Starmer promises to make Britain ‘a battle-ready, armour-clad nation'
The UK's strategic defence review (SDR) warns of the 'pressing and immediate' threat from Russia, suggesting the need for quicker action to bolster defence capabilities.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled the SDR, promising to make Britain a 'battle-ready, armour-clad nation' with an army of 100,000, new submarines, drones, and AI integration.
Defence Secretary John Healey stressed the urgency for Britain 's army to become '10 times more lethal' due to threats from Russia and China, advocating for a 'new era for UK defence'.
The SDR recommends increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP, but concerns have been raised about funding, with warnings of potential tax hikes to meet the ambitious goals.
The review, led by Lord George Robertson, includes 62 recommendations and highlights that the armed forces are currently ill-prepared for conflicts with adversaries like Russia or China, citing inadequate resources and personnel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
14 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Gaza facing ‘dark days', Starmer says, as he vows to consider ‘further action'
At the despatch box, Sir Keir Starmer described the Israeli government's conduct in the 25 mile-long strip as 'counterproductive and intolerable'. He made his comments after an Israeli and US-backed group, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, paused food delivery at its three distribution sites in Gaza on Wednesday, after health officials said at least 27 Palestinians were killed in a series of shootings near the sites this week. A post shared by Ms Rachel (@msrachelforlittles) Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party in Northern Ireland Claire Hanna claimed there was 'more moral clarity coming from Ms Rachel on YouTube than there is from many world leaders who are complicit in silence', referring to the star educator who has called on leaders to 'be so ashamed' of what she described as their 'anti-Palestinian racism'. Ms Hanna told the Commons: 'The Prime Minister said this week that Britain must be ready for war and, I ask, after tens of thousands of deaths, after a generation of Gazans stunted by hunger and trauma, when will it be ready for peace? 'When will it help to stop this genocide? When will it hold the Israeli government to account, and when will it recognise the state of Palestine?' Sir Keir replied: 'She's absolutely right to describe this as dark days. Despite ever-increasing challenges and forced displacement in the #Gaza Strip, UNRWA teams continue to provide health consultations daily, including for children. Medical services are still critically under-resourced, while life-saving aid sits in UNRWA warehouses in the region… — UNRWA (@UNRWA) June 4, 2025 'Israel's recent action is appalling and in my view counterproductive and intolerable, and we have strongly opposed the expansion of military operations and settler violence, and the blocking of humanitarian aid.' The Prime Minister added: 'You will have seen we've suspended the FTA (free trade agreement) talks and sanctioned extremists supporting violence in the West Bank. 'We will keep looking at further action along with our allies, including sanctions, but let me be absolutely clear: we need to get back to a ceasefire. 'We need the hostages who've been held for a very long time to be released, and we desperately need more aid at speed and at volume into Gaza, because it's an appalling and intolerable situation.' Several MPs wearing red badges, including John McDonnell, the independent MP for Hayes and Harlington, and Labour's MPs for Alloa and Grangemouth and Nottingham East Brian Leishman and Nadia Whittome silently left the chamber after the exchange. The PM told me today that he would do everything he can to get desperately needed aid into Gaza, but words are not enough and I will hold him to account until we see action. — Ed Davey (@EdwardJDavey) June 4, 2025 Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has asked Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer whether he will 'push at the UN Security Council for humanitarian corridors to get the desperately needed aid urgently into Gaza'. He told the Commons: 'The US-Israeli programme is clearly failing and nothing short of lifting the full blockade on aid will do, but given the (Benjamin) Netanyahu government refuses to do that, will the Prime Minister take more decisive action today?' Sir Keir said that the Government is 'working at pace with our allies on that very issue, to take whatever measures we can to get that humanitarian aid in'. He gave Sir Ed his 'assurance we'll continue to do that because that aid needs to get in at speed and at volume'. Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer later told the Commons that Israel's newly introduced measures for aid delivery in Gaza are 'inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians'. He said: 'We are appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed when trying to access aid sites in Gaza. 'Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury to simply feed themselves and their families. We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events for the perpetrators to be held to account.' Mr Falconer said it is 'deeply disturbing' that the incidents happened near the new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites, adding: 'Israel's newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. 'Israel's unjustified block on aid into Gaza needs to end – it is inhumane. Israel must immediately allow the United Nations and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity.' Mr Falconer said the UN Security Council on Wednesday is expected to consider a resolution which calls for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the lifting of all restrictions on humanitarian aid. He said: 'We will once again use our vote in support of these goals.'
