John Healey has blasted the Defence Secretary for the significant discrepancy between the government’s rhetoric and the grim reality of military funding and preparedness.

The Defence Secretary’s recent declaration that we are entering “a pre-war world” and the call for increased defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in 2024 has sparked controversy due to a stark discrepancy between such statements and the realities facing the UK’s armed forces.

Speaking in the Commons, Healey said:

“The Defence Secretary owes the public and Parliament an explanation. He said that we are moving into “a pre-war world”, and ahead of last week’s Budget he wrote to the Chancellor and stated that “we must take bold action in your Budget to commit to defence spending increasing to 2.5% in 2024. It would re-establish our leadership in Europe.”

But there is a growing gap between the Defence Secretary’s rhetoric and the reality for our armed forces, who are charged with preparing for this new dangerous era. In the Budget there was no new money for defence, nothing new for Ukraine, and nothing for Gaza or the UK’s operations in the middle east. Worse, both the Treasury and the House of Commons Library confirm that the defence budget will be cut by £2.5 billion in cash terms in this next financial year. The 2.5% of GDP, which the Minister referred to, was not mentioned once in the Treasury Red Book; the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010 under a Labour Government.

While Putin wages war in Europe, Ministers are warring with each other. Challenging defence policy in public, the Minister for Security was on TV this morning calling for 2.5% now. That is a serious breakdown in collective ministerial responsibility, but I am most concerned about the serious state of the UK armed forces. What signal does it send to our adversaries when our forces have been hollowed out and underfunded for the last 14 years; when the Public Accounts Committee finds the largest ever funding deficit in the MOD’s equipment plans; when the British Army has been cut to its smallest size since Napoleon; when forces recruitment targets have been missed each and every year for 14 years; and when satisfaction with service life has hit a record low?

I have one simple question for the Minister: where is the plan for better defending Britain? It is clear that our armed forces cannot afford another five years of a Conservative Government.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

150 COMMENTS

  1. Let’s be honest; as a country, we’ve been hollowing out our military since the retrenchment from ‘East of Suez’ policy was announced in 1966.

    • Whilst in the after dining hall of HMS Centaur at Singapore 1964 there will be no reduction of the carrier fleet in the future. So said Defence Minister Dennis Healey Labour Party. Look what happened after that. I wonder if history will repeat itself with John Healey Labour Party.

      • Don’t be a Silly Billy. The country was just entering decades of financial upheaval. There was a stack of WW2 kit which was out of date. Down sizing and modernisation was the only option. Defence is not divorced from the economy.

        John Healey (if they get in) will be tied to the budgets left by the conservatives. If they don’t make that commitment they will never get elected. Chances are there will be another budget soon with an increase in defence spending (2.5% and/or 3.0%). John will need to follow this at least for the first parliament – assuming they last that long. Then in theory they could cancel everything. There will be some serious moaning on here then.😂

          • Yes but that all got ripped apart by either the illness (the unions running amock) or the medicine applied by the electorate (Maggie) depending upon your point of view. Not much survived the 70’s and 80’s in the UK although Germany etc. managed ok.

            To be fair we could generate new ultra modern shipyards if we really wanted. Actually we would have to if we needed to build ships on a large scale.

        • Another budget with defence spending increase to 2.5-3%? Is this if labour win the election or are you suggesting if the tories are still in power in autumn?

          • Budgets are possible at any point and I would not be surprised if the Tories attempted one prior to a snap election or at the end of the year. They could set a scheduled spending increase (defence) of say 0.1% per year over the next decade which Labour would (probably) feel obliged to match – at least until the end of the first parliament. A little like the Blair Government. Who wins the election would probably be stuck with the manifesto committment.
            The Tories would be hoping a growing economy would be able to forecast suitable numbers to get this past the OBR without too much trouble.

      • John Healy is standing down as an MP at the next election we’ll probably get Dianne Abbott. It’s one of the places that she hasn’t F****d up ye

    • It’s all well and good moaning about the current government, but reading the Labour plans, there isn’t even a commitment to 2.5, much less the 3 that’s needed to make a real difference and restore confidence and change the narrative (which is a lot of the comments here).

      Can’t vote Labour unless they actually make the pledge for Defence personally speaking.

      • Whatever commitments (lies) they say to get elected as soon as they’re there suddenly they will trot out the usual excuses, how could we have known, last governments fault etc. And then siphon money further away

          • They can’t. The moment they do promise anything the Conservatives either steal the idea or operate sorched earth tactics to make sure it can’t be delivered. They are the opposition, they don’t have to promise anything until the election is called and the manifestos is released. Its politics.

