Latest news with #UKdefense
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Labour claims to be defending Britain from new threats, but its warfare state is steeped in old thinking
It is hard to take this Labour government seriously or literally. In presenting its much-heralded strategic defence review and calling for a new national resolve, it not only treated parliament with contempt – making big policy announcements outside the House of Commons – it gave the country ludicrously exaggerated claims for a 'defence dividend': the idea that increasing investment in the defence sector will boost growth and create high-quality jobs. It failed to explain why money for arms should be a better stimulus for the economy than, say, funding nurseries. The government claims that the world has become so much more dangerous that a 'root and branch' review of defence is needed. It claims that transformation and innovation are essential. Except there is very little that is innovative or transformative about the new approach. The programme it has come up with is a doubling down on the old – on the renovation of the 'sovereign nuclear warhead' programme (to be mounted on very un-sovereign US-made and maintained missiles), on up to 12 new nuclear powered submarines, on cyber and drones, which have been staples in defence procurement discussion for well over a decade. The US remains, despite everything, Britain's 'first partner', with whom ties should be strengthened. This is no great rupture with the past. And, as many have pointed out, there is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the spending, which will merely increase from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP. How are we to explain this? Labour has relished the opportunity to present itself as the party of rearmament, just as Tony Blair gleefully believed he was the first to make the Labour party a war party. Its unseemly enthusiasm is reflected in Keir Starmer's childish talk of 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' or of British 'warriors'. The prime minister even claimed 'we will innovate and accelerate innovation to a wartime pace' and become 'the fastest innovator in Nato'. This is Labour wanting to become the Tory party of its imagination, to purge itself of the stain of social democracy, to indulge itself in nationalist nostalgia, not least for wartime. There was a time when Labour was proud to claim it was the party of the welfare state. More recently, the Labour right has insisted that it was also the party of the 'warfare state' – Nye Bevan's NHS is proudly paired with Ernie Bevin's Nato (Bevin was an architect of the north Atlantic alliance). There is more truth in this narrative than many social democrats care to admit: Labour's postwar government pushed defence spending to around 10% of GDP, under pressure from the Americans. What is too often forgotten is that those in the know knew that such levels of rushed expenditure would not produce what was promised and would damage underlying British growth. Among them were then minister of labour and national service, Nye Bevan, Harold Wilson, president of the Board of Trade, and John Freeman, a junior minister in the Ministry of Supply (that is, of armaments). They resigned and they were proved right. The UK did enjoy a so-called peace dividend from the mid-1950s, as defence expenditure fell relative to GDP and welfare spending. The Labour party now appears to believe that military procurement will generate growth. Khem Rogaly, a researcher at Common Wealth, a progressive thinktank, has studied the relations of defence spending and jobs, and observes that 'this is not a serious industrial or jobs strategy'. Still, Starmer claims a 'defence dividend' will result from a 0.2 percentage point of GDP increase in spending and that there will be national and regional renewal through arms contracts. This feeds nostalgia for (male) skilled jobs, but it is not a serious proposition. In any case, there is no reason at all to believe that a defence dividend for the economy would be higher than a green energy, housing, NHS, or university dividend – and plenty to believe it will be a lot less. In any case, if defence itself is really as important as they say, there will be very good reasons to continue buying weapons overseas, which will happen in practice, instead of pining for national sufficiency. It might be sensible to give the defence dividend to those with a track record of successful design and manufacture, for example, German tank and gun makers, even Ukrainian drone makers. There are some things to welcome in the government's announcements and the strategic defence review itself. There is a palpable sense that things have gone very wrong, that it is no longer appropriate to think of the UK as having by far and away the best armed services in Europe. The usual dishonest superlatives are lacking. There is nothing 'world-beating' here, and only a little is world-leading. The once routine claim that the UK is a force for good in the world is missing. There is recognition that public investment in factories is needed. 