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Harry and Meghan explored changing surname to Spencer amid children's passport delays
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex explored the idea of changing their family name to Spencer amid repeated delays by British officials to issue passports for their children, the Guardian has been told. The suggestion was a result of 'sheer exasperation' and came during a face-to-face meeting between Prince Harry and his uncle Earl Spencer. He was understood to be enthusiastic and supportive of the name change. Adopting the birth name of his mother, Diana, would likely have further deepened the rift between the Harry and the royal family, which shows no signs of being healed. However, the discussion became moot because the UK passports for Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet were finally issued almost six months after the initial applications – days after lawyers for the Sussexes sent a letter threatening to pursue a data subject access request. This could have revealed details of the delays – and the nature of any behind-the-scenes discussions between British officials responsible for issuing the documents. One source told the Guardian that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex feared that UK officials were dragging their feet because the passport applications included the titles HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) for both children. The applications also used the surname Sussex, which the family had already started using publicly; until 2023, Archie had both US and British passports under the name Mountbatten-Windsor. 'There was clear reluctance to issue passports for the kids,' a source close to the Sussexes said. The standard wait time for a passport is three weeks. But after three months without receiving them because of 'technical issues', it is understood Harry and Meghan reapplied using the 24-hour passport service, only to have their meeting cancelled at the last minute owing to a 'systems failure.' The source claimed that 'the king hadn't wanted Archie and Lili to carry the titles, most of all the HRH, and the British passports, once created, would be the first and perhaps the only legal proof of their names'. The source added: 'Harry was at a point where British passports for his children with their updated Sussex surnames (since the death of Queen Elizabeth II) were being blocked with a string of excuses over the course of five months. 'Out of sheer exasperation he went to his uncle to effectively say, 'my family are supposed to have the same name and they're stopping that from happening because the kids are legally HRH, so if push comes to shove, if this blows up and they won't let the kids be called Sussex, then can we use Spencer as a surname'?' The Guardian understands that Prince Harry wants to keep the HRH titles for his children so that when they grow older they can decide for themselves whether they want to become working royals, or stay out of public life. He and Meghan dropped the honorific in 2020 as part of the arrangement agreed with Queen Elizabeth II when they stopped performing royal duties. The couple are believe to have been angered by a report in the Mail on Sunday earlier this week, which claimed Earl Spencer had advised Harry not to change his name, saying the legal hurdles were insurmountable. 'It's completely untrue,' a source said. The Guardian put a series of questions to the Home Office and Buckingham Palace about the delays to the passport applications, and asked whether officials processing the documents had been seeking or taking advice from them. The Home Office said it was its longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases. Buckingham Palace made clear it would not be commenting on any personal matters relating to members of the royal family. But it denied making any suggestions or objections to the passports being issued with HRH in the titles. A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex said: 'We do not comment on private issues pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children.' Earl Spencer was also approached but he had not responded at the time of publication. In May, Harry lost a legal challenge over the level of taxpayer-funded security he is entitled to while in the UK, but it is understood he intends to challenge the ruling. He had challenged the dismissal of his high court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country after he stepped down. The prince considers that his mother, Diana, might still be alive if she had continued to have the security protection offered to other royals. However, three senior judges at the court of appeal rejected Harry's claim that he had been 'singled out' for 'inferior treatment' and that his safety and life were 'at stake' after a change in security arrangements that occurred when he stepped down as a working royal and moved abroad.
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump's NATO ambassador says allies must agree to 5% spend on defence and security 'starting now'
The United States says the UK and all other NATO allies must agree to spend at least 5% of national income on defence and security "starting now". Matthew Whitaker, Donald Trump's ambassador to the NATO alliance, said: "Let me cut to the core of our message: 5%" He continued: "Peace through strength means nothing less, and it demands it equally from all allies. This is not going to be just a pledge. This is going to be a commitment. "Every ally must commit to investing at least 5% of GDP in defence and security, starting now." The warning comes after Sky News revealed on Tuesday that Sir Keir Starmer would be forced to agree to lift pure defence spending to 3.5% of GDP and spend a further 1.5% on defence-related areas by the 2030s as part of a NATO push to rearm and to keep the US on side. Yet as late as Monday, the prime minister was still talking merely about an "ambition" to increase investment in the UK's armed forces to 3% from 2.3% by 2034 - even as he launched a major review of defence. The position caused bemusement inside the Ministry of Defence (MoD) where officials believe it is inevitable that the UK position will change. The US ambassador was speaking to journalists ahead of two days of meetings of Defence Ministers at NATO HQ in Brussels, the last before NATO leaders meet at a summit in the Hague later this month. "The Hague summit will be a moment to lock these commitments in," he said. The 5% defence spending commitment is central to US plans for the summit, with European leaders hoping also to secure support for Ukraine and a reinforced posture towards Russia in summit conclusions. Underlining the weight of expectation of the US administration, the ambassador said: "This is not a suggestion. It's a baseline for deterrence." It comes as NATO secretary general Mark Rutte said that alliance nations will find themselves "in great difficulty" in the coming years unless they go over the current 2% of GDP spending target. 1:00 Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Mr Rutte said: "The expectation is that on the European side of NATO and the Canadian side of NATO, if we think that we can keep ourselves safe sticking with the 2%, forget it. "Yes, the next three to five years, but then we are in great difficulty. And the US rightly expects us to spend much more to defend ourselves with their help, but also to equalise, which is only fair with what the US is spending on defence." Mr Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, is thought to want member states to commit to spending 3.5% on the military, with a further 1.5% on defence-related measures. Defence Secretary John Healey said on Tuesday that the UK already "makes a huge contribution to NATO" amid speculation about what the body will call for. The UK's defence review "has NATO at its heart", he said, pointing out that Britain was "the only country with a nuclear deterrent that commits it in full to other NATO nations".
