that could go on tax cuts to hard working families…that could go to services…and as the public don’t understand the present risks around defence or really care about our armed forces,.the side that did commit to 3% spend on defence would have got a ton of negative press and lost vote share….if the public could be bothered to educate itself on geopolitical risk and what that means… Read more »
It doesn’t help when chlorinated chicken was a higher on electioneering agenda than defence. So political class needs to do much more in selecting real issues to fight elections on instead of low grade points scoring. But we are where we are.
The clearest signal we can send Mr Putin to “ do what he wants” is complacency.
We urgently need an honest defence review ( non treasury led) and a plan, enshrined in law how the defence budget will increase, year on year to a level the defence review indicates is necessary. I suspect 3%.
As distasteful as spending on defence is, spending on health, education etc means nothing if the country cannot be defended.
A strong defence is a lot cheaper than a war,
Agree with all that you have said but before we chuck more money at defence and waste £billions we need some other changes. Simplify procurement processes, which are often complex and too long. Avoid single source procurement arrangements unless unavoidable. Improve recruitment by bringing back in house. This could be done by re-rolling some civil servants within MOD, which is still top heavy and bureaucratic. Stick by the outcome of the defence review and put in place funding to match for the whole parliament. As part of item 4 above set out the equipment procurement plan for each year and… Read more »
There are always two events I keep in my mind as they both directly affected how this country fought wars. The first was Winston Churchill’s decision to not have the Treasury involved in his war cabinet. “Military expediency requires the decisions to be made by the War Cabinet of five ministers and the chiefs of staff”. The second was Thatcher. Upon hearing the Falklands had been invaded. The former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan visited Margaret Thatcher at Chequers. He gave her advice based on his experience of sitting on war cabinets from WWII to Suez. “Ensure you only have “doers”… Read more »
Have you listened to last Saturdays “The week in Westminster”, if not you should it pretty well nails it.
Lord Nicholas Macpherson former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was on about 20 mins into the programme.
He was asked about the need for extra Defence Spending “Well I’m a former Treasury Official and so hate giving money to MOD”.
I kid you not. Check it out BBC Sounds 🙁
And ensure that you have leaders
I agree with your more detailed comments.
Mr Healey is making a lot of noise, I will not hold my breath that it turns into tangible action.
Blaming the last guy is easier especially when it comes to defence.
I am all for supporting the U.K. arms manufacturers but when the same arms manufacturers , return the favour by chocking to near death the golden goose, it does more than annoy me.
Treasury rules already prohibit single source procurement where avoidable. It just results in a long-drawn out bidding and tender evaluation process- resulting in a procurement process that is too complex and too long. In the end it’s always going to end up as a single source procurement for major systems, because you can’t buy LM aircraft from Boeing or vice versa.
“but before we chuck more money at defence and waste £billions we need some other changes…” It’s already too late to mess about before increasing budgets. Rearrangements will take too long and have too little effect to be a contingent requirement. Of course we should bring recruitment back in-house, but why wait until the current recruitment contracts are finished or cancelled before adding more money to the resource budget? You are also doing what the politicians do. You are making decisions such as COTS/MOTS vs bespoke as a policy decision rather than allowing procurement specialists to decide on an case-by-case… Read more »
Single sourcing is more likely as we switch to UK only supply and so is the purchase of non off the shelf.
