Off To War We Go: Starmer's Strategic Defence Review
Unpopular governments always retreat to grounds of lazy convenience. Instead of engaging in exercises of courage, they take refuge in obvious distractions. And there is no more obvious distraction than preparing for war against a phantom enemy.
That is exactly where the government of Sir Keir Starmer finds itself. Despite a mammoth majority and a dramatically diminished Tory opposition, the Prime Minister acts like a man permanently besieged, his Labour Party seemingly less popular than Typhoid Mary. His inability to be unequivocal to questions of whether he will contest the next election suggest as much.
The same cannot be said about his enthusiasm for the sword and sabre. There are monsters out there to battle, and Sir Keir is rising to the plate. Sensing this, the military mandarins, most prominently General Sir Roland Walker, head of the Army, have been more than encouraging, seeing the need to ready the country for war by 2027. Given the military's perennial love affair with astrology, that state of readiness could only be achieved with a doubling of the Army's fighting power and tripling it by 2030.
Given that background, the UK Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was commissioned in July 2024. Led by former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, the freshly released report promises a fat boon for the military industrial complex. Like all efforts to encourage war, its narrative is that of supposedly making Britain safer.
Starmer's introduction is almost grateful for the chance to out the blood lusting enemy. 'In this new era for defence and security, when Russia is waging war on our continent and probing our defences at home, we must meet the danger head on.' The placing of noble Ukraine into the warming fraternity of Europe enables a civilisational twist to be made. The Russian military efforts in Ukraine are not specific to a murderous family affair and historical anxieties but directed against all Europeans. Therefore, all Europeans should militarise and join the ranks, acknowledging that 'the very nature of warfare is being transformed' by that conflict.
In pursuing the guns over butter program, Starmer recapitulates the sad theme of previous eras that led to global conflict. As Europe began rearming in the 1930s, a prevalent argument was that people could have guns and butter. Greater inventories of weaponry would encourage greater prosperity. So, we find Starmer urging the forging of deeper ties between government and industry and 'a radical reform of procurement', one that could only be economically beneficial. This would be the 'defence dividend', another nonsense term the military industrial complex churns out with such disconcerting ease.
The foreword from the Defence Secretary, John Healey, outlines the objectives of the SDR. These include playing a leading role in NATO 'with strengthened nuclear, new tech, and updated conventional capabilities'; moving the country to a state of 'warfighting readiness'; nourishing the insatiable military industrial Moloch; learning the lessons of Ukraine ('harnessing drones, data and digital warfare'); and adopting a 'whole-of-society approach', a sly if clumsy way of enlisting the civilian populace into the military enterprise.
The review makes 62 recommendations, all accepted by the grateful government. Some £15 billion will go to the warhead programme, supporting 9,000 jobs, while £6 billion will be spent on munitions over the course of the current Parliament. A 'New Hybrid Navy' is envisaged, one that will feature Dreadnought and the yet to be realised SSN-AUKUS submarines, alongside 'support ships' and 'autonomous vessels to patrol the North Atlantic and beyond.' Submarine production is given the most optimistic assessment: one completion every 18 months.
The Royal Air Force is not to miss out, with more F-35s, modernised Typhoons, and the next generation of jets acquired through the Global Combat Air Programme. To his splurge will be added autonomous fighters, enabling global reach.
Mindless assessments are abundant in the Review. The government promises a British army 10 times 'more lethal to deter from the land, by combining more people and armoured capability with air defence, communications, AI, software, long-range weapons, and land drone swarms.' Some 7,000 new long-range weapons will be built and a New CyberEM Command established 'to defend Britain from daily attacks in the grey zone.' Keeping those merchants of death happy will be a new Defence Exports Office located in the Ministry of Defence, one intended 'to drive exports to our allies and growth at home.'
The fanfare of the report, festooned with fripperies for war, conceals the critical problems facing the British armed forces. The ranks are looking increasingly thinned. (In 2010, regular troop numbers stood at 110,000; the current target of 73,000 soldiers is being barely met.) Morale is ebbing. The state of equipment is embarrassingly poor. The UK's celebrated submarine deterrent is somewhat less formidable in the deterrence department, with its personnel exhausted and subject to unpardonably lengthy stints at sea. The 204-day patrol by HMS Vanguard is a case in point.
