The hard truth is that there are no easy answers
On what may be among his final acts as prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer has committed the United Kingdom to a profound reordering of its public finances — redirecting £15 billion toward military readiness by stripping investment from roads, energy, and the long-term budgets of nearly every government department. The decision reflects a broader reckoning facing Western democracies: that the post-Cold War assumption of enduring peace can no longer be afforded. Yet the announcement arrives incomplete, bequeathing a £4.7 billion gap and a cascade of unresolved choices to a successor who had little say in shaping them.
- Starmer announced a sweeping £15bn defence uplift on the eve of his departure, leaving his successor Andy Burnham