          • If the the Conservatives wanted to steal the idea of properly funding Defence from Labour, I wouldn’t complain.

          • Me nether but it’s the detail of what that involves that is key. The Conservatives keep talking big about defence but for whatever reason money has vanished, to a point where the 2015 sdsr now looks less negative compared to what has been cut since without replacements. What we don’t know for sure is the why, as its not in the MOD or the government’s interest to ask the question.

            For example where is our review of the surrender of afgan. The US version is bringing out a lot of interesting info.

          • Isn’t it obvious why the money has been cut and continues to be? Because people keep trotting out the same old guff about there being no votes in Defence. There are votes in Defence, half the people on this site for a start, but it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. “No votes” means less mainstream reporting, and less visibility means fewer votes.

            When the government increases requirements (such as AUKUS) but doesn’t increase funding in real terms, other Services have to be cut.

            Obviously, when there are cuts, you get an immdeiate effect. However, platforms last for decades. When you buy lets say ships and funding is at 2.5% of GDP you can afford a certain number, which you can pretty much keep limping along, even when overall funding drops to 2%. But later when you come to replace the ships and funding is still at 2%, you have to buy fewer. Ships can last 30 years and funding may have been at 2% for the last 10-15 years, so people don’t get why we have to reduce the number of platforms when there has been no recent defence cuts.

          • How much has been thrown a tHS2? Mother ships and lasers? Too much and there’s nothing to show for it

          • I asked the potential REfo candidate what they are promising on defense, he said he’d ring the party HQ And ask😁🤬

          • The issue is the economy is getting worse by the day and pretend tax cuts to win votes have made that worse. The election could be in May this year or Jan next year, big difference to how much worse things can get. This government is out of ideas they have zero planned new legislation on the slate and have left the bank of England to deal with inflation whilst talking about removing its independence. Things are a mess. Whatever your views are on the various parties no one can argue that sunak is a good PM, his weak and only interested in the India deal. He needs to be replaced with someone that actually tries to do something (whether or not we agree with that something isn’t important but as long as they think it might work and do anything).

          • Risky sunak is a dead man walking. It won’t take him long to get out of number ten, he’s probably packed already👍

          • They don’t have anything. I checked already. What ever reform are they don’t have a clue on defence yet. Seeing as they want to chop taxes and cut spending it’s probably more of the same of reductions.

          • Well they have had a long time to stop cutting the budget and just had a budget which as the article states includes £2.5 billion less for defence. What ever historical ties the tories had to being the party of defence is ancient history.
            I will hold judgement on labour and defence spending until we get a manifesto when election is called.

      • Sounds like Labour will only commit to what the Tories commit to in all areas. Getting extra from Labour on defence seems highly unlikely. No votes in that.

          • The current issue is inflation which is dropping like a stone. The inflation was caused by Putin disrupting fuel & food prices. An act of economic warfare – some would say. Providing inflation goes along at say 2% there will be more money paid in salaries & tax and consequently maintain manifesto commitments.No reason for any slashing. I would anticipdate NATO commitment to a planned 2.5% miniumum before long stoged over the next few years.

        • They have released some plans. Extending heads of forces from 2 years to 4 to try and end the short term legacy building. Sort out accommodation. Continue with deterrent replacement. Be a strong part of nato and some other stuff. Conduct a review, appoint some. Oversight thing.
          It’s in a press release somewhere.

          • One of the best things to have come out of parliament is. The total removal of the naval accomodation estate in rowne, Gosport

          • The next cuts at the MOD ARE THE SAME old dusty admirals and generals dreaming of the good old days when war at sea was done by sailing in a long line and then trying to blast the sh*t out of the enemy

      • You “cant vote Labour unless they actually make the pledge for Defence” Wow dude… I cant say the last time I saw such a pig ignorant, self serving, appalling answer to a serious issue!

        The tories have trashed the country, the economy, and the very foundations on which this country is built. NO incoming government with have enough money to do much of anything. The tories have seen to that.

        They are banking on any incoming government to fail, so that they can get straight back in again, with their depraved tory mindset, and lead the UK to more misery, doom and gloom.

        However… I do not believe the tories will ever get into power again. It’s only their arrogance that prevents them from seeing this.