All absolutely true… 3% ring fenced on defence with a proper stable plan for the next 25 years is what’s needed. This should be brought in alongside fundamental reform regarding procurement, with a military industrial strategy that actually works for the armed forces, rather than primarily for the industrial base as a job creation scheme! SDSR’s should still be held every 5 years, but should be strictly non political and contributing to the long term plan, with changes in the geo political situation and technology factored into any defence planning alterations. So, that’s what needs doing, unfortunately, we have self… Read more »
I don’t agree. I think SDSRs should be rolling 30 year programmes – the cr@p that gets poured on Labour for Mid-90s decisions, 30 years after the event is laughable and yet the SSBN and carriers will be in service how long? Those are budget lines that can be extrapolated and fed into future predicted pensions – as can manpower costs and pensions. However, of course 5, 10, 15, 20 year thoughts need to be fed in but 5 years is a short time in analysis and for the money put into Defence analysis in the round, we need more… Read more »
I certainly agree re all aspects of procurement. It needs to be fundamentally reformed. So many cases of appalling mismanagement, it’s hard to pick a single example… I think the worst case is still the L85A1, an appalling piece of crap that was fundamentally compromised in both design and build, with serious reliability issues that were both known and thoroughly understood as the rifle entered production. So many people absolutely knew the facts and yet 300,000 were ordered anyway. I’m not sure if that flawed rifle actually cost anyone their life, I would however be surprised if it didn’t. Had… Read more »
The problem is we are beyond any 25 year plans…our enemies are preparing and planning for war with us in the near future….we need a crash plan for an immediate max effort at deterrence…as a major war/world war will be catastrophic. 25 year plans can come later…you don’t plan when the patient is in peri arrest you act and throw the kitchen sink at them to try and prevent the arrest….what you should have had is a good plan to prevent peri arrest…..but I fear we will wait until the patient has arrested ( war) before we react. so for… Read more »
Bravo.
Exactly and no government of any stripe is going to have to invent a case for joining our closest allies in building up defence while Putin is in the Kremlin. However, tremendous gaps to fill due to complacency, negligence and incompetence.
Great words but that is exactly what they are. All parties in government since I first went to sea in 1982 have cut, cut, cut and now wonder why UK armed forces are in the state they are – shame on you all no matter your politics, lets hope Putin doesn’t come because the present polictical system will be the first to run and be executed.
Surely the headline should read ‘The Government in Power should put Defence before Party’.?.
Labour are pretty much going to be the Government in power within months. I doubt they will put defence before party. You can see the buy British element is to help the unions and burgeon their membership for instance, I suspect that element will target blue collar workers. I guess those who vote Labour would argue otherwise but as a non align seems a afairly obvious policy to keep union backers happy. So yeah PArty before defence every time lol.
I,ve panic to the sdr, of course more cuts are to come doesn,t matter labour or conservative, none of them are interested in british defence.
I was serving the last time a Labour Govt were in and the prospect of anther one does not exactly fill me with confidence! No govt seem to be capable of seeing past the NHS when it comes to funding.
No surprise there. Any government is going to focus on the big ticket items; pensions, benefits, social care and health + taxes, interest rates. I see the main issue is that we are about to spend 6 months electioneering and then the new ( probably labour ) government will take another 12 months to carry out a defence review. I don’t think we can wait. As other posters are pointing out there are some decisions / actions / purchases which are not contentious and could be made fairly quickly. Also see Ex- Marine’s post – don’t make the Treasury a… Read more »
I agree there, which is why NI should be hypothecated to NHS spending – and watch it come down as people understand the true cost of the NHS. You want to be more radical? Add pensions.
Nothing to do with Govt spending but the employed would be howling over NI.
Defence could then share a bigger piece of the tax pie.
So the way I read that is, goodbye expeditionary capabilities, beyond the NATO area, yes? Some of the very assets that set this nation apart and enable us to act globally, from bases to other strategic assets including our 5 eyes infrastructure. We already have strength in allies. Because how else to afford to improve UK home defence, whatever that entails, and a “warfighting Division” Which should be 3 manoeuvre Brigades by the way, not 2. Also, the situation in the Red Sea isn’t NATO. Op Shader isn’t NATO. AUKUS isnt NATO. GCAP isn’t NATO. We have defence obligations and… Read more »
Mate I’m sorry to disagree with you; but shouldn’t your comments about “expeditionary capabilities” now be in the past tense after the LPD anouncement and the C130’s gone
No mate, as by expeditionary I also mean our logistic tail, from overseas bases to the RFA, to the Rangers, to the SF, our transport fleet, and a host of other stuff shall I more accurately describe as offensive in nature. Sitting defending the UK and fulfilling the armed forces covenant is one step away from Foots madness in the early 80s and Neal Kinooks vow to convert Tornado GR1s to interceptors.
