Tamara Hurina, a civilian evacuated from the Kharkiv Oblast (Image: Getty)
Labour arrived in power as Russian forces spread carnage across Ukraine and the world gained a ghastly glimpse of 21st century barbarism. We witnessed battlefield slaughter in Europe on a scale that optimists had hoped was consigned to the history books. Not only did Ukraine have to repel a ruthless and well-armed foe on the ground, it had to counter its invader in the new realms of drone combat and cyber-warfare.
Britain faced two challenges – supporting the defence of this embattled democracy and ensuring the UK can deter an attack on this scale from any potential foe. For years, Britain’s political class had debated when it was right to attack other states, and was singed by the lethal chaos unleashed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Now, the Government had to answer a very different question – could the UK endure in a battle for survival?
Sir Keir Starmer moved into Downing Street armed with “five missions to rebuild Britain” but not one of them had to do with national defence. There was a reference to taking on the “biggest killers” but this was in the context of making an NHS “fit for the future”. The manifesto mentioned a “strategic defence review” and this was carried out by Labour peer George Robertson, a former NATO Secretary General General. This warned the country faces a”generational challenge” and called for a transformation of the armed forces.
Sir Keir had made positive noises about funding our forces, announcing defence spending would rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with hitting 3% in the next parliament. But beyond the photo-ops of ministers in camouflage, there is growing alarm that Britain remains in a state of weakness at a time of danger.
Lord Robertson has lost his patience and turned his own guns on Rachel Reeves’s Treasury. This former Labour defence secretary has accused “non-military experts in the Treasury” of “vandalism” and delivered a warning which puts an unforgiving spotlight on the PM and Chancellor’s personal weakness: “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
Read more: Keir Starmer accused of ‘U-turn of all U-turns’ as Donald Trump humiliates PM
Sir Keir Starmer in Estonia. The NATO alliance has never looked so fragile. (Image: PA)
The leadership’s attempt last year to curtail eligibility for health and disability benefits was derailed by opposition within Labour ranks. If the economy refuses to grow and MPs block welfare cuts, where can the cash be found to fund urgent rearmament?
It is widely reported that the Ministry of Defence faces a funding gap of around £28billion in the next four years. Meanwhile, the Government’s defence investment plan – which would set out how it would deliver on the recommendations of the strategic defence review and was due in the autumn – has yet to appear.
Lord Robertson is trying to break the standoff between the Treasury, Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence, warning that “Britain’s national security is in peril”. But a Chancellor who knows her career is finished if she breaks her fiscal rules is unlikely to authorise new borrowing or a special defence tax.
Her Treasury takes immense pride in delivering “stability”. But stability increasingly resembles stagnation when growth is absent and the country faces aggression.
The war in Iran and the subsequent energy shock has injected a new sense of vulnerability into this island nation. What happens if Russia knocks out our undersea communications cables and disrupts food and energy imports?
President Kennedy came to prominence with his analysis of Britain’s weakness ahead of WW2 (Image: NY Daily News via Getty Images)
A young John F Kennedy made his name with Why England Slept, an analysis of Britain’s complacency in the run-up to World War II. He noted: “Due to man’s dislike for having the worst pointed out to him, the democracies’ leaders are often forced to gloss over facts and hope they will not be ‘called.’”
A worried public will soon want assurances the Government is not bluffing on national defence. The IMF has just downgraded Britain’s growth estimate for this year to 0.8% – the biggest hit for any advanced economy – down from the 1.3% made before the war in Iran.
If we are in the most profound moment of peril since the end of the Cold War, the gravity of that risk should be reflected in national investment. But can our wheezing economy support a major boost in defence spending to anything like the 4.1% of GDP we had in 1989?
The UK needs to do more than strengthen our armed forces; we need to halt decline. The size of the Army’s regular forces is shrinking – down from 78,060 in 2023 to 73,790 this year.
Can the PM and Chancellor lead a transformation of Britain’s national defence? (Image: POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Ms Reeves’s many foes blame her for killing off growth with her tax raids. But by no means all the blame can be laid at the door of Ms Reeves’ door.
A combination of wishful thinking, complacency and political pressure to spend taxpayers’ cash in ways that will make citizens’ lives easier has led successive governments to neglect defence.
Just 5.45% of Government spending was on defence in 2024-25. Nearly twice as much was spent on public sector debt interest (10.8%), and this was dwarfed by spending on health (20.7%) and benefits, pensions and social services (33.1%).
Revolutionary change in our armed forces will require revolutionary change in how taxpayers’ money is spent. Do Sir Keir and the Chancellor have the will and strength to push through such radical change?
Lord Robertson is appalled by a “corrosive complacency today in Britain’s political leadership”. The present residents of Downing Street may be alive to the scale of danger but lack the political and economic firepower to deliver vital transformation of our defences.
Britain once again looks asleep. We can only hope it does not take a crisis on the scale faced by Winston Churchill to shock our leaders into action.