        • I dont like any of them but if you believe that the conservatives will never form a government again you’re in cloud cuckoo land

          • Quite possibly, however that be the case, the the British Public will have no-one to blame but themselves.

            I do not profess to know the answer. I’d like to see something new in British Politics, not based on tory corruption and greed, nor on the Labour party, and their appeasement of idiotic groups, and constant need to jump on bandwagons, created by idiotic people.

          • If labour Are as they’ve b before then. Sir victor meldrew starmer will only get one term and the same old dance will begin again

        • They will. The British public have short memories and expect an instant fix to over a decade of pillaging the country for all its worth.

        • “However… I do not believe the tories will ever get into power again. It’s only their arrogance that prevents them from seeing this.”

          Whatever your politics its not good to just have one large party, we’re seeing the problem at the moment when parties get their feet under the table and stay in power too long. Both in Westminster and Holyrood its an issue and sadly in Scotland its unlikely to change.

      • 5 percent wouldn’t make any difference for a decade our industrial infrastructureis poor and it wouldn’t get anything built faster on the Clyde

    • I’d take him seriously if he stated “Labour commits to ramping up defence spending to 2.75% over the next 5 years.”

      Otherwise it is more hot air.

      That said +0.1% per year isn’t that much and the chancellor could have funded that fully by reducing the NI cuts or by not giving the NHS another £6Bn to waste.

    • I’m not sure I would agree Brom. Politicians reflect society. Good and Bad. Intelligent and not so much. Healey will simply be constrained by money. Labour will want to commit heavily to the NHS, for example, in some wild hope they can fix it.

      • Healey Is not standing in the next election and we don’t have to worry about the utter drivel that the incompetent W⚓R spouts anymore

    • Sir Keir m’eldrew will have a hard time in blaming the Tories for the mess. But, labour, in opposition did and said nothing

  3. Oh good,another two regts of Challengers,6 more T26,another tranche of Typhoons🤔anybody else want to add to the list?

  4. I don’t believe No10 is too concerned about defence and certainly in the next six months or so. Unless there is a major international crisis the current status will continue.

      • Russia can’t beat Ukraine. Do you really think they want to expand it to another 32 countries. They might be daft but that sounds suicidal.

        • It’s hard to justify big increases in defence spending when the only nation that can threaten you directly is a complete joke.

      • I just heard the first cuckoo of spring in all this. No 10 and 11 don’t have a clue about the dangers we will be facing very soon. Which reminds me about how cuckoos steal other birds nests to procreate.

    • Unless they’re saving big defence announcements to get headlines closer to the election. Wishful thinking on my part I think

  5. Interesting headline:
    Shadow Defence Minister blasts ‘rhetoric’ instead of funding
    I listened to the Times ‘frontline’ radio podcast yesterday its on YouTube and the episode in question is:
    ‘Slaughter’ of Russian troops secures Ukraine’s Dnipro positions | Brandon Mitchell & Maxim Tucker and they interview a medic based in the kherson region who talks about Ukrainian operations across the water on the beachhead on the Russian occupied left bank of the Dnipro . A very interesting snippet he came out about was how the UK spends £500K a year on storing all the boats used by economic migrants in which to cross the channel . The Ukraine MOD asked the British Home office if they could have them, they were refused, when asked why the following answers were given:
    1) Health and safety (13 min point)
    2) Environmental concerns
    3) They are involved in ongoing investigations yet the boats they wanted are from 2017
    He then states that further investigations reveal that the Home office then scrapped the requested boats and engines (with some engines worth between 5 to 10k) not even sold under the proceeds of crime act.

  6. No offence to any politician, we need more of them to understand we are in a pre-war world equivalent to 1937. Funding of 3% may not be enough, we need to hit that figure ASAP. The forces need to be well on the way to having the right equipment and ordinance by 2026. At some point, Russia is going to widen the Ukrainian war and China will hit Taiwan. When it happens, we will all be a little more assured that those we send into danger have what it takes to achieve their objectives and come home safe.

    • We are so far from the 1937 parallel it’s a ridiculous argument to make. Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia, Russia is certainly not Nazi Germany and Britain does not stand alone.

      Britain could spend 10% of GDP on defence and it would be little more than a rounding error in NATO+ budget.

      • Jim wrote:

        “”We are so far from the 1937 parallel it’s a ridiculous argument to make.””

