The Ministry of Defence has confirmed new projections for the UK’s defence spending, setting out a path towards the government’s target of 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
The information was published in a series of written answers to Parliament, responding to questions from James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk.
Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, provided a breakdown of projected UK spending: the MOD budget will represent 2.08% of GDP in 2025-26, rising to 2.20% by 2027-28, while total defence spending under NATO’s definition is forecast at 2.36% in 2025-26, reaching 2.60% in 2027-28.
He added that “under NATO guidance Government expenditure can be counted towards defence spending, provided it is specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance.”
The figures come as NATO has set a far more ambitious long-term benchmark. At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies committed to allocating 5% of GDP annually on core defence and security-related requirements by 2035. This includes a binding commitment to spend at least 3.5% of GDP on NATO-defined defence expenditure, with up to 1.5% reserved for resilience measures such as protecting critical infrastructure, civil preparedness, and strengthening the defence industrial base. NATO has instructed member states to submit annual plans showing a credible incremental path to this target.
In Parliament, Maria Eagle, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, was pressed by Cartlidge on how the UK’s Defence Investment Plan will be structured. She said: “The Defence Investment Plan will set out the Department’s spending plans to deliver the vision of the Strategic Defence Review against its forecast budget. This will be based on the Department’s Spending Review settlement, and the MOD’s projected share of the Government’s ambition to spending 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament as and when fiscal and economic conditions allow.”
Asked whether the plan would be tied to cost envelopes of 2.5%, 3% or 3.5%, Eagle replied: “The Defence Investment Plan will set out how the MOD will deliver the vision of the Strategic Defence Review within the MOD’s share of the Government’s commitment to spending 2.6% of GDP on defence by 2027, and 3% of GDP in the next Parliament as fiscal and economic conditions allow.”
On the role of intelligence funding, Eagle confirmed that the government’s future increases will incorporate the Single Intelligence Account, saying: “The Prime Minister has been clear about the contribution our intelligence and security services make to the defence of our nation. The commitment to spend 2.6% on defence from 2027 will include all spend relating [to] the Single Intelligence Account.”
When the Wales Defence Investment Pledge was signed in 2014, only three Allies met the 2% target. By 2025, all members are expected to exceed it, with European Allies and Canada together raising their investment from 1.43% of GDP in 2014 to just over 2% in 2024. The Alliance has also maintained a separate benchmark that at least 20% of defence spending should go on major equipment, research, and development, to ensure modernisation and interoperability.
£6B to find to get to 2.5% by 2027.
Another £15B on top of that to get to 3%
Another £60B on top of that to get to the promised 5%.
That’s £81B they have to find. Unless war actually breaks out, and whatever they have promised Trump for the 2030s, I can’t see the Treasury ever getting above 3%.
If we could have a real 3% without all the padding of potholes and broadband – we might still have to have Angie’s 15th house in the budget to keep her onboard with the spending rise.
But as I explained in a previous post SNP maths has taken over from SMP maths. This has lead to a number of amazing new proofs and mathematical concepts that are now being widely adopted.
This uses Sturgeon’s proof. Initially, this was only thought to apply to camper vans.
Where the number of campers vans is greater than one the total campers vans are always zero.
The great thing is that Sturgeon’s proof has now been extended to taxation. When applied to a Scottish workers ‘pay up it is good for you’ is greater than or equal to ‘pay through a company registered in England it is good for me’.
Even more elegantly the proof has been extended in a remarkable new paper described as Angie’s Stamp Duty Paradox. In this paradox Angie states that it is ‘good for the population to be taxed out of existence for second homes’. When the proof is applied to Angie’s second home the rate tends towards the standard rate. Professor Starmer [who has taken over from Professor Reeves as chief money wizard at Gringolts] was unable to find any fault with the proof of Angie’s paradox.
The usual smoke and mirrors, while the forces continue to shrink and, or, lose capabilities.
As mentioned in another article, I believe the core budget includes:
2 billion for the Afghan data breach debacle.
150 odd million every year for 99 years for the Chagos nonsense. That alone is more than many equipment programs get PA.
3 billion plus a year for Ukraine.
Pensions.
The billions allocated for the DNE, so including non ops spend including SSN dismantling, infrastructure builds at the AWE sites, new warheads, and so on.