Whether the SDR's recommendations ever fructify remains the hovering question. It's all very good to make promises about weapons programmes and boosting a country's readiness to kill, but militaries can be tardy in delivery and faulty in execution. What saves the day may well be standard ineptitude rather than any firebrand conviction in war. To the unready go the spoils.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
With so many parties 'ruling out' working with each other, is MMP losing its way?
Analysis - There has been a lot of "ruling out" going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, ACT's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party . Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori . Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own , indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori . And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to "completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing". Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago. Under the old "first past the post" system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation ( MMP ), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice. Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary. By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party which might be able to govern with either major player. In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an " elected dictatorship ", part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of Parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid Parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill . Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed - that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy - the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that. It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one. But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from ACT ( the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation ) and NZ First ( tax breaks for heated tobacco products ). Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes ACT and NZ First have managed to secure will erode - at least in some quarters - faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements. Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/ACT/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left. In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate "common sense" party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now. In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player . The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and ACT may be small, but they are not minor. In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show ), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase. For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar. The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand - lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies - needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments. * Richard Shaw is a Professor of Politics at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa - Massey University - This story originally appeared on The Conversation.
RNZ News
14 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rolls-Royce wins UK small nuclear reactor deal
By Sarah Young , Reuters UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Photo: STEPHANIE LECOCQ / AFP Britain has selected Rolls-Royce SMR to build the country's first small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) as part of its plan to speed up the decarbonisation of the power network from the mid-2030s. The government on Tuesday (UK time) pledged £2.5 billion (NZ$5.6 billion) for the SMR programme over the next four years, aiming to kickstart one of Europe's first small-scale nuclear industries. SMRs are typically the size of two football pitches, with parts that can be built in a factory, making them quicker and cheaper than traditional plants, which take more than a decade to construct and face planning delays in the UK. The government also said it would invest £14.2 billion (NZ$31 billion) to build a large scale nuclear plant, Sizewell C, in eastern England, as part of "the biggest nuclear rollout for a generation". Rolls-Royce SMR, majority owned by FTSE 100 engineer Rolls-Royce which makes the power systems for Britain's nuclear submarines, said it would build three units. "Doing lots of them gives you that opportunity to bring down the cost, that's the big prospect," Energy Minister Ed Miliband told Sky News. "It's huge for energy security, but it's also a huge opportunity for Britain." Dozens of countries across the world, including the United States, Canada, Romania and Czech Republic, are looking at SMRs, opening up a big market if the British project is successful. Rolls-Royce CEO Tufan Erginbilgic said he expected Rolls-Royce SMR to grow "materially". Britain's state-owned energy company, Great British Energy - Nuclear, will aim to sign a contract with Rolls-Royce SMR and pick a site later this year, subject to regulatory approval. The SMRs could support 3000 jobs and power about three million homes once they are connected to the grid in the mid-2030s, the statement added. Rolls-Royce SMR was chosen over Westinghouse, Holtec Britain and GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy - an alliance between General Electric Co and Japan's Hitachi Ltd - in a two-year competition for the SMR contract. - Reuters
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
NATO needs 400% increase in air and missile defence, Rutte will say in London
By Reuters NATO secretary general Mark Rutte. Photo: AFP / Simon Wohlfahrt NATO secretary general Mark Rutte will use a speech in London on Monday to say the military alliance needs a 400 percent increase in air and missile defence, one of the priorities for a summit of members in the Hague later this month. Rutte is pushing for members to boost defence spending to 3.5 percent of GDP and commit a further 1.5 percent to broader security-related spending to meet US President Donald Trump's demand for a 5 percent target. Last month, he said he assumed that target would be agreed at the summit on June 24-25. Rutte will argue in a speech at London's Chatham House think tank that for NATO to maintain credible deterrence and defence, it needs "a 400 percent increase in air and missile defence". "We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies," he will say, according to extracts of his speech provided by his office. "The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defence. The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends." With little let up in fighting in Russia's war against Ukraine despite ceasefire calls, European countries are under pressure to raise defence spending after Trump signalled a shift in policy, pushing for the region to better protect itself. Several countries say they are doing so, with Britain pledging an increase from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027 and 3 percent of GDP at a later date. Germany has said it will need roughly 50,000 to 60,000 additional active soldiers under new NATO targets. - Reuters
