John Healey's resignation as Defence Secretary last week marks the most significant government departure over the security of these Isles since Neville Chamberlain was forced to stand down in 1940 after dramatically misreading Hitler's intentions. Healey quit because he would not sign a funding settlement that, in his own words, 'falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time'. Armed forces minister Al Carns followed him out the door, calling the plan 'not fit for purpose'. When the two men charged with defending you would rather hand back their red boxes than put their names to a settlement, you ought to pay attention.
The Funding Shortfall
The Ministry of Defence asked for an extra £28 billion over four years simply to meet commitments the government itself had made to become 'battle ready'. It was offered roughly £13.5 billion, about half. Healey wanted a credible path to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. He got a measly 0.08%. Not 8%. Nought point nought eight. Now hold that next to another number. This year the welfare bill will hit £333 billion. It has risen by £18 billion in 12 months, and that single year's increase is larger than the entire shortfall the Defence Secretary resigned over.
Welfare Spending vs Defence
The Centre for Social Justice put it in terms even a Cabinet minister might grasp: that £18 billion rise, on its own, would buy 220 fighter jets, or 15 Royal Navy frigates, or the salaries of a quarter of a million soldiers, more than three times the size of the regular British Army. The money exists. Just not to defend you. This is a choice. Welfare now swallows roughly a quarter of everything the government spends, and this year it will cost more than the entire take from income tax. The state hands out more to people not working than it collects from people who are. Instead of bringing it under control, Starmer folded, caving to his own backbenchers over the mildest welfare reforms within weeks of taking office, and caving ever since.
Government's Incompetence
The same goes for his ministers, who were recently trotted out to defend the indefensible. Car crash interviews by Peter Kyle and Lisa Nandy showed just how out of their depth they are. Watching Kyle wax lyrical to a bemused Naga Munchetty about the Government's amazing defence plan, a plan which he admitted to not having seen himself and which just cost his colleague his job, was like watching the village idiot stumble through a police interview. Ironically, Chamberlain, the man who got Hitler catastrophically wrong, has become our byword for appeasement. Yet even on his watch, Britain rearmed in earnest, with defence spending climbing from 2.9% of GDP in 1936 to nearly 9% in 1939. Starmer has managed to do the opposite: he says all the right things about the danger, then declines to fund a thing.
Military Readiness at Risk
The Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, told the Lords last week that, without more money, the forces must 'dial back' training and operations, sending men and women into harm's way less ready than they should be. Britain now comically sits 31st of 32 NATO members on meeting our rearmament pledges. The only country beneath us is Iceland, which has no army at all. And spare me the ridiculous argument that taxes should rise to fund defence. We already pay enough. Every productive person in this country is sick to death of working themselves into the ground to keep the bone-idle warm and happy, only to be told the kitty is empty for the one thing the state actually exists to do. Defence is, quite literally, the first duty of government. And if we are no longer willing to do what it takes to defend this country, we may soon find we have no country left to defend.
