UK must change approach to defence in an insecure world, Starmer warns
But the Prime Minister could not say when his aim of raising defence spending to 3% of the UK's economic output would be realised, amid questions about whether the Treasury had guaranteed to fund it.
Britain will build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines and invest £15 billion in its warhead programme, the Prime Minister is expected to announce on Monday, as the Government unveils its strategic defence review.
Significant investment in the UK nuclear warhead programme this Parliament and maintaining the existing stockpile are among the 62 recommendations that the Government is expected to accept in full.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme ahead of the announcement, Sir Keir warned of a 'new era' of instability on defence and security which the review would respond to.
He added: 'I think that's a common feeling across Europe and more broadly there is greater instability on defence and security than there has been for many, many years, and greater threats, and that's obviously having a direct impact back into the United Kingdom. Hence the review.'
Principles of 'war-fighting readiness' and integrating the UK's forces are at the heart of the review, Sir Keir said.
He added: 'We have to recognise the world has changed, and if the world has changed we need to be ready.'
Sir Keir also refused to guarantee that defence spending would reach 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2034, saying it was an 'ambition'.
The Government has pledged to raise the UK's defence spending to 2.5% of GDP – a measure of the country's economic output – by 2027.
But on Sunday, Defence Secretary John Healey sidestepped questions about whether he had any guarantee from the Treasury to provide the funding for the 3% target by the end of the next Parliament, when asked on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme.
Asked about the commitment, Sir Keir told the BBC he was 'not going down that road' of a precise funding commitment until he had a plan behind it.
He added: 'We had a commitment for 2.5% by the end of this Parliament. We pulled that right forward to 2027.
'We showed that when we say there's a new era of the defence and security of our country, is our first priority – as it is – that we meant it. We take the same approach to 3%.
'But I'm not going to indulge in the fantasy politics of simply plucking dates from the air until I'm absolutely clear that I can sit here in an interview with you and tell you exactly how that's going to work, because I take the defence and security of our country extremely seriously.'
Ministers have been keen to point out that the strategic defence review will support regions across the UK, as 70% of defence jobs are outside of London and the South East.
Building the new submarines, which is part of the Aukus partnership with the US and Australia, will support 30,000 highly skilled jobs into the 2030s as well as 30,000 apprenticeships and 14,000 graduate roles across the next 10 years, the Ministry of Defence said.
The £15 billion investment into the warhead programme will back the Government's commitments to maintain the continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent, build a new fleet of Dreadnought submarines and deliver all future upgrades.
From the late 2030s, the fleet of up to 12 SSN-Aukus conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines will replace seven astute class attack submarines the UK is due to start operating.
In response to the strategic defence review, the Government will also commit to:
– Getting the armed forces to a stage where it would be ready to fight a war
– Boosting weapons and equipment stockpiles and making sure there is capacity to scale up production if needed in a crisis or war
– Buying up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons in a move due to support 800 defence jobs
– Setting up a new cyber command and investing £1 billion in digital capabilities
– More than £1.5 billion of additional funding to repair and renew armed forces housing.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems have questioned Labour's commitment to funding the promises it was making.
Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge suggested his counterpart Mr Healey had been 'hung out to dry by Rachel Reeves' over the 3% target.
'All of Labour's strategic defence review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them,' he added.
Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said the 2034 timeline for the commitment 'suggests a worrying lack of urgency from the Government'.
She also said: 'Unless Labour commits to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3% much more rapidly than the mid-2030s, this announcement risks becoming a damp squib.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
Spending Review: Massive cheques from chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?