'Nato first' is better than Tory-era fantasies of an Indo-Pacific tilt. But the fundamental problem remains – there is no thinking about alternative foreign policies or defence policies; the government is still focused on UK defence ties to the Middle East and east Asia. For every sensible proposal, such as the need to build stockpile weapons and improve the procurement machinery, there is a failure to think through the UK's real place in the world, and to face up to the failures of the defence and foreign policy of the past quarter century. Keir Starmer wants to 'mobilise the nation in a common cause' and claims that 'nothing works unless we all work together'. But that requires a genuine and serious consensus about aims and consistency in principles. Supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and fighting against the illegal Russian invasion and violations of the laws of war, is a good thing. But it has been noticed by many that the UK has been steadfast in its logistical and political support to an ally, Israel, in illegal occupation of territories that are subject to the war crime of collective punishment on an appalling scale. A root and branch review is indeed desperately needed, but that can only happen if we have a political class prepared to recognise that the old formulas will no longer do. It is easy to talk the talk of change and innovation; achieving that requires a genuine rupture with the assumptions of the past and present. David Edgerton is Hans Rausing professor of the history of science and technology and professor of modern British history at King's College London. He is the author of The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: a Twentieth Century History
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Labour is accused of making an embarrassing retreat on defence spending as Defence Secretary downgrades 3 per cent GDP military pledge to an 'ambition'
Labour was accused of an embarrassing U-turn last night after appearing to water down a crucial military spending pledge. Ahead of a long-awaited defence review being published today, the Defence Secretary rowed back on a commitment to spend 3 per cent of GDP on national security by 2034. Just 72 hours after giving an interview in which he said Britain 'will spend' such an amount 'in the next Parliament', John Healey yesterday downgraded it to a mere 'ambition'. Sir Keir Starmer will today launch the Government's Strategic Defence Review from a UK dockyard, following many months of work and lobbying by military chiefs. But critics warn the ten-year plan is likely to prove unaffordable without a hike to 3 per cent. A Nato summit later this month is expected to push for members to hit 3.5 per cent by 2032, while US President Donald Trump has already called for a jump to 5 per cent within the alliance. Mr Healey told the BBC 's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show: 'We have a historic commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent in two years' time [2027]. We haven't hit that level since Labour was last in power in 2010. And an ambition to meet 3 per cent in the next Parliament.' The presenter challenged him, asking: 'So it's still just an ambition? That's not a guarantee.' Mr Healey declined to confirm spending 3 per cent of GDP in the next Parliament, instead talking about being able to 'deliver the vision' of today's review. Some of that vision was made clear last night as the Ministry of Defence announced plans to build up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines to boost the Royal Navy's commitment to the Aukus Pacific defence partnership with Australia and the United States, while investing £15 billion in warheads. But the first of these UK-built submarines is not expected to enter service before the late 2030s, defence sources confirmed last night. It will also be for future Parliaments to honour this spending commitment, so it could be cancelled. Last night, the Conservatives leapt on Labour's apparent muddle on defence, accusing Mr Healey of weakening UK security. Tory defence spokesman James Cartlidge told the Mail: 'These promises on submarines are a fantasy fleet without real money to back them up. 'The fact is, John Healey has been forced into a humiliating climb down by the Treasury after confirming, as recently as Thursday, that defence spending would definitely rise to 3 per cent. 'But by Sunday he was backtracking completely. John Healey has been badly let down by the Chancellor – so now he knows how the rest of us feel.' In an effort to clarify the situation, a Labour source told the Mail last night: 'He [Mr Healey] was expressing an opinion [to The Times last week], which is that he has full confidence that the Government will be able to deliver on its ambition to spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence in the next Parliament.' The Mail's Don't Leave Britain Defenceless campaign has lobbied successive governments to commit to boosting military spending to 3 per cent by 2030, with defence chiefs warning the country cannot afford to delay. Naval experts welcomed the plans for up to 12 attack submarines – which are nuclear-powered but do not carry the UK's nuclear deterrent. But Matthew Savill, from the Royal United Services Institute defence think tank, added: 'This will be tremendously expensive and will have a lot riding on Aukus surviving as well as the expansion of the current maritime construction capacity of the UK.' Ex-Navy commander Tom Sharpe agreed, saying: 'There is a ton of resourcing required. "Up to 12" is classically vague. One thing is for sure, the current Government defence spending commitment of 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 will not provide this.' It comes after the Mail exposed how, in September last year, the Royal Navy did not have a single attack submarine at sea. Mr Healey labelled today's review a 'message to Moscow', with the building of bomb factories, the purchase of thousands of long-range weapons and investment in drone technology and cyber defences. But he said he does not expect to raise the number of soldiers until the next Parliament. The externally-led review, written by former Labour defence secretary and Nato secretary general Lord Robertson, makes 62 recommendations which the Government is expected to accept in full. The Prime Minister is expected to say today: 'National security is the foundation of my Plan for Change and this plan will ensure Britain is secure at home and strong abroad.'