        Oh i dont know, If anything, I’d say today almost mirrors the geopolitical landscape of the 1930s for example:
        1)    Japan, Italy, Germany and Russia all made a mockery of the League of Nations just as Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela are doing today to the UN.
        2)    Germany coveted Czechoslovakia by the use of Sudetenland, and before that it reoccupied and militarised the Rhineland, Russia today not only claims that Ukraine belongs to it exactly how Germany claimed Czechoslovakia belonged to it during the 1930s, and before that it reoccupied and militarised the Rhineland. But it claims former areas which went their own way, which explains the NATO battle groups in the Baltics and why Sweden and Finland have joined NATO.
        3)    The way I see things is, the overall aim of the new axis nations (and a few BRICS) is to emasculate the UN exactly as what happened to the League of Nations, whilst at the same time helping the US go it alone . That way they get to have a free for all (AKA Empire building) pretty sure some will respond that I am taking Pish, but China, Venezuela , Iran (via the promotion of the shia faith, in which to install proxy governments into power, be it in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen (failed there) tried in Jordan in 2020 with the failure of the MB to take power) currently trying to set up a base in Nigeria have all made it quite clear they would like to extend their borders into next doors living room
        4)    Russia is exactly like Nazis Germany , total control of the state, clamp down of free speech, assassination of anybody who doesn’t support the motherland , penal battalions and instead of concentration camps we have the latest iteration of the Russian gulags which are basically concentration camps Russian style.   
        5)    And in 1937 Britain did not stand alone as it the most powerful nation in the world on its side. France and even after the battle of France had been lost and the battle of Britain had begun (My homage to the intro of the film “Battle of Britain”) Britain still had the empire to fall back on

        • There is another factor that is different to 1937. We have nuclear weapons. We will never have to seriously fear invasion again. Well, unless they are crossing the channel in dinghies obviously…

          • Nukes are only good as a deterrent against your enemy using Nukes.

            I don’t believe they prevent conventional war and
            I don’t think any leader from a democratic country would be brave or stupid enough to commit a first strike.

      • Have you noticed Poland’s defence spending? Of course you have. Everybody has. Do you seriously believe if a much larger economy, the size of the UK’s, doubled defence spending it would have no effect? If we moved to a wartime economy and spent 10% GDP on defence, it would be headline news across the globe. Everyone, allies and enemies alike, would have to re-examine their defence posture in the light of it.

      • It’s been said before, never underestimate your enemy until you have totally defeated or subjugated them.

        The war in Ukraine has exposed a grave weakness in the West’s military-industrial capacity, and ability to procure weapons plus recruit personnel quickly. Plus it has exposed the political divisions within.

        Russia still has a lot of heavy industries intact and its autocratic allies Iran, North Korea, and China all have a large military-industrial capacity, so collectively they can out-produce us, in shor,t they are ready for a long war.

        You have to ask why Russia has gone on to a wartime economy (40% GDP ) if they only intend to fight Ukraine.
        The West must take this as a wakeup call and yes the does feel like the events of 1937 / 1938 are being repeated.

        • …and more people are saying the same thing; Russia is planning a conventional assault on Western Europe. We need to hustle.

  7. The man has a point, we all know he is right but nothing will change. In 3/5 years yes we will have new kit, best hope its peaceful until then, The military is asked to do more with less kit, less man power, less ammo, that is why retention is bad. Make do and mend will no longer hold it together. In some respects the Army has reached a tipping point. More leave than join.
    Chief of the Defence staff needs to address that first, not worry about changing Rifleman to some gender friendly what ever.

    • No one is really asking the military to do much though at the moment other than train. It’s not fighting anywhere(Red Sea aside) or doing much beyond providing dettrents.

      • Don’t tell anyone in the Forces that they aren’t doing much! As you say they are in training and some are in a deterrent posture/role. Take a look at the MoD army website as an example under ‘Where we are’ then ‘operations & deployments’.

        But what is your point? That a major war is not likely?

  9. While I have a bit more in Labour than the Tories generally, I know that only goes as far as making jobs, and Starmer doesn’t care about the forces at all.

    • I have difficulty understanding exactly what Starmer does care out. Not much policy discussion in PMQs etc. just personal attacks.

      • Starmer is only there to stop the anti western wing of the labour: Marxists, Wokes, Islamists.

        But eventually he will fail. The nature of the beast is profoundly anti-liberal, anti western civilization, you just have to go to any or almost all organisations that are controlled by Labour voters.

