In a striking display of internal government discord, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has publicly pressured Chancellor Rachel Reeves to consider slashing welfare expenditure to bolster defence funding. This marks the first instance of open Cabinet dissent regarding the ongoing defence emergency, with Streeting hinting that benefits could be curtailed to finance the Armed Forces, bluntly stating that the necessary funds "got to come from somewhere."
Cabinet Tensions Over Defence Funding
During an interview with LBC on Thursday, Streeting was directly questioned about whether he would support redirecting money from welfare programmes to the military. He responded affirmatively, declaring, "Well, yeah. We want to reduce the welfare budget..." He elaborated further, noting, "We have been putting more money into defence as a government, but we will need more. That is the reality of the challenge of the world that we face." When pressed on if the welfare budget should specifically be the source, he reiterated, "Well it's got to come from somewhere," though he carefully avoided breaching the Cabinet's collective responsibility rules.
Reeves Accused of Blocking Defence Increases
Simultaneously, the Treasury was compelled to refute explosive allegations that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is obstructing increased defence funding due to concerns over the Armed Forces' poor record on "gender parity." Aides to Reeves intervened after Downing Street did not dispute reports suggesting her progressive views are at the heart of a damaging Whitehall deadlock on defence spending.
These claims, initially reported by The Spectator, allege that Reeves questioned military officials, asking, "Why should we give money to a department that's so far away from gender parity?" In response, Kemi Badenoch, a prominent critic, lambasted the alleged comments as a "new low," asserting, "If Reeves isn't funding our Armed Forces because 50 per cent of them aren't female, she is unfit for government. This is a new low. Labour have no idea how to protect us and know nothing about defence."
Defence Investment Plan Delays and Funding Shortfalls
The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of significant delays and financial gaps in defence planning. A long-awaited Defence Investment Plan, which is supposed to outline spending for the next decade, is now over six months overdue. Ministers have identified a substantial £28 billion black hole in defence funding over the coming four years. However, Reeves is currently arguing that she cannot allocate more than £10 billion to address this shortfall.
Former NATO chief Lord Robertson recently pointed fingers at the Chancellor for the defence spending impasse, accusing "non-military experts in the Treasury" of engaging in "vandalism." This criticism underscores the deepening rift within the government over how to prioritise national security expenditures.
Government Responses and Denials
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman repeatedly declined to comment on the speculation surrounding Reeves' alleged gender parity concerns, telling reporters on Thursday, "Our focus is on finalising the Defence Investment Plan." The Treasury later issued a firm denial of the claims, with one source dismissively describing them as "b******s."
Addressing the broader issue of spending at a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, Reeves stated, "We are working through a range of options," indicating ongoing deliberations but providing no concrete commitments. Meanwhile, The Mail continues to advocate for increased defence spending through its Don't Leave Britain Defenceless campaign, highlighting the public and media pressure on the government to resolve this critical issue.