We need the ability to attack.and impose ourselves on other nations. That I’m sure offends Labour deeply and undermines, I fear, their entire “Defence” policy.
M8 your talking about little more than raiding forces not true expeditionary. No LPD, no LPH, just 3 bays and only one RFA to support the carriers or anything else with solid stores. As for the logistics tail and Transport fleet, we can’t even refuel our Helicopters or C17s in flight, nor the Tankers for that matter. You just need to look at last years fiasco in Sudan to gauge how bad it really is. France has far fewer heavy lift aircraft than we do, but they ran rings round us. And yep what you say about Labour politicians in… Read more »
Thanks mate. Fingers crossed eh!
Riddle me this Mr D Labour has five strategic priorities to keep Britain safe – 1. reinforce UK homeland protections, 2. Ensure UK NATO obligations are fulfilled in full, 3. make allies our strategic strength, 4. direct defence investment first to British business, and 5. renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and the families who support them. 1. They are not shying away from. 2. They’ve said 100% 3. Where did they say NATO Allies? What does depth mean to you? Manoeuvre space? Thinking space? Reaction space? So where do Labour step back ‘Allies’ 4. AUKUS is a… Read more »
Eyes on Angela Raynor, whos brother served in Iraq, she’s street savvy, tough as boots and not daft.
She’s a astute politician too.
No mention of any commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% or beyond, guess that wont be happening under a Labour government despite the author’s sniping.
The Cons have emptied the Safe, Chest, under the Mattress, in the Loft and even the Downpipe.
Where should Labour get the cash from? The printing press?
Oh, the Cons did that and look at the shit we are now in.
The foreign aid budget should be slashed in the same way as defence has had to endure it’s worth everybody googling how much and where it ball goes to. Ditto th BBC licence fee money allocation. You’ll be amazed and very angry.
Thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com did a really informative article on foreign aid, last year.
There are a lot of things need taking out of the political arena where they are just toys used for political point scoring. Defence is just one of them.
Our archaic political system is short term by design. Totally unsuited for the 21st century where 25 (or longer) year plans and commitments are needed to meet modern complexities.
The country is condemned to failure until there is a radical overhaul.
Not saying it’s an easy thing to fix but nobody even dares to touch the root of cause of so many problems.
Completely agree, the world is in such a deadly state we need the defence discussion to be depoliticised…both major parties need to agree a spending plan for defence and both committee to the same level of spending.
The NHS needs to also be depoliticised…the Germans have managed to do it..how much the German public pay and the healthcare system’s budgets are set by an apolitical process…so the German public pay what is required and it’s got nothing to do with political point scoring or the treasury.
Labour is Starmer’s party now so unless he says something I don’t see a reason to listen.
We all need to just wait and see what will be in the Manifestos as firm commitments,
We do know what is in the SNP one. “Vote for us if you want the Tories out”, I kid you not that’s it.
A desperate plea for votes based purely on hatred to try to avoid getting a walloping in Scotland by Scottish Labour.
Manifesto s are worthless from the minute the ink drys on them
True 👍 I’ll second that
CNN is reporting that Russia is making a 3 ton glide bomb; never mind the GPS quality feel the width. Bloomberg is reporting that Putin is raising Russian defence spending to 6% of GDP. The Daily Telegraph carries an article arguing that Putin is openly preparing for a long conventional war with NATO. We need to hustle. We do need to move the country and the economy onto something close to a war footing and rearm. Taxes and borrowing may have to rise. Forget your fortnight on the Costa Brava and a new EV car….think Blackpool or Clacton for a… Read more »
It’s now more than 6% GDP…Russia is spending around 40% of its entire state budget on defence and security….the U.S. have estimated that chinas security spend could actually be 10-11 times its what is published ( 1.7% GDP published) .
