Senior Labour figures have warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves against funding increased military spending through cuts to welfare, arguing that pitting defence against social security risks losing public support for higher defence investment. The warning comes as pressure mounts from Labour backbenchers for the Treasury to urgently agree the defence investment plan (Dip), after former Nato secretary general George Robertson criticised a 'corrosive complacency' on defence funding.
MPs and peers rejected opposition calls to fund defence by slashing welfare, insisting alternative sources must be found. The chancellor is understood to have proposed increasing the defence budget by less than £10bn over four years, amid concerns over affordability. Prime Minister Keir Starmer dismissed Robertson's comments, insisting defence spending is rising rapidly, with a commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next parliament. However, military leaders estimate a £28bn shortfall after years of underfunding.
Defence Secretary John Healey is pushing for a far larger increase, but some Labour figures describe him as 'totally captured' by the Ministry of Defence's demands. They say Reeves is sceptical of the 'money pit' in his department, and that Starmer must force a creative solution. Lord Hutton, a former defence secretary, urged Starmer to 'knock heads together' and release more funding without first demanding procurement guarantees, arguing the Treasury's insistence on efficiency savings ignores the urgent geopolitical situation.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said defence spending should rise significantly but not at the expense of the poorest, calling for a wealth tax instead. Labour MP Graeme Downie said: 'This cannot be a fight between defence and welfare. The solution needs to be more creative.' Emma Lewell, a defence select committee member, added that bolstering defence 'should not come at the expense of those pensioners and people with disabilities receiving welfare', suggesting scrapping digital ID or reviewing net zero policies as alternatives.
