The soon-to-be-published Strategic Defence Review (SDR) outlines a sweeping transformation of the UK’s armed forces, backed by a significant funding uplift. However, a key element already appears uncertain.
The authors of the review wrote: “The Government’s important decision to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027/28 and, vitally, to 3 per cent in the next Parliament made an enormous difference. The decision established the affordability of our recommendations across a 10-year programme.”
Despite this, speaking at BAE Systems in Govan on Monday morning, Prime Minister Keir Starmer declined to commit to the 3 per cent figure beyond the current Parliament. He reiterated only the existing pledge: “We will raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and set the ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament, subject to economic and fiscal conditions.”
That caveat, “subject to economic and fiscal conditions,” means that the move to 3 per cent, described as vital by the SDR authors, is not guaranteed. Without it, the affordability of the review’s long-term recommendations is already in question.
The SDR outlines a broad range of reforms, from new investment in drone warfare and long-range strike capabilities to hybrid naval platforms and a refreshed national warhead programme. Several of the more ambitious initiatives, such as a larger strategic reserve, six new munitions plants, and the acceleration of submarine production, were contingent on the 3 per cent target being delivered in full.
Shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge MP said:
“The Prime Minister can promise all the ships, submarines and tanks, but it all has to be paid for. The key question we have now is that last week, the Defence Secretary said it was absolutely certain that we would get 3% of GDP on Defence- that’s incredibly important.
Since then, he’s backtracked and we don’t know where the Government stand on the money and that’s really important because the authors of the SDR have said that it is base entirely on the assumption of going to 3%. So, whatever you hear today, it must be taken with a pinch of salt, unless we get certainty on the money.”
Industry observers and analysts have warned that failing to lock in the full increase could leave the review’s 10-year programme underfunded before it has even begun. One former defence official told UK Defence Journal, “This is the danger with spending reviews based on assumed increases. If that increase doesn’t materialise, it’s just a wish list.”
Starmer, however, framed the SDR as part of a broader vision. “We will never gamble with our national security. Instead, we will act in the national interest,” he said in Govan. But the distinction between ambition and commitment is now likely to come under intense scrutiny from Parliament and the defence sector alike.
There’s a surprise.
Robertson’s 1997 SDR was not funded to fruition either.
Or, as J says the PM is being vague deliberately to avoid the left.
I do hope I’m right in that he’s smoke and mirroring all those who would object.. i have to say his none verbal and even indirect verbal language in the interview this morning was of a man that really wanted to just say “ ffs of course you know I’m going to spend 3% of GDP” there were a lot of clues…
I disagree, the left has no position on this in labour. It’s also good to see an honest position where the authors put what they think is needed instead of what the government says can be afforded.
I would also suggest the government is right not committing to 3% in this parliament. That would be a near 50% real time increase over 5 years at a time when the labour market and defence industries are constrained. All it would result in is higher prices as in the USA and a less affordable military in the long run.
“the left has no position on this in labour.”
haha!
NATO and its members will shame him into raising it long before he fears his backbenchers will allow it. He’s putting off the inevitable – benefits cuts.
Why bother even saying “war footing” ? It’s just words.
You would think if you were using those words there must be some intelligence/studies by US/European countries to suggest that things might happen sooner rather than later which would necessitate a sense of urgency.
Nope maybe/potentially/possibly 3.5% by 2035.
I bang my head against a well dented wall.
I’m getting old! I’m going to agree with a Con!
However, I do believe Starmer will go for 3% where circumstances dictate; my persistent question is: where are all the crews coming from?
And raises another I asked Daniele this morning: “How much does it cost to build a house?” Another announcement was an additional £1.5Bn on accommodation, should £50k be the cost of building a vew house / flat etc, that’s 140,000 houses!
Who’s going to them and where?
There will be building new to replace current housing in there too, not just brand new housing to add to existing stock.
DB. You assume that £1.5bn is to build new SFA. It might be mainly to refurbish existing SSLA and SFA, with just a bit going to new builds.
Sir,
That wasn’t my point.
This is in addition to £5.5Bn already announced and at back of envelope new build price, that would 140,000 NEW builds. How many are in the forces now?
On a serious point, poach people from Premier Inn and get them to head up a team building new accommodation for singles… be a lot faster and possibly cheaper.
Daniele told me where he thought the money went, and, I agree with him.
I have been moaning about defence underfunding for the last two decades, but I would be happy if we got to 2.7% to 2.9% GDP & stayed there for a decade. With a £2.8 trillion+ national debt, it is wrong to promise 3%+ & then not deliver.
It is wrong to imply that we have the kit & people to form an effective defence if we haven’t.
