John Healey has resigned as defence secretary over Sir Keir Starmer’s defence investment plan, accusing the Prime Minister of failing to “meet the moment” over his long-delayed proposals to boost military spending. The Mail has more.
John Healey dramatically quit today as Labour’s defence shambles turned into a nightmare.
The Defence Secretary announced he was leaving Cabinet with a brutal parting shot at Keir Starmer after months of bitter wrangling over funding.
Healey said he could not accept the settlement in the Defence Investment plan because it “falls well short of what is required for… the country at this dangerous time”.
He suggested the package amounts to increasing spending from 2.6% of GDP next year to just 2.68% in 2030, despite the “imperative to speed up readiness to fight”.
Swiping at the PM and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Healey said: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.”
The seismic news further loosens Sir Keir’s tenuous grip on control of the Government, as rivals circle to deliver a killer blow.
A key ally of Andy Burnham immediately praised his “principled” stance.
No. 10 had hoped the blueprint to fill a black hole in budgets could finally be unveiled this morning, ahead of the PM meeting fellow leaders at an international summit next week.
However, that prospect was humiliatingly dashed as the Treasury and Cabinet Ministers play hardball over how to find the funding.
The PM’s inability to get the measures over the line highlights his waning authority, with Burnham widely expected to mount a challenge if he wins the Makerfield by-election next week.
As well as a multi-billion pound shortfall in existing budgets, there are disagreements over how and when targets for increasing spending can be reached.
It is understood that Ed Miliband has been resisting demands for savings of at least 1% within his Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
That could amount to more than £600 million from the capital budget over the five-year spending period – potentially affecting support for heat pumps and carbon capture.
In his resignation letter, Healey said: “This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January – overseen by you, me and the Chancellor – confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.
“Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.’
He added: “As I’ve outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour Government.
“However, your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.”
Healey went on: “Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.
“After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.”
The letter brought praise from Conservative MPs, with former soldiers Tom Tugendhat and Ben Obese-Jecty describing it as “principled”.
Tugendhat, a former defence minister, said the letter “states clearly this administration has failed”.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A man of principle …. or a rat jumping off the rapidly sinking Starmer ship?
How can you justify spending more than 20 billion on Ukraine with a further 3 billion/year until 2030, when at the same time you don’t have your own house in order?
Starmer has pledged to stand with Ukraine “..for as long as it takes”. Looks like billions more will be winging there way to Zelensky’s alleged money laundering racket.
Does Mr H want a place in Andy’s cabinet?
So in other words, there was a choice between Defence and Ed Miliband’s madness (no pics please, we know what he looks like). Guess who won? Guess who really runs Keir’s government?
It was the top item on World at One on R4 today. They interviewed someone who is presumably no longer employed by the MoD about the DIP that is stuck in the queue, apparently, and he expressed the view that we should be investing/spending more on military action, on the grounds of how dangerous the world is etc. Another interviewee was a Labour MP who took the opportunity to say that he is likely to select someone different to Starmer in due course – see the other article. Anyway, polling day next week in Makerfield.
Apparently £9billion set aside for carbon capture, which has never worked and is totally pointless anyway.
Now, where could Starmer & Co find some money for Defence? Hmm tricky one….
Yes, they really are that thick.
Apparently Miliband is resisting any attempt to reduce his budget.
Three choices: Do what you’re told, resign, or get sacked… it’s not really difficult, is it? What has Miliband got on Starmer, I wonder?
The only legitimate function of Government is to protect the people both from external and internal threats.
How well have recent Governments done?
It is not a legitimate function of Government to provide for the people – that’s the people’s job to provide for themselves.
The obsession with welfare – the means of bribery and corruption to secure votes – has meant the wealth we generated has been squandered, and not used for our protection.
Squandered on those that we need protection from.
The real problem is not actually the Treasury but MOD procurement. In truth, if you controlled the purse strings, would you keep pouring vast amounts into such a wasteful team until they could show that they can better spend the money they already get?
We keep being told that this ship has the power and reach of three or four it will replace, that aircraft is better than ten old ones and that armoured car worth at least fifteen. Then the one you buy breaks down, crashes or like Ajax is just plainly useless. And we pay vastly more for these replacement assets. What happens when you need two or three vessels in the Mediterranean, the same in the North Atlantic, oh and the China Sea could do with some and probably the South Atlantic. Damn, you can’t cut a ship in half to spread around and most of them are spending more time broken down than at sea anyway.
We need cheaper, nearly as sophisticated and more plentiful. Other nations seem to manage it. Why can’t we? MOD procurement that’s why. They want new stuff, speak to suppliers and instead of sticking to the need, tick all the… Read more »
I think that the fundamental problem is that the MoD is always trying to react to where and what they think the threat will be in 5-10 years. When that changes they then want to target it with the kit in development which screws up the procurement process and puts in the delays you mention.
My ex-army chum is strongly of the opinion that the problem is that we’re always ordering kit to fight the last war…
In addition we don’t apparently have the personnel to crew the ships we’ve got… I’m told that there isn’t a single Navy ship that is fully manned with a British crew?
That’s absolutely right.
Just when you think you’ve bought a future-proof warship, some idiot updates the software to require the sailors to prove they’re old enough
oh well
Surprise! What else will the current Prime Minister be unable to do?
Anything?
Good for him.
Mind you the most serious and immediate threat this country faces at present is this labour government, apparently obsessed with destroying everything.
Now would be a good time for a military coup except I doubt the BBC even has any martial music to broadcast.
At risk of falling foul of the online spies in the Government, a military coup is a good idea, but we haven’t got a military to enact it.
We do have a military but suspect you’d need to go down to the level of enlisted men not officers to find anyone non-woke
Monty Python – Military March
Terrifying! I’d surrender.
Won’t bloody ‘Ode to Joy’ do the trick?
No MP to my knowledge has resigned over mass immigration. A far greater threat to national security than the government’s mythical enemy – Russia.
The enemy is within, out of control and an imminent threat to us all.