  10. So Labour will soon be announcing an increase in defence spending to 2.5 per cent, Or is Healey all rhetoric?

    • My guess is that labour would update the trade deal with the EU to help those exporters and importers hit by Brexit. That would generate some growth and tax revenue…no guarantee it would get spent on defence of course. If I understand Rachel Reeves speech the rules for borrowing would also change so that it becomes easier to justify borrowing for long term infrastructure investment / job creation…incentives for defence manufacturers to invest …

      • Updating a trade deal is not going to do anything Paul, other than create hundreds of new jobs to do the negotiating. Most of Europe are in a worse state than us. Trade is about the private sector and they will operate where the money is and it certainly isn’t Europe.

        • Fair point regarding where the money is; the challenge is not to sell your soul for it: Chinese EVs, Indian steelworks, Arab football clubs, Russian Chelsea properties…..what is happening is that we are becoming a victim of free market globalisation and poverty is increasing in the UK as a result. We need to be more careful who we deal with…choose reliable friends, ensure security and don’t make a god out of free market ideology. Trump got elected for a reason – the US did not protect its people from their own avarice and the Chinese exploited that weakness. One man’s protectionism is another’s self defence.

          • I’m a bit of an oddball when it comes to politics I think. Being a businessman I do believe in a free market economy. Government planning for the economy has never worked, anywhere. On the other hand, due to a number of other committmnets in my life I believe equally strongly in a “community” oreintated social and welfasre sector. It’s a great pity that we can’t get the best Tories together with the best of the other parties. We might all get a government that makes some sense.

          • One man’s oddball is another man’s not going with the crowd and making your own mind up. Works for me. I think what has happened in the UK is that Starmer has done a better job of suppressing the far left than the Tories have done controlling the far right. Voters tend to reject extremism so labour has occupied the centre ground and will likely get elected. I think that people also realise that the accession of Charles is a symbol we have entered a new world of uncertainty – end of Empire, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine, China, immigration etc; and that we need economic and social strategies that focus on security, stability, less centralisation and on co-operation between the state and business and local government. Gaming the economic system has driven us into the ground; the way we govern ourselves has to be changed.

          • Hello Paul. I hadn’t forgotten you. Just very busy this week. I here what you’re saying. I think the bulk of the country feel disorientated. The nearly two years of Covid was the most unnatural time. Like a gigantic worry cloud hanging over everything. It’ll be years before we get over it. Then economic unrest and the shambles of BJ and Co. I’ve always been intested in politics but for the first time I really don’t know where the answer lies. I find it difficult to trust Labour because of the left hiding away behind the facade, the Tories are busy killing themselves and the others don’t really matter. Change the form of government? Into what? Aside from dictatorship we are stuck with the system we have. Very disheartening.

          • Morning Geoff, yes, hope is in short supply and authoritarian regimes are threatening democracies; using our very openness against us. But really we have done it to ourselves; the west has abandoned Christianity, the faith which created it. We have assumed that we are so clever that we can abandon organised religion and maintain its cultural values and improve on them. In fact what we see is descent into chaos and disorder – fertile ground for dictators whose first action is usually to suppress or take over the practice of faith. Putin controls the Russian church through his sidekick Kirill and the CCP denies the Vatican the ability create its own bishops. As the historian Michael Wood said ‘the English are English because Bede said so’. If the there is one political change I would make it would be to create an English parliament. In the meantime the FA showing some respect for the national colours would be a good start. Have a good Easter.

          • I have a problem with religion, mainly brought about by my overall interest in history, ours and others. I have faith of a sort but cannot find it in me to respect the established church, regardless of it’s denomination. I’m not saying my position is correct but I suspet a huge number of people hav egiven up on the “political” afronts and somewhat seedy behaviour of the established church leaders.
            I too, believe in an English parliament, although some would argue that it is Westminster. If that is the case we need the four parliaments to become a more federal system. Not aka the U.S. but all with equal powers to decide on home issues coming together on the likes of defence and energy.
            National colours? Absolutely but we are become too feeble even for that. A happy Easter to you and yours.

  11. Who believes the Labour party? Honestly how many times have we been here before. If they want an increase in spending, they should explain which taxes their going to increase, which budgets their going to cut or how much more their going to borrow. Oh and none of this magic money tree guff about growth paying for it.

    • Labour is easy to believe now, they are literally not promising anything, it’s very hard to lie when you say nothing.