CTV News
3 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
The U.K. seeks to send a message to Moscow as it outlines higher defense spending
Director of Mechanical Engineering Matt Beamont shows Britain's Defence Secretary John Healey, left, a storm shadow missile on an assembly line at the MBDA Storm Shadow factory in Stevenage, England, Saturday May 31, 2025. (Dan Kitwood/Pool via AP) LONDON — The U.K. is about to see the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War as it seeks to send 'a message to Moscow,' the British defence secretary said Sunday. John Healey said the Labour government's current plans for defence spending will be enough to transform the country's military following decades of retrenchment, though he does not expect the number of soldiers — currently at a historic low — to rise until the early 2030s. He said plans for defence spending to hit 2.5 per cent of national income by 2027, which amounts to an extra 13 billion pounds (US$17 billion) or so a year, were 'on track' and that there was 'no doubt' it would hit three per cent in the next parliament in the early 2030s. The government will on Monday respond to a strategic defence review, overseen by Healey and led by Lord George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general and defence secretary in a previous Labour government. It is expected to be the most consequential review since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and make a series of recommendations for the U.K. to deal with the new threat environment, both on the military front and in cyberspace. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been compelled to take a closer look at its defence spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 'This is a message to Moscow,' Healey told the BBC. 'This is Britain standing behind, making our armed forces stronger but making our industrial base stronger, and this is part of our readiness to fight, if required.' U.S. President Donald Trump has also piled pressure on NATO members to bolster their defence spending. And in recent months, European countries, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defence posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't pull their weight. Healey also said Russia is 'attacking the U.K. daily' as part of some 90,000 cyber attacks from state-linked sources that were directed at the U.K,'s defence over the last two years. A cyber command to counter such threats is expected to be set up as part of the review. 'The tensions are greater but we prepare for war in order to secure the peace,' he said. 'If you're strong enough to defeat an enemy, you deter them from attacking in the first place.' While on a visit to a factory on Saturday where Storm Shadow missiles are assembled, Healey said the government would support the procurement of up to 7,000 U.K.-built long-range weapons and that new funding will see U.K. munitions spending hitting 6 billion pounds in the coming years. 'Six billion over the next five years in factories like this which allow us not just to produce the munitions that equip our forces for the future but to create the jobs in every part of the U.K.,' he said. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary for the main opposition Conservative Party, welcomed the government's pledge to increase defence spending but said he was 'skeptical' as to whether the Treasury would deliver. He called on the government to be more ambitious and raise spending to three per cent of national income within this parliament, which can run until 2029. 'We think that 2034 is a long time to wait, given the gravity of the situation,' he told Sky News. Pan Pylas, The Associated Press
Times
20-05-2025
- Business
- Times
Trump ‘wants UK to boost defence spending to 3% by 2029'
Donald Trump's administration wants Britain to raise its defence spending by tens of billions of pounds to set an example in Europe, The Times understands. Pentagon chiefs have told their British counterparts that the US president would be 'happier' if the UK increased its budget so that it hit 3 per cent of GDP by the end of this parliament in 2029, years earlier than planned. In February Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, welcomed the announcement that UK defence spending would rise to 2.5 per cent by 2027. He said the present level of 2.3 per cent was deemed to be an 'irritant' in Washington. However, America does not believe that the increase goes far enough, according to a senior US official speaking on
