Yesterday in Brussels, Keir Starmer urged European leaders to “shoulder more of the burden” on defence spending as the Ukraine war drags on. One can only admire the brass neck of the man, because Britain is in no position to lecture its allies on the state of their militaries.
Soon after Labour’s election victory, Chancellor Rachel Reeves scrapped the previous government’s defence spending plans, which represented a guaranteed increase of about £20 billion in real terms over the life of this parliament. Her autumn Budget pledged a one-time increase to the department’s coffers of £2.9 billion, a mere 15% of the lost cash.
Having spent that money buying off the unions, Labour now has no timetable for when it will get around to hitting its own defence spending commitment. It’s hard to see how it could possibly do so before the next election: Reeves claims to have already set out her tax and spending plans for the entire parliament, and Baroness Casey’s review of social care — and all its doubtless expensive commitments — is due in 2028.
Giving £3 billion a year to Ukraine might provide Starmer with some cover in Brussels, but not much. Any European government paying attention will know about the decaying state of Britain’s once-vaunted Armed Forces. The country no longer has even a single deployable division, while the majority of the Royal Navy’s much-reduced fleet is out of commission for maintenance and repairs.
Since the end of the Cold War, successive governments have cut defence budgets, but they have never had the courage to openly acknowledge the consequences for British military power. Instead of concentrating lower spending on doing some things well, we spread it across too many capabilities and perform most of them poorly.
But even that “strategy” is now running out of road. In November Defence Secretary John Healey announced that the Government was looking to sell both of the Royal Navy’s Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs. LPDs are amphibious assault ships that deploy land forces, and selling both vessels will remove the Royal Navy’s entire capacity. Historically, Britain has justified a relatively small army on the basis of an elite, globally-deployable expeditionary force backed up by the Navy. That case falls to pieces if the Navy can’t put them ashore.
It gets worse. While many British warships, vehicles, and other equipment are operating beyond their proper service life thanks to abject procurement processes, Albion and Bulwark still have a decade of good service life remaining.
So, what’s the problem? According to Navy Lookout, it’s a combination of the cost of repairs — the Ministry of Defence says decommissioning will “save £9 million a year in maintenance costs” — and, unbelievably, the Navy’s inability to recruit the 2,000 or so sailors it would take to man the ships.
But this attitude is the epitome of penny-wise, pound-foolish. Albion and Bulwark, plus their landing craft, cost about £1.6 billion in today’s money when they were originally commissioned. Should a future government decide we do need LPDs after all, recommissioning that capability from scratch would surely cost vastly more again.
Worst of all, the Daily Mail reported a week ago that ministers may be preparing to sell both ships to Brazil for just £20 million. Not only is that an abysmal return on investment for the taxpayer, but it would give the Marinha do Brasil greater marine assault capabilities than the Royal Navy, which isn’t great for the balance of power in the South Atlantic, historically a British priority.
If the UK is to maintain any strategic credibility in an increasingly dangerous 21st century, ministers have to face facts. Britain must choose between an effective army focused on Europe or a competitive navy. If we want either, let alone both, we have to make cuts to protect defence spending. Starmer should stop worrying about the speck in his European neighbours’ eyes, and pay far more attention to the plank in his own.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf 40,000 or 50,000 English girls and young women became victims of Pakistani rape gangs would England do anything?
Are you on some sort of piecework deal?
You are quite new to UnHerd comments … let me explain … you are allowed as many SENTENCES in one comment as you like … quite generous really … look back and read some and you will see how it works!
Listen I agree with most of your comments, but for the love of tea can you just SHUT UP! Make a comment make it as long as you want. You’re annoying and odious.
Its a comment thread. Where people make comments. You are being ridiculous. If you don’t like the comments here DONT READ THEM
You’ve ignored my point yesterday about your “littering”. You’re like someone dropping their litter in the street then shouting “Just ignore it!” if anyone objects.
Do you enjoy looking at the litter in our streets? No? Well stop doing the same on here, it’s mindless.
Why don’t you answer the points I am making if you disagree with them? Otherwise just ignore what I am saying. Please.
We’ve answered them many times, yet you never respond when people do so it’s all rather pointless. You simply copy and paste the same bo***cks onto the next unrelated article
Or just move to a site where you agree with everyone there. Obviously Unherd is not for you. Different ideas . Different points of view.
He said he agreed with most of your points. Can you read, or are you really just very ignorant?
He said I am odious . Like you he gets very agitated by what I say. Then DONT READ THEM.
It’s not that we’re agitated by what you say, it’s the sheer number of posts. Be more concise. Think first then write.
Not agitated at all. I’m beyond your simplistic take on things, but your constant attacks on Unherd will receive pushback from those of us who understand how valuable it is.
I’m more determined than you to see the UK reset on the right course. You won’t be part of that process, having no judgement or common sense.