The plan with new Governments is always to increase house building becuase the vast majority of the funding comes from builders & not from the public purse. It’s an old tactic and will get Labour nowhere.
The real elephant in the rooms is that all of this jam is for tomororw.
Now I fully accept that even if you had a huge pile of jam today you couldn’t actually spend all of it sensbily as it take a while to make things and for companies to invoice for them.
However, even a definitive improvement in the flow of jam allows for forward orders to be placed and and then settled from the jam reserves.
I think I’ll have some toast with the fresh jam I made yesterday and a nice cuppa [wet] to wash down the good news on actually building a sensible number of submarines!
I think you just overspread the jam metaphors their mate.
He is just getting his five a day!
John sorry to hit you with this, but jam is not considered one of your 5 a day.. I’m a nurse mate trust me jam is not something your gut and metabolic system considers fruit. 🍇 😂😀
Tell my aunts. They made jam that was at least 200% fruit. It boils down. Not that ghastly cheap supemarket jam that is only 30-40% fruit.
Sounds lovely.. although I’m going to try and channel my inner middle class and say something so heavy in fruit is a conserve.. which we all know is actually good stuff..
It should be Rachel refuses to make commitment.
Starmer can explain to Rachel that her choice is to find the funds required from somewhere or see if she fancies herself as a back bencher.
If his leadership cant survive losing Rachel, of winter fuel payment fame, then his time as PM is going to be limited anyway.
With debt repayments running at around 4.5% of GDP it is as sorry state of affairs when total defence spending is less than debt payments, just half of debt payments even. So I understand why Starmer cannot give a commitment when dealing with this unblinking reality. To raise defence means a direct cut to something else and just look at the fury over winter fuel allowance. Having 3.7million people on PIP, about 8% of the workforce needs redress but you can’t declare when you have 3% on defence until those areas are reformed first, given doctors want more, prisons need to be built, endless other major areas to fix.
I may be wrong, but I think it’s 3.7 million on sickness benefits, not PIP. Only a part of those are eligable & claim PIP. We’ve had decades of cruel simplistic persecution of the sick on benefits causing immense misery & hardship on top of the sicknesses these people suffer. A friend of mine chose not to claim for his sick wife as the proces was too difficult & he didn’t want to put her through it. Others have no choice. People are dying while waiting for decisions to be rectified or commiting suicide from the stress.
We should be looking at those with the broadest shoulders to step up rather than kicking the weakest & poorest every time there’s a financial challenge. Something like the top 5% have more than the entire bottom 50%. There are exceptions of course, but the richer they get(& they’ve been rapidly growing & hoarding their wealth throughout every time of austerity), the more they demand the ordinary & poor get less.
The first infringement into NATO-held boundaries will start the alarm bell ringing, thus allowing the government of the day the license to realistically boost defence spending. Until that arises, Starmer will make every effort to keep the ball rolling and stay within the backbenchers’ confidence. Sadly, until 2030+ the UK must keep its fingers crossed that Putin does not drone bomb us as well as our partners in Europe.
This is really annoying I have 6 essays to write by the end of the week and I just cannot concentrate until I have read the SDR…where is it…..
Same, end of half term tomorrow, I had a bunch of homework, but hanging around waiting for an enormous document to read!
I’ve come in from the garden 4 times now to check.
Mate, it’s going to be waffle. Im expecting it as that’s what has gone before.
Will I be pleasantly surprised with a commitment to x force level? I doubt, but I hope.
Apparently it will be debated in parliament in 1 hour or so…
It’s due any minute now
Yes they are debating the nuclear deterrent and all reading their SDRs as they debate
Yes, it has been worth the wait. This government talks for UK defence, where the last government had at best only an approximate grasp on the matter. If Labour get back in after the next election, this 2025 SDR stands a chance of being accomplished but if we end up with a higher mix of Liberal MPs, I fear the situation could become clouded by mixed priorities.
I bet if the SDR had said that certain capabilities were not necessary, this Government would have executed like lightning.
Now its indicated 3% is necessary, all the wind and p*ss from Downing Street has started.
“ “The Prime Minister can promise all the ships, submarines and tanks, but it all has to be paid for. The key question we have now is that last week, the Defence Secretary said it was absolutely certain that we would get 3% of GDP on Defence- that’s incredibly important”
Pot kettle black – Rushi/Hunt could have committed to 2.5% some time ago….they didn’t….
Indeed, criticism from the Tories does fall rather flat in light of their 14 years of major defence cuts.
Under the Tories didn’t the prime minister present the SDR to parliament not the defence secretary?
Cameron in 2010, yes.