The next few days are vital – "one of the last moments to weave it all together – to look politically credible to the people Labour has lost", one senior figure have been huge fights inside government about the looming Spending I write, the home secretary and deputy prime minister are both still in dispute with the mighty Treasury over the amount of cash they'll have to the Treasury's already trying to convince the public the review is about significant Wednesday Rachel Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers' cash to big transport projects outside the wealthier south east of England, having tweaked the Treasury rules to do with five days still to go, I've been passed some of the information that'll be in the pages of Wednesday's one crucial chart that will be in the huge bundle of documents heading to the printing presses on Tuesday night that shows what's called TDEL – the Total Departmental Expenditure other words, the total that government spends, including the day-to-day costs of running public services and long-term spending on big projects. The chart spans 2010 to 2030, so takes in the coalition years, where you can see the total sliding down, then the Conservative years when spending starts rising after the Brexit referendum, then leaps up during then, when Labour took charge, the red line going up steeply at first, then more slowly towards the end of this parliamentary total real terms spending by 2029-30? More than £650bn – roughly £100bn more than when Labour took pale blue line is what would have happened to spending if the Conservatives had managed to hang on to power last government now is allergic to accusations that any cuts they make will be a return to austerity. And this chart shows that overall spending is going up considerably, compared to those lean political argument around spending will rage but the chancellor did - to use the ghastly technical term – set out the "spending envelope" in her autumn Budget, indicating rises were can bet they'll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned to under Rishi government's political opponents on the other hand, may look at that red line as it climbs steeply upwards and say: "See, public spending is ballooning out of control".This chart does illustrate very significant rises in public spending. But be careful. What this chart doesn't give us is any idea of how those massive totals break down. Massive chunks will go to favoured departments, suggestions of an extra £30bn for the NHS a very significant part of that steep rise will be allocated to long-term projects, not running public services, some of which are overall total may be enormous, but a couple of parts of government greedily suck in billions - others will still feel the pain. A case in point – as I write on Saturday morning, the Home Office is still arguing over its settlement, believing there isn't enough cash to provide the number of police the government has promised, while the front pages are full of stories about the NHS receiving another bumper observe this big health warning. The chart gives us a sense of the political argument the chancellor will it doesn't tell the full story or give the crucial totals, department by department, decision by worth saying it's incredibly unusual to see any of this before the day itself, hinting perhaps at jitters in No 11 about how the review will be we hear the chancellor's speech, and then see all of the documents in full on Wednesday, the story of the Spending Review won't be will be reams of statistics, produced by government, and the official number crunchers, the OBR, and then days of analysis by think tanks and experts in the bear in mind these three core facts. Rachel Reeves will put a huge amount of cash, tens and tens of billions, towards long term projects. Short-term spending money will be tight, with no spare cash for sweeteners. And the government is not popular, so there's huge pressure to tell a convincing story to try to change that, not least because of what went wrong the last time. "We can't ever do it like this again." After Labour's first Budget, government insiders concluded next time, it had to be different.A source recalls: "It was a very brutal exercise - it was literally just making the sums add up, there was no collective approach to what the priorities were."Alongside a lot of extra cash for the NHS, there was a big tax rise for business that came out of the blue. No one wants a repeat of that "next time" is now – and a Labour source warns the review might be as "painful as hell" .So the task for a government struggling in the polls is to make this moment more than just a gruesome arithmetic problem, instead, to use the power of the state's cheque book to make, and go on to win an a fiver on Rachel Reeves referring back to that first Budget as "fixing the foundations" of the economy and public services, this week then being the moment to start, "rebuilding Britain".Sources suggest she has three aspects in mind: security for the country (which will explain all those billions for defence), the health of the nation - that does what it says on the tin, and "investing", all that cash for long-term week's decisions will be followed soon after by the government's industrial strategy which will promise support for business, possibly including cash to help with sky-high energy it comes after several big staging posts – the immigration white paper, trade deals, the defence government circles there's hope of denting some of the criticisms that they have been slow to get moving in office, that, frankly, Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to Whitehall insider tells me, "Now the buses are all arriving at once – maybe the idea of this lacklustre government that didn't have a plan will be blown away by July?" Another Labour source suggests the threat from Nigel Farage has actually forced the government to get moving, visibly, and decisively: "Reform gives us the impetus to actually shake this stuff down."That's the rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand. It might not be reality. It is profoundly uncomfortable for a Labour government to make is already a whiff of rebellion in the air over ministers' welfare plans. Expanding free school meals for kids in England seems designed to placate some of those critics in advance, but there could be more to make them forget Reeves has several different audiences – not just the public and her party, but the financial bigwigs time last year all Labour's schmoozing was paying off, and she enjoyed good reviews in the year on, that mood has shifted, in part because of the autumn to one city source, it "damaged her. People saw it as an about turn on her promises. Raising National Insurance, however they want to present it, went against the spirit of the manifesto… confidence in her in the City is diminished and diminishing", not least because there is chatter about more tax hikes in the autumn budget. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. You probably don't need me to remind you that the level of taxes collected by government are historically sky too, at the other end, is the amount of government debt. A former Treasury minister told me this morning, "debt is the central issue of our time, nationally and globally"."There is a real risk our debt becomes unsustainable this Parliament, unless we make tough choices about what the state does. We can't keep on muddling through."Add in the twists, tariffs and tantrums of the man in the White House, that make the global economic situation uncertain and the picture's not politics hinges on finding advantage in adversity. Polling suggests much of the country reckons Labour inherited a bad hand and has played it week, the chancellor has a chance to change the game. No 11 is determined to prove that she has made decisions only a Labour chancellor would Reeves is gambling that her decisions to shovel massive amounts of money into long term spending helps the economy turn, and translates into political support well before the next general election.A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be "the moment, this government clicks into gear, or it won't". There's no guarantee. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. Identity crisis The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that Government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Sony Pictures international boss Wayne Garvie said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue.