The SIA, as stated.
Is it any wonder conventional defence is falling apart?
Much of the bigger spend will be lost in the existing black hole, channeled into the MIC, HMG’s primary objective regards defence spending alongside the politics of being at the “top table” by having nukes. Using the defence budget to feather the nests of the MIC is all well and good for jobs, industry, and indeed sovereign resilience, but still leaves questionable outcomes for actual military kit deliveries years down the line, which are by no means guaranteed going by past history.
Example, 12 BILLION I understand to get industry to develop Tempest, never mind then buy it. How many will the RAF get? If it is cancelled, will MoD see that money sunk into BAES? Like hell they will. Did they for any other cancelled program?
I love how the biggest % target, real extra money, is always into the next Parliament. The same trick promised by the Tories when Sunak pledged the same, knowing full well they’d be out of office and not held to it.
What did DS Healey talk of when elected? “stopping the hollowing out”
Where?
Show us real uplifts in the autumn equipment plan, and in personnel, and I’ll concede I’m wrong. The outflow surpassing inflow of trained personnel is at least reducing, and being slowly halted, from what I read.
Till then, this government are all hot air just like all the rest. And the Service Chiefs are no better, gagged in office and only complaining when in cushy non executive advisory roles with defence firms when leaving service.
The 5% commitment by a government that probably won’t be in power to a President who will probably be dead – is completely worthless. I’ll stick by the conviction that any UK government of any colour with the current spending pressures will, no matter what they say, ever spend over 3%. Oh & 3% will be a struggle and of that 3%, as you’ve shown above, not all will be spent on core defence.
Bravo sir, well said!
Sadly all correct, let’s hope the autumn equipment plan proves you wrong 🤞 but sadly I fear my initial optimism was misplaced.. the UK alongside the rest of the west is going to loss its edge and it’s going to cost us hard in a long brutal war with China and its allies.
Well Germany, Holland, Poland, Sweden, Norway & Denmark have real money and are spending it.
France claims it will spend it but won’t.
So not all bad but we are utter laggards and viewed as such.
True but Germany, Holland,Poland etal are all rightly focused on the eastern border of Europe and don’t really have hard power global reach.. the global power in the west is really focused on the US, UK, France and to a lesser extent Italy.. and generally each of those powers in their own way is making a right old fuckup of securing western hegemony.
I’m not sure if Politicians think we are idiots or they truly believe the crap they spout. An increase in Defense spending is required because we need more people, bullets, tanks, ships and planes to successfully beat off the invading hordes when they come. Shuffling the pages in the outgoings ledger so that more existing expenditure is considered “defense” fails to achieve that. All they succeed in doing is make themselves look more dishonest than they already do, and leaves us just as defenseless as we are now.
They just don’t care as long as they get there cheap house and expenses they will say what ever. None are ever held to account for the cr*p they spew ever single day. Bring General Cheeseburger in to sort.
That’s what NATO agreed to do though. It’s why the government reports the old definition of defence % of GDP, and then the new definition that includes things like intelligence services because that’s how all other NATO members are reporting it.
It won’t happen, the plan is to drag this promise of 5% out to the end of Trumps term hoping for a softening by the new administration.
Who really trusts these numbers? All that happens is more things are re classed as NATO spending but to be honest we have not ordered any thing in over a year apart from spares etc. So any so called new money is not going any where. Its simply government accounting making it look like its better when there is no change. All talk, meeting, window shopping, and committees followed fancy talk moving costs and things about. The Army still has no Tracked Arty, two years after we gave all ours away.
Hardly some thing to gloat about,
HMG really enjoy telling a good story 🤗
And it is all subject to the constantly repeated mantra of weasel words : “when/if economic/fiscal conditions allow” , i.e. never.
Head in the sand stuff.
Litmus test of buying 40+ extra Typhoons now, or Gov just not serious about defence of UK.
Go to 5% and use it as an investment into UK industry – not other countries kit, especially USA – to kick-start re-industrialization of UK, and gain the wider benefits to the UK economy.
*Never in the field of (FFWD) has so much bollocks been written/said by so futile a government*
5%, 10 x Lethality, A growing Navy, we pledge to cut Illegals, Tough on Crime, they are all the bloody same, all piss and wind.
Thinking of buying a new £800,000 Rental property, looking for advice ?