Little new so far beyond trying for 76k army by next Parliament, and “Carriers” with hybrid Air Wings.
Carriers safe.
Autumn for the actual equipment plan. As reported previously.
Now that will be interesting DM, the devil in in the detail. First things first – they need to park the spurious 12 SSNs in year “who knows when”?
For me the focus is the surface escorts to 25 and MRSS. For the RAF- fast jet expansion , A400 transport’s , Puma replacement, 2 more Wedgetail , maybe 2 or 3 more P8s. The Army is beyond my are of knowledge.
A “Strategic Reserve” by 2030. Who? The Regular reserve?
End of “Hollowing out”
“Army Expanded.”
“Navy Grown.”
RAF “updated”
That’s it from the SoS.
Have you read the actual review yet? So far, I’m seeing little in the way of concrete suggestions.
Sorry, that comes across a little aggressive. I mean, I’m seeing little in the way of concrete suggestions from the review, not from yourself.
Lol. Leh, I didn’t take it that way at all!
I’ve made a rough list of snippets.
Very little new yet beyond the standard waffle and doctrines that are repeated with every SDR.
Just watching Defence Secretary now increasing the Army to 76.000 , also announcing the Army will be 10 times more lethal ,really .Defence Secretary needs to get real 76k Army not going to scare anyone .12 new Submarines ,still no sign of RFA ships for our Carriers yet or be it this was planned under the Conservative party .If 12 Submarines do appear this government will be long gone .Plus only talk of Defence spending increase to 3% in several years time ,this needs to be done now .What is it the defence Secretary and the PM with the rest of us party Drink ?
76,000 is really not enough, especially not if the reserves are supposed to be increased by 20%. That balance should really be the other way around.
“The Strategic Reserve—comprising
ex-Regular personnel with enduring
legal obligations—is central to
military mobilisation and must
be reinvigorated. To develop and
test plans to mobilise the Reserves,
the MOD should map Reservists’
locations and skills and make a more
concerted effort to engage them under
a refreshed veterans’ communications
strategy. This strategy should articulate
the Defence offer to those who have
left the Armed Forces and what
Defence may need from them in the
future. The MOD must also incentivise
Strategic Reservists’ engagement by
providing appropriate levels of training
(Chapter 4.3) and increased access to
volunteer roles.”
Sounds like the Strategic Reserve is a re-invigoration of the Regular Reserve, which is something at least.
👍
I recall you previously had suggestions on this re units and using vets skills for specific areas.
Mildly vindicated.
Where can the text of the actual review be found?
I added the link into the article on the PM’s announcement at Scotstoun. For some reason I keep going to moderation here. It’s on the government’s defence website.
Functioning links always go into moderation, I generally break the link by putting some spaces into it.
I did. It seemed to heal the links; even if not entirely, enough to kibosh the post. I suppose I put the spaces in the wrong place. 😒
Yeah, you need to break up the bits that actually make it a link.
So like
https: (SPACE)//www(SPACE) .whatever.(SPACE) com for example
Search ‘SDR 2025’ into Google, and choose the government website result.
Go to MoD website, they’re always put there minutes after the SoS speech.
Should have just called the review “When funding allows”
When funding allows occurs 9 times in the document. Strategic Defence Review occurs 11 times. You were so close…..
144 pages of wiggly long words
Obviously we need a lot more than 3% to restore credible, capable forces to stand off against Russia, China, even a rogue USA we’re seeing today. We may have only 5 years or even less to prepare(could be at war with Russia any time), so aiming for 3% in 10 years seems hopeessly weak. After decades of cuts & austerity for the poorest especially we need to stop protecing the richest who hoard wealth offshore & make them contribute fairly.
Crowing about a target of 25 escorts is thick as 25 was the bare minimum viable peacetime RN establishment. When cut to 19 it was soon obviously too few & allowing it to reduce any further was insane.
Best way to ensure a peaceful future IMO would be to carefully exercise force to make Russia & China wind their aggresive necks in, reather than appeasing & enabling them.
Interestingly a guardian article essentially supports what I have said in that starmer is essentially just doing smoke and mirrors on not massively increasing defence spending due to back lash.. I’ve said it will be 3% by 2030 and then 3.5% +1.5% for 32-34
“Insiders said Starmer was due to discuss Rutte’s target at a meeting on Tuesday and argued it was inconceivable that the UK could turn down the request after announcing a “Nato-first” defence strategy.
Complicating the picture for the UK is that the 3.5% figure may exclude some elements, such as intelligence, that the Treasury counts as Nato-qualifying spending. But details are likely to be the subject of last-minute negotiations.”
12 new submarines coming to you in 2053