As just this month china has now removed “Peaceful” from its reunification with Taiwan statements and replaced it with the term “firm”.
Just wait for Putin and others to possibly take advantage of while nearly the whole world is watching the Olympics and after Macron’s comments on Ukraine. Appalling timing and did anything need to be said? Now need to face any fallout.
Its all well and good, people whining about ‘what Labour did 14+ years ago. That was… 14+ years ago! The tories waltzed in, and took a JCB to Britain’s Military. That, is a fact, and people would do well to remember it!
Christ knows where the next incoming government is going to get the money, to start fixing Britain’s armed forces. It’s not broken, it’s well and truly banjaxed.
All anyone can hope, is that the Greens nor Lib Dems get in. If that were to be the case, then we are well and truly f…..
Reinforce Homeland Protection equals make sure the reserves are okay; ensure UK NATO committmenbts are met, so nothing to do there as they are already; make our allies our strategic strength, presumably by getting them to do motre of our job for us; commit to British business, but how exactly if there are no more orders; renew the nations contract with those who serve, by doing what? Buiding more houses? 😟
Also, inviting all parties to contribute. You have no choice as they are already entitled to. AS USUAL A LOT OF TALK AND NOTHING ACTUALLY SAID.
Geoff, it’s true. You’ve typed so much and contributed nothing. Sad but true.
😴 Short enough?
“Defence must match the threats we face, and as we don’t have access to any of the classified threat assessments, costs or military advice in Opposition, we will conduct a Strategic Security and Defence Review (SDSR) within the first year to fully understand the state of our Armed Forces, the nature of threats and the capabilities needed.” – That is technically true, but it is really just a superficially plausible excuse for failing to make any spending commitments. In reality there is sufficient open-source information available to Shadow Ministers to give a fairly good idea of the scale and nature… Read more »
Electioneering is a poker game. Labour are going to flush the Tories out before they make their play. The Tories are bluffing and have been for a while.
The sad truth is if Labour made a commitment to 3% spend on defence the conservative attack line would be…Ecconomic incompetence and spending money we don’t have…while knowing we need to spend that money….and people would believe it…Labour promising 3% GDP spend on defence would loss them votes…
They are already losing votes to apathy because they aren’t committing to anything. Perhaps some clear water between themselves and the Tories might get a few more people to the polling stations.
Defence, education & the NHS in an ideal world there should be cross party consensus, but even when a new minister from the same party is appointed they have to make changes to show they are now in charge & these changes will
always cost a lot of money & in many cases are probably unnecessary.
This obsession with 2.5% means nothing if a government implements a deal which reduces the UK’s GDP, there is high inflation & the pound becomes weaker against the US dollar & other currencies.
The navy should be doubled in size, the army should get ten thousand more soldiers and the RAF and the UK should show ambition outside of the Terra firma. Restore RAF Gibraltar. And re evaluate the notion of the au.k being an expeditionary model. The U.S has over a hundred F 15 at the UK bases, we should aim to match that kind of number.maybe look at why the RAF AND THE FAA are necessary most nations cannot afford to have two air forces
Trust a politician or political party? Biggest joke of the year so far. Slime balls the lot of them.
Ain’t that the truth
How much will Labour commit to funding Defence???
A question that Mr Healey has refused to directly answer on many occasions.
The idea that Labour would increase spending over the Conservatives is laughable.