      The Torys are completely full of s**t on defence. first they promised to move us to 3% of GDP on defence. Then they moved back to 2%. Now this c**k womble Grant Shapps is saying 2.5% literally a week after passing a budget that actually cut defence spending in real terms.

      That’s actually what Healy’s calling out, he has never once promised more money for defence.

  12. Some may find this view point extreme, but the way I see it, is that today’s politicians couldn’t care less about the actual defence of this country or its Armed Forces, but just appeasing the extremist Left for votes. Unfortunately people have to start being killed before our National Defence is taken seriously!

    • When was it ever different? Defence spending does not take place in a vacuum and the reality is the UK faces close to zero threats domestically.

      Now tell the country/ treasury/ bond holders than we can’t invest in infrastructure and education and we can’t afford to spend the OECD average on healthcare because we need a couple of armoured divisions to guard Germany’s boarder because they can’t be f**ked paying for it themselves or we need to send a fleet of Submarines to the South China Sea to defend a group of former colonies that haven’t wanted much if anything to do with us for the past 50 years to support a relationship with the USA that’s increasingly one sided and has very little to offer the UK anymore.

  13. The Tories have underfunded defence for years, and much of what Healey says is true.
    But that does not mean I go running to Labour, I have a long memory from the 97 to 2010 years.
    Commit, Labour, and I may just, by some miracle, vote for you.
    Or maybe not….
    Till then, you’re all hot air and heaven forbid may well be worse.

    • Hiya Mate – let’s bookmark this page and refer back when Labour is in power. Be interesting to reflect on the shadow ministers commitment vs the delivery.

      That being said, I’ll be first to apologise if they commit to 2.5% of gdp for the defence budget (from the fist year of their term).

        • Evening Daniele and Klonkie! I always come late to these debates for various reasons but last night was the first time we had power for 6 days!(Klonkie will understand that.) I am a Tory by tradition but in reality Labour and the Conservatives are just loose associations with the Right wing of Labour pretty much a continuum with the Left of the Conservatives. Ted Heath famously said he felt more comfortable in the company of Jim Callaghan than many in his own Party! Don’t expect much change in Defence policies if Labour get in, unless the left of Labour take a hold!
          Cheers from Durbs

          • hey Geoff , how are you Bud? I’m heading back to Cape Town next month for a couple of weeks! Frist time back in 27 years! My 60th birthday present to myself.

      • Even if they did, it would not be spent. Wee have a finite capacity for training servicemen and this needs to be expanded. It will not happen overnight.
        Defence equipment is all long lead.
        I would prefer to see the defence budget increased at a level that is feasible year on year to a new maximum of 3% hopefully.
        However I suspect Mr Gealey will suddenly change his tune as soon as he gets into office. Content to hide behind statistic and buck passing.
        Neither will defend the country .

          • Talking in a geo political sense, the strongest signal we can give Mr Putin “to do what he wants” is for us to continue to show compliancey. Yes the country is in a mess, tes there are heavy demands on the public purse for health, education etc but this matters not a jot if the Country is not secure.
            An Incremental defence spending increase which is enshrined in law , sends a clear message to any wanna be advisory and will be a lot cheaper than a war .

          • Too true Michael – what a mess the country is in. Totally agree re your commentary on defence investment,

  14. I would love the national audit Office to do a review of the amount wasted on tenders and projects only for them to be canceled due to the goverment not releasing the funds in a timely manner. Followed by the same thing being tendered a few years later only to be canceled again.

    Also look at amou nt waster due to build rates being slowed down again due to lack of release of funds.

    PMs and honestly its both parties enjoy announcing big investments without any consequences when they don’t happen,.as the media completely fails at its job of keeping the government accountable.

  15. Call me a cynic Mr Healey but after decades of neglect and political buck passing. I will not hold my breath to see if Labour takes the coming storm any more seriously than the current government.
    I would like to see a honest non treasury led , defence review and a plan put into law to increase the defence budget to 3%, year on year.
    Even if it was rauddrnkt increased to 3% the money could not be sent.more soldiers, tanks, submarines, frigate aircraft are all long lead items and between order to delivery is years apart.