Pembrokeshire Herald
2 hours ago
- Pembrokeshire Herald
Mr Chips reigns supreme in Pembrokeshire's best fish and chips poll
CAMPAIGNERS warned it will be 'impossible' to hold the Welsh Government to account on progress against its disabled people's rights plan due to a lack of concrete targets. Mark Isherwood, who chairs the Senedd's cross-party group on disability, raised concerns that many of the long-term objectives in the draft ten-year plan lack firm commitments. He said Natasha Hirst, who was part of ministers' disability rights taskforce, pointed to a lack of funding to implement the plan as well as a scarcity of clear, robust targets. Mr Isherwood also quoted Joe Powell, chief executive of All Wales People First, who said: 'For this plan to succeed we need the appropriate investment into the infrastructure and services to make this aspiration a reality. 'We need clear targets about how we are going to achieve this. Without these, it is very difficult to see how the plan will make a difference to disabled people in Wales.' The Conservative told the Senedd: 'Damian Bridgeman, who chaired the disability rights taskforce's housing and community working group, said the draft document was a smokescreen rather than a plan. 'He pointed to the absence of new money and a mechanism to track delivery of the action plan further, adding that, 'disabled people have been reviewed to death, what we need is action – and there's none of that here'.' He said Mr Bridgeman described the plan as a 'collection of vague intentions dressed up as progress', with 'no targets, no teeth and no real-world accountability'. Mr Isherwood, who has campaigned on disability rights for decades, warned the plan lacks a commitment to enshrine the UN convention on the rights of disabled people into Welsh law. The north Walian also warned the UK Government's plans to cut benefits risk further disabling people in Wales by compounding poverty and exclusion. During a statement on June 3, Jane Hutt described the plan as a landmark moment in the Welsh Government's commitment to ensuring an inclusive and accessible society for all. Wales' social justice secretary said: 'This plan is a ten-year blueprint for progress, designed to ensure its outcomes are realised through actions taken across government.' Ms Hutt cautioned that UK Government welfare reforms risk overlooking the circumstances and needs of disabled people, and more so in Wales than some other parts of the UK. Jane Hutt, secretary for social justice, trefnydd and chief whip She said the plan seeks to position Wales as a world leader in the social model of disability, which says people are disabled by barriers in society – not by their impairment or condition. Ms Hutt urged organisations and disabled people to have their say by responding to a consultation on the draft plan, which runs until August 7. Sioned Williams warned the plan has been a 'long time coming', with the taskforce set up after a 2021 report, entitled Locked out, into the impact of the pandemic on disabled people. Ms Williams told the Senedd: 'We must never forget that disabled people comprised 60% of deaths from Covid-19 in Wales, and many of those deaths were preventable and rooted in socioeconomic inequality.' Plaid Cymru's shadow social justice minister, Sioned Williams The Plaid Cymru politician stressed the importance of legally enforceable rights – 'rights that can literally be the difference between life and death'. Ms Williams warned planned welfare cuts cast a long, dark shadow over the plan, saying: 'The removal of this vital support doesn't simply reduce income, it rips away the safety net that many disabled people rely on to live with dignity.' She called for assurances that disabled and neurodivergent people will no longer be detained in secure hospitals in Wales, as highlighted by the Stolen Lives campaign. Jenny Rathbone supported efforts to embed the social model of disability because 'it is society that needs to change, not the individual who happens to have an impairment'. But she recognised that a huge amount of work still needs to be done. Julie Morgan, a fellow Labour backbencher, said the plan clearly shows the Welsh Government's commitment to making Wales an open, inclusive and accessible place. But Conservative Laura Anne Jones warned the plan 'falls short in many critical areas', with disabled people still facing systemic barriers to work, transport and access to services. South Wales East MS Laura Anne Jones She said: 'With rising living costs and sweeping cuts to support services alongside welfare, this plan feels more like a statement of intent than a blueprint for real action.'