Defence is the first priority of any Government and should override most other issues. Without adequate defence our own Government and way of life is at risk. Prioritising tax cuts for the well off and austerity for the rest harms our collective way of life. Tax cuts mean reduced public services and less economic resilience to cope with emergencies and threats both existing and or emerging. Those same wealthy tax cut beneficiaries then expect the less well off to fight (and win) their wars for them at the same time as hamstringing them through lack of equipment and wider resources.… Read more »
We learned aphorisms when I went to primary school, and the one that came to mind reading this article was: fine words butter no parsnips. I watched Mr Healey speech to the Policy Exchange a few weeks ago and read his words here carefully. At no point does he say Labour will spend more money. In fact at the Policy Exchange he implied the opposite. He talked about adding an extra layer of military strategic hedquarters within MOD, and doing so using “innovative and efficent ways” and “within necessarily tight fiscal constraints”. If those aren’t code for no more money… Read more »
Your SDSR isn’t going to bump up pay by at least 15% so you are never going to solve the personnel crisis the only way I can see anyone tackling it is being grown up set the desired personnel level to 50k more people than it currently is and legally bind all future governments to a contract with Service Personnel saying if you do a full 22 years career you don’t pay taxes anymore but no one will ever have the guts to do it yet 120k Soldiers not paying tax will work out cheaper in the long run than… Read more »
Blah blah, activist billions or defence?
This is from Conservatives now imagine Labour .
from fee.org
i have been reflecting on my thoughts around this article. At a high level, I think it’s pretty refreshing that we have a senior politician ( who is likely to be responsible for defence policy) , putting himself out there to a community of the electorate who are interested in and aware of defence issues. So in this the Labour shadow defence minister shows he cares about his brief because, let’s be honest the readership of the UK defence journal ( who may have an interest in defence) are not going to change the outcome of any seats in the… Read more »
Thank you for expanding the conversation. Yes. It is refreshing that we have a senior politician engaging here. Kudos to him. Also kudos to the UKDJ staff for getting us an article from the second defence spokesperson from a non-governing party within a few months, and as you say, Jonathan, one likely to be DefSec this time next year. You point out some areas where you and I may have a slightly different take. Depoliticising defence spending is both a positive and a negative. If it makes it harder to achieve anything because all the major parties would have to… Read more »
Yes it’s interesting would our defence strategy be stronger if it’s depoliticised and consensus based..as you say it could lead to paralysis…but I think if it’s set up right it can work and would work well providing a great deal of stability and strategic direction…a classic example of a depoliticised thorny issue is the German healthcare system..it’s set up so budget setting, funding and strategic decision making is non political, the only role the executive and legislative have is to oversee the system at a very high level as a monitor and to gain assurance the whole system works. You… Read more »
“…the only role the executive and legislative have is to oversee the system at a very high level as a monitor and to gain assurance the whole system works.”
Something like this would be nice. The sclerosis in the current system exists in part because all elements of the MOD hierarchy look at important things separately and sequentially, each taking time. When that’s followed by MinDP, DefSec, Cabinet, again sequentially, it’s just more treacle. Not to mention necessary ticks in boxes from the treasury and cabinet office apparatchiks.
It’s something I have always found fascinating about conservative governments, they speak very much about small government and cutting back bureaucracy…and while they are very hot at reducing budgets for front line services they at the same time obsessed with increased bureaucracy by hugely seeking to control services and control how the money is spent.. The department for heath is a classic in the days of new Labour you had 1)Department of health ( national planning and funding had about 3000 staff 2)strategic health authority’s ( regional planning and funding, about six of these had a few hundred staff each)… Read more »
There is no leadership inn in this country and tha is the reason for the nation being such a bloody mess
What does makes allies our strategic strength mean. Not sure US, Australia NZ and Japan is going to like Mr Healeys global retreat, so he means selective allies not all allies. Then he ends on a nationalistic, we want it to be Britain’s plan to defend our country. Dear god, you can tell a politician wrote this. And of course Mr Healey completely fails to mention his party gave the Tories scope to not take defence seriously by ushering in JC, sorry John you have to take some responsibilty as opposition you weren’t credible on defence. Lastly 2.5% is irrelevant,… Read more »
Labour is making hay over the governments defence cuts at a time when the UK’s national security faces the greatest threat for at least 50 years. However Starmer has notably refused to commit to defence spending above 2% GDP, pending the outcome of a defence review. Given that current spending is supposedly 2.2% (some creative accounting changes have been made in recent years to prevent it dropping below 2.0%), he has actually given himself wiggle room to make more cuts.