  18. The problem for both parties is that they know we are in a pre war world and need to spend on defence…they both know this but the voters priorities are as follows

    1) cost of living…a massive first place above everything else
    2) immigration controls ( which is actually just about tied with
    3) NHS and getting a service that works
    4) inflation ( sort of linked to cost of living)
    5) energy prices

    about 13th on the list is busses and trains ( with about 1% thinking this is very import…defence is somewhere below busses and trains..it literally does not register

    the reality is the culture war issue around trans women’s vs biological women rights is far more important to the public ( whatever side of the fence they sit on) is more import than defence…

    there are literally no seats that will change hands over the parties defence policy….but the British media and public are obsessed with the economy and any party that promises any funding towards the state is going to get hammered by the opposition and media and punished by the voters….

    it’s bonkers really we know we must spend this money…to not do so is insanity and will come with a catastrophe cost if we don’t and cannot deter the next world war…but any party that even promised a modest 10billion to the armed forces would be torn apart.

    • It’s a modern problem seen across many sectors, and assumption the military defends us, then on top of that assumption there’s fiddling and interest on top. Prime example in the IT industry, no one is interested in the product working anymore, more interested in governance on top, are the developers producing enough code. The navy has it’s own version of that, 2 new carriers but limited escorts and jets as they’re not as glamorous.

  19. Focussing on a percentage of GDP is the wrong approach even though it’s a nice simple statistic for politicians to argue about. The important thing is to identify the key threats and what forces, equipment and personnel, we need to counter them. In all of the government papers of recent years- integrated review and refresh, defence command paper and refresh- I can’t find that clarity. Instead we get pages of high blown waffle ( state of the art, leading edge, world beating waffle!) and vague promises to do more. But more of what?
    5 new Type 32 frigates, but we aren’t clear what they will do.
    Up to 6 MRSS ships but we are still not certain of their roles and how big they might need to be.
    We will throw £billions at BAE to design Tempest but why with F35 and Typhoon do we need it, other than to stay in the combat aircraft business?
    So if more money were suddenly made available, what should it be spent on?
    Retired admirals would argue for more ships
    Retired generals would want a larger army
    Retired air marshalls would want more aircraft.
    I believe our forces are still hampered by the memory of empire and the days when we were a global power. We are no longer that world power. Our defence budget should be only what is needed to protect us, initially by deterrence and then by the ability to defeat any enemy who is not deterred. Maybe we could achieve that with 2% of GDP, maybe it would need more, perhaps a lot more. But to make the case against the background of demands for more public spending on just about everything, a clear explanation of what we need and why is essential.

    • Ok to the exercise.

      UK needs an ABM system that protects most important parts of the country
      UK needs its ports and major air bases defended against cruise missiles

      • Well said. We need some proper plan for home defence. The RAF aren’t up for the task with ballistic missiles and hypersonics possibly incoming but who is? I would hope the navy start thinking about defending their own bases and take it very seriously.

        • The army don’t train for Military Home Defence, probably hasn’t since the early 80s. Many counties have few if any army units.

      • Absolutely Alex. UK GBAD, where is it? Plus the two bloody big carriers need to have their kinetic defensive armament increased. Too much fresh air onboard IMHO.
        .

    • A very good post Peter but I would disagree mildly on one point-the notion that the UK is still hampered by memory of Empire. The “Island nation relying on global trade” argument is often overstated as a justification for the UK retaining a role spread over the globe, but I would argue that because of it’s presence beyond its size that is left as a relic of Empire, it still needs, for example an RN, active over the 7 Seas. Britain’s links of culture and(often grudging) respect along with the influence of the English language(largely also ta to the USA) give it a status in the top ten of many things out of all proportion to it’s size as a nation.

      • If you look at the overseas direct investment statistics for the UK it becomes fairly obvious why HMG aspires to global reach- need to protect the money. A goal unfortunately conflicting with ‘don’t want to spend any money to protect the money’.

      • I don’t disagree that some capacity to fight at distance is needed. The reality of our current force structure is that it is what is left of much larger, globally active forces after decades of cutting. So there is a sense of falling short of what we once were: it is evident in every retired senior officer’s comment and of course on sites like these. If instead, we had started with a blank sheet of paper and designed our defences to meet the perceived threats( much easier to do in the cold war) we might have very different looking forces. Jonno and AlexS have pinpointed some areas in which we have very little capability.
        It isn’t easy to implement such an approach, not least because of the very long design and build times of modern equipment. But I do think that the initial analysis might help to make it easier for politicians to sell defence spending to the electorate.

    • I thoroughly agree with your approach and have long argued to stop thinking 2.5% of GDP is the right amount to spend on defence. We don’t use the same logic for the NHS and just keep feeding it whatever is needed. The country needs to decide what role the UK has in the world and what forces we need to carryout that policy and defend the Nation against likely threats. It requires our military leaders to come clean about our real cabpabilities and what is needed to improve them, if that is what is required – I could go on.