You work there don’t you? Is that why you don’t use your real name?
Why the attitude? As he says, don’t read them. Or do a jigsaw puzzle.
LL’s ‘littering’ point is fair, a good analogy. RL bungs up the comments with repetition and slightly annoying attacks (eg on Unherd as ‘defenders of Starmer’, annoying because unjustified) which like litter distracts with scruffiness ie to certain kinds of mindsets hard to ignore (others probably can blank it). Personally I’m somewhere in the middle and actually find RL somewhat entertaining as well as somewhat annoying.
Or maybe 400,000 or 500,0000?
They already have; and they didn’t.
If England one day was to be attacked militarily by one of the countries of the Global Majority would England even defend itself?
Unfortunately this is a serious question.
The invaders would be welcomed with open arms, given laptops and free tickets to football matches.
How many English people would just shrug their shoulders and say to themselves, well, that’s justice?
If the IRA relaunched and started pub bombing again would Starmer and Hermer’s reaction be ‘We understand’?
No, because they would be white.
Fortunately, they won’t, not least because a precipitate British withdrawal from N.IRL for financial reasons is more likely. An Argentinian takeover of the Falklands is much more likely.
Starmer shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about anything. He promised to resign if he was found to have broken lockdown rules. We now know for certain that he did so on at least two occasions. Time he fell on his sword.
Novel thought: maybe the strategy (if there is one) is to try and give the Europeans a gentle nudge from the hapless…sorry, harmless UK PM as a sort of friendly prelude to the sack of bricks that will be dropped on them from a great height by the Yanks if they don’t pull themselves together?
Maybe Starmer shouldn’t be lecturing, but it seems clear that all of Europe will need to significantly increase defence spending to deal with the threat from Russia.
No. We really shouldn’t be encouraging the Russians to think we’re willing or preparing to fight a conventional war with them, because then, sooner or later, we’ll have to. They need to be convinced that our conventional forces are so weak that we can only respond with an all out nuclear exchange.
Of course, the establishment’s sudden enthusiasm for warmongering has less to do with any foreign threat than with the rise of internal opposition. As in 1914.
The USA will not allow the UK to make nuclear threats against Russia or indeed anyone else because that would involve the USA in a risk of nuclear war.
The USA will make any nuclear threats it wishes to be involved in, and then only in its own interests, not those of allies.
Well, if Britain’s “independent nuclear deterrent” is not independent of the US, it will have to get one that is. Maybe it could buy some nukes from the French.
Nukes are the easy bit…a good delivery system is the difficult bit…
Trident failed it’s last test by the UK…and with hypersonic missiles now current is probably obsolete.
Happily/unhappily, Argentina is in a worse financial state than we are, so couldn’t afford them. Let’s hope Brazil doesn’t lend them as an act of neighbourly goodwill though. Bloody omnishambles.
What is England’s response to Islamic terrorist attacks?
A law creating the new offence of Islamaphobia.
That’s it.
And you can bet Starmer and Hermer can’t wait for the first Facebook sap to be thrown in prison.
That will be the only time you see Starmer smile in the next four years.
The UK needs to decide where its interests lie and shape a military to protect them.
By interests I mean actual real interests not such nebulous concepts as spreading democracy, (it should start that in the UK), fighting “bad people”, or doing the bidding of the USA.
I cannot see any need whatsoever for landing craft (where are they to be used?) but I can see a need for an RAF which can defend the UK, similarly with the RN, and an army which can contribute to the defence of allies without it being the main component.
Anything else is pure delusional thinking about the UK being a world power. It is not and hasn’t been for decades.
Britain needs to maintain the ability to defend the Falklands.
The Chagos Islands are instructive about why Starmer and his many fellow travellers in the civil service would want to dismantle UK naval capability.
The disposal of the Chagos Islands isn’t about saving money. Starmer has agreed to *spend* £18bn to give them away.
The disposal of them isn’t about justice. Starmer is denying the former inhabitants the right to self-determination.
The disposal of them isn’t about strategic interests. Starmer is determined to greatly annoy our principal ally to hand over the islands to Mauritius, a country 2000km from Diego Garcia that is aligned with our principal strategic competitor, China.
There’s no financial, moral or strategic benefit from any of these decisions. It is pure unadulterated wrecking. And when you speak with the likes of Hermer it is difficult to ignore the underlying pathological hatred of the UK that drives them to wreck it.
You have to wonder why Hermer loathes Britain. Do he had Stammers other advisors have something in common that causes them to hate us so much. Do they have loyalties that lie elsewhere.
We should just get it over with and surrender now, preferably to Russia but Mauritius will do (ah we have already done that)
I’m only surprised that the UK didn’t sell Albion and Bulwark to Argentina. I’m not sure if the author realises just how serious Britain’s economic and financial situation is.