Latest news with #DefenceReview
The Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Sir Keir says the nation is on a war footing as of now but it cannot take decades before we are ready to fight one
ON the face of it, there is good news in Labour's Strategic Defence Review. Up to 12 submarines to head off threats from Russia at sea. 1 New weapons and munitions factories to replace those stocks depleted by donations to Ukraine. But will the billions needed to pay for all these new fighter jets, drones and hi-tech weaponry actually be found? Defence chiefs say it will take investment of three per cent of GDP. Yet Keir Starmer yesterday refused to put a timeline on achieving that. By 2027 it will still be only 2.5 per cent — when experts say we need five per cent to re-arm properly. If the Prime Minister has doubts about where to find the cash, he could try diverting money from less pressing areas — like binning Net Zero and free hotels for migrants. A pity, too, that his Government is handing Mauritius £30billion on top of surrendering the Chagos Islands. At the very least, the PM's uncertainty also throws the delivery time of new projects into doubt. New subs, for example, already won't be serviceable until the late 2030s. Sir Keir says the nation is on a war footing as of now. Starmer 'loses control' as over 1,000 migrants cross Channel in biggest daily total of 2025 – as French cops watch on But it cannot take decades before we are ready to actually fight one. Stand up, PM WHY isn't Britain among a group of nine European countries calling for urgent reform of the European Court of Human Rights? Successive UK Governments have found themselves powerless to deport foreign rapists, murderers and drug-dealers because of rulings handed down in Strasbourg, while the number of illegal migrant crossings this year is likely to top 50,000. The Prime Minister says he is 'angry' about this. But seemingly not enough to join the likes of Italy and Denmark in demanding the faceless Euro judges are curbed. Lords of woke HE'S seen off the Cyborgs and doomed the Daleks. But it seems Doctor Who could be killed off by the enemy within. The show's obsession with gender, race and other identity politics is proving terminal to the Doctor's chances of regeneration. And the public verdict has been succinctly savage. 'Rubbish, boring and woke,' say fed-up former fans. Exterminating the scriptwriters is the only way to save the Time Lord.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Sir Keir is not yet willing to commit fully to the nation's defence
Sir Keir Starmer did his best to strike a statesmanlike pose yesterday as he announced the conclusions of Labour's long-awaited Defence Review, claiming that it would move the UK's Armed Forces to a position of 'war-fighting readiness', while making Britain a 'battle-ready, armour-clad nation'. And, at a time when the global threat environment becomes more challenging by the day, it is clear that the Government is fully aware that more needs to be done to ensure that the nation can defend itself against hostile states such as Russia. Furthermore, to judge by the announcements made by Sir Keir and Defence Secretary John Healey yesterday, there is recognition that the slow and steady decline in the war-fighting capabilities of our Armed Forces that has taken place during the era of the 'peace dividend' is no longer tolerable. For the UK to defend itself, there has to be a serious upgrade both in the military firepower available, as well as the indigenous industrial base that is so essential to maintaining supplies of vital weaponry. In this respect, the recommendations made by the Government's Strategic Defence Review represent a step in the right direction, even if they only address some of the shortcomings facing the military. At the heart of the Government's programme is an ambition to upgrade the nation's nuclear capabilities, with £15 billion of investment earmarked for the nuclear warhead programme. In addition, the Government is aiming to expand the conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet, with up to 12 new boats to be built. The focus on these key areas of our national defence structure is related to the new Aukus pact signed by the UK, Australia and the US in 2021 to enhance security in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition, the Government is aiming to acquire a number of US-made jet fighters that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a move that will significantly expand the military's ability to deliver tactical nuclear options across a wide range of scenarios, rather than relying solely on the strategic Trident missile systems. Other welcome changes outlined in the review include a move to increase stockpiles of munitions and other military equipment, with the Forces working closely with industry to ensure that production can be increased rapidly in the event of conflict. The military has often before found itself in the embarrassing position of having to ask key allies such as the US to provide urgent supplies after British stockpiles have been exhausted after just a few days of fighting. The procurement of up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons, whose utility has been amply demonstrated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, will mean that, in future, Britain will be able to protect its own interests rather than constantly relying on allies to bail us out. The creation of a new Cyber Command, meanwhile, reflects the fact that, in the ever-changing complexion of the modern-battlefield, cyber operations have become as crucial to modern war-fighting operations as conventional weapons. While the focus on these areas reflect the changing nature of the threats we face, there will undoubtedly be those who believe that not enough attention is being paid to the glaring deficiencies in other areas of military strength, such as the diminished size of the Army, the overall lack of fast fighter jets and the scarcity of surface warships. The fact that the shortcomings in these crucial areas of our national defence are not fully addressed reflects a woeful lack of ambition on the part of Sir Keir's administration. And, even though the Defence Review sets out a number of new priorities, the primary question remains: how the Government intends to pay for it. When Sir Keir unveiled his plans in a speech in Glasgow yesterday, he insisted he was committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, but that his aim to raise spending to 3 per cent by 2034 was only an 'ambition'. Three per cent is now seen as the bare minimum by Nato leaders. Indeed, a consensus is building around a figure of 3.5 per cent. Setting aside the likelihood that Sir Keir will still be resident in Downing Street in nine years' time, his inability to commit to such an increase will inevitably raise doubts about his Government's commitment to improving our defences. Sir Keir's inability to provide a clear-cut commitment to raise spending to the level necessary to provide a tangible boost in capability is also unlikely to placate some of the more hawkish voices in the Trump administration. They argue that European nations like the UK are not making sufficient investment in our own defences. At a time when the White House is seriously questioning its future relationship with Nato, any suggestion that a key ally like the UK is not taking its defence obligations seriously could ultimately spell the end for the transatlantic alliance and the Special Relationship.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Lord Hermer, it is remaining in the ECHR that imperils our human rights
For an eminent barrister to regret a 'clumsy' choice of words is rather like a distinguished heart surgeon owning up to being wobbly with a scalpel. Just as we ordinary folk expect pillars of the medical profession to be careful with our atrial chambers and pulmonary veins, so we pay Lord Hermer KC to be precise in language and wise in judgment. When the Attorney General delivers a setpiece speech that is the exact opposite, forcing him to make amends for having compared anyone who questions our membership of certain international conventions to a Nazi jurist, then he is advertising his own incompetence. As it happens, I wrote speeches for three Foreign Secretaries and one Prime Minister and even I could work out that it was best to avoid 1930s or Nazi references. Apart from my stubborn belief that Basil Fawlty was not a model of public oratory, the inevitable row would obliterate the message of the speech. And what was Lord Hermer's message? I want to be fairer than he deserves and concentrate on his argument because I think he was trying to be reassuring. After 32 years at the Bar, he may even have changed his mind about something. Lord Hermer is trying to swim with the tide created by the Defence Review, published on Monday, which confirms plans to increase military spending to match the most perilous international situation arguably since 1945. It may sound strange but the Attorney General is re-positioning himself as, if not a hawk, then at least a realist. He denounced 'legal romantic idealists' for being 'dangerously naive' and willing to confine Britain to 'irrelevance in global affairs'. Instead, he argued that loyalty to international law was consistent with a 'hard-headed' approach to British interests in a dangerous world. Lord Hermer failed to repeat a doctrine he outlined last year that Britain must not just obey international law but 'go further than simply meeting our obligations' – surely the essence of 'legal romantic idealism'. But that was all of seven months ago; the new Lord Hermer no longer entertains such purism. He even thinks that treaties should be subjected to 'evidence-based criticism' and 'proposals to reform' while international organisations must avoid 'blindness or indifference to public sentiment in their member states'. When a human rights barrister shows sympathy for public sentiment, you know that something is afoot. Ironically enough, Lord Hermer's speech was his attempt to be moderate. He was trying to occupy the middle ground between 'romantic idealists' on the one hand and 'pseudo-realists' on the other, the latter being people who supposedly want to do away with international law altogether. But there is a problem: he doesn't mean it. Look at the asymmetry of his language: the idealists are naive, but the 'pseudo-realists' are imitating Nazis. And he stubbornly evades two central questions. Is it still the Government's position that Britain must go further than just obey international law? Or is that an example of Old Hermer-ism that is no longer operative? More seriously, why is it always wrong – even shocking – to withdraw from an international convention? They all provide for states to depart. Why would exercising that right imperil the whole system? Lord Hermer thinks that his critics want to 'pick and mix', breaking some elements of international agreements and obeying others. But if that were true, there would be no point withdrawing from any convention: we would just ignore them. The fact that Robert Jenrick wants to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not make him an enemy of the rule of law. It just means that he wants to use the procedure for withdrawal in Article 58 because he believes that continued membership no longer serves the British people. What is so wrong with that? For example, the British people have a security interest in their government being able to deport foreign nationals who commit serious offences. Keeping them here, no matter how dangerous they might be, breaches the state's obligation to protect its own people. Yet the courts have interpreted the ECHR in a way that effectively compels us to keep many foreign national offenders. Articles 3 and 8, which respectively prohibit torture and guarantee family life, are routinely used to defeat the state's attempts to deport them. Some go on to re-offend. Foreigners who avoided deportation committed 10,000 crimes in Britain in one year, 2021-22, according to Ministry of Justice data. That is 10,000 avoidable human rights abuses. Why is it wrong to observe that membership of the ECHR collides with the right of people in the United Kingdom not to fall prey to foreign criminals who could otherwise have been expelled? Is placing membership of the ECHR above the safety of the British public not a 'pick and mix' approach, and a pretty reprehensible one? Meanwhile, five European countries, including Finland and Poland, are withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention of 1997 which bans anti-personnel landmines. They believe they need these weapons to deter Russian invasion. Are they vandalising the international system? Should Britain be campaigning against their decision? I see no sign that we are. If our allies are allowed to leave a convention because it no longer serves their national interest, why can't we? After all, the biggest catastrophe for Finland and Poland would be a failure to deter Russian aggression. A smaller but still grave catastrophe here in Britain was 10,000 avoidable human rights abuses in one year, particularly if you happened to be one of the victims. If you insist on remaining in every convention regardless of the consequences, isn't that more extreme and irresponsible than exercising the legal right to leave? Will you not open the way for politicians who might respond 'stay in the conventions, but just ignore them'. Lord Hermer might be trying to re-brand himself as a moderate, but by placing membership of international conventions beyond question, he endangers what he wishes to preserve. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer, it is remaining in the ECHR that imperils our human rights
For an eminent barrister to regret a 'clumsy' choice of words is rather like a distinguished heart surgeon owning up to being wobbly with a scalpel. Just as we ordinary folk expect pillars of the medical profession to be careful with our atrial chambers and pulmonary veins, so we pay Lord Hermer KC to be precise in language and wise in judgment. When the Attorney General delivers a setpiece speech that is the exact opposite, forcing him to make amends for having compared anyone who questions our membership of certain international conventions to a Nazi jurist, then he is advertising his own incompetence. As it happens, I wrote speeches for three Foreign Secretaries and one Prime Minister and even I could work out that it was best to avoid 1930s or Nazi references. Apart from my stubborn belief that Basil Fawlty was not a model of public oratory, the inevitable row would obliterate the message of the speech. And what was Lord Hermer's message? I want to be fairer than he deserves and concentrate on his argument because I think he was trying to be reassuring. After 32 years at the Bar, he may even have changed his mind about something. Lord Hermer is trying to swim with the tide created by the Defence Review, published on Monday, which confirms plans to increase military spending to match the most perilous international situation arguably since 1945. It may sound strange but the Attorney General is re-positioning himself as, if not a hawk, then at least a realist. He denounced 'legal romantic idealists' for being 'dangerously naive' and willing to confine Britain to 'irrelevance in global affairs'. Instead, he argued that loyalty to international law was consistent with a 'hard-headed' approach to British interests in a dangerous world. Lord Hermer failed to repeat a doctrine he outlined last year that Britain must not just obey international law but 'go further than simply meeting our obligations' – surely the essence of 'legal romantic idealism'. But that was all of seven months ago; the new Lord Hermer no longer entertains such purism. He even thinks that treaties should be subjected to 'evidence-based criticism' and 'proposals to reform' while international organisations must avoid 'blindness or indifference to public sentiment in their member states'. When a human rights barrister shows sympathy for public sentiment, you know that something is afoot. Ironically enough, Lord Hermer's speech was his attempt to be moderate. He was trying to occupy the middle ground between 'romantic idealists' on the one hand and 'pseudo-realists' on the other, the latter being people who supposedly want to do away with international law altogether. But there is a problem: he doesn't mean it. Look at the asymmetry of his language: the idealists are naive, but the 'pseudo-realists' are imitating Nazis. And he stubbornly evades two central questions. Is it still the Government's position that Britain must go further than just obey international law? Or is that an example of Old Hermer-ism that is no longer operative? More seriously, why is it always wrong – even shocking – to withdraw from an international convention? They all provide for states to depart. Why would exercising that right imperil the whole system? Lord Hermer thinks that his critics want to 'pick and mix', breaking some elements of international agreements and obeying others. But if that were true, there would be no point withdrawing from any convention: we would just ignore them. The fact that Robert Jenrick wants to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not make him an enemy of the rule of law. It just means that he wants to use the procedure for withdrawal in Article 58 because he believes that continued membership no longer serves the British people. What is so wrong with that? For example, the British people have a security interest in their government being able to deport foreign nationals who commit serious offences. Keeping them here, no matter how dangerous they might be, breaches the state's obligation to protect its own people.
Sky News
3 days ago
- Business
- Sky News
Starmer puts UK on war footing
👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics. This time last year, Labour and the Conservatives were in the throes of an era-defining election campaign that would end in Sir Keir Starmer winning an extraordinarily large majority. The Reform Party was little more than a buzzing bee amid the backdrop of the UK political landscape. Spin forward 12 months, and how much things have changed. June 2025 marks the start of a crucial month for Sir Keir's Labour Party, with decisions due across a number of departments that will shape the course of this political era. In the coming weeks, we'll see a security strategy, a 10-year NHS strategy, an industrial strategy, and much more - all tied to next week's spending review. Today, it's the turn of military spending, as Defence Secretary John Healey reveals his 'first of a kind' Strategic Defence Review.