    • I agree that the IR21 is broad brush but did identify Russia as our greatest threat and China as a future challenge. DCP21 gives very precise detail about Orbat changes, future manpower and equipment numbers, which key equipments are being retired and what will take their place.

    • Really no-one thinks about the days of Empire although we are of course a world power. I do not know why you think otherwise. Clearly we are not a superpower, that is something totally different. We have never focussed solely on protecting ourselves to the exclusion of all else. Our forces have always conducted expeditionary operations.

      • I think we arent under any illusions. Expeditions to support all areas NATO countries are a must have especially Norway and the Atlantic; as are capabilities to protect the outposts such as we have which are on important choke points or in the middleast sources of LPG and Oil supply.
        I dont see anything wrong with keeping two small vessels in the Far East either. The benefits surely outweigh the costs. We aren’t talking gunboats up the Yangtze or a China squadron after all.
        The real problem is a lack of Government leadership in communicating our role in the world which is basically about ensuring world lawfulness. We have a seat on the UN and friends in many places who may need reassurance and support in case of disaster.
        Hey, we may even still be suppressing the drugs and slave trade. We are on the right side of both.
        We do need the resources to do this and it may cost more than tuppence two farthings (min around 2 1/2% GDP btw).

        • I agree. Grant Shapps only talks about Defence for a few minutes in a Laura Kuennsberg interview and then it is all broad brush. Politicians and senior officers are not communicating the wider Defence remit to the public who also seem unaware just how small our forces are.

  20. Nearly missed this article. Good, important ones seem to disappear off the front page in no minutes flat, to be replaced by ever more pictures of frigates under construction and maritime snippets and tales about the carrier.

    Healey is asking all the right questions in Parliament and learning his trade ref military matters. That is what the Shadow Secretary of State needs to do and all they can do until they win office.

    Whatever he would like to see on defence spending is going to be constrained and dictated by the crap state the economy and public finances have been left in. It is all very well politicians talking about growing the economy. It has actually shrunk 15% since, and as a result of, Brexit. Any chance of growing the defence budget went out of the window 2 years ago when we exited the EU.

    The best that we as a nation can and should aim for is an incremental rise to 2.5% of GDP over the next decade, so 0.05% a year plus inflation. It means that by 2030, we would be spending minimum 2.3% of GDP minimum. Better than nothing, which is about where we are under the current feckless mob.

    What it needs is Parliament to buy into this on a cross-party level, which means a) the next Government proposing it and b) a debate on the same in Parliament, something the Conservatives have successfully avoided for years.the proposal should stipulate the increments envisaged and enshrine the measure in law.

    It would be most revealing to see which political parties and which MPs voted against.

    Unless Healey comes up with this kind of flank move, I can’t see more money for defence when there are so many other pressing calls on the budget, particularly from public services.

    • Without Brexit and the much maligned Johnson there would probably have been a Russian Ukraine in toto by now. Europe is a mess and only now is France and Germany waking up to the dangers.
      I like an independent thinking UK and our own fishing waters.

  21. As far as our beloved navy is concerned, a quick Google of the fleet that went down to the Falklands shows how numbers of ships in different types there were the RN is a third of the size it was back then

  22. Where is the money coming from? Labour will get in, assess there is an issue and spend the money on everything but defence. My bet is we will be worse off in 2029/30 and by then T23 will be shot, T26 will still be doing FOST as will T31’s, the RFA will be run by Serco and the Submarine service will be a museum piece. Good news the carriers will have another 3 aircraft but no escorts. The army will rely on the 10 Challenger 3 ( all we can afford) but will require Tesco’s to support troops in the front line due to lack of serving solders and the RAF will be down to 3 operation front line squadrons – One A400, one F35/Typhoo, One rotary wing. I know that all be a little unfair but we are heading that way!! You need a positive recruitment policy, and about 5% on defence spending just to stand still 2.5% will not touch the sides.

  23. Well we will probably see soon enough if his party can do better. However I have not seen a commitment from his party to increase spending. Do not get me wrong I hope who ever gets in spends more.

  24. Treacherous corrupt government, worse than any cancer that has bought this about, Labour just as bad ,welcome to the real world, thank god that pile of useless fxxxxxxg sxxt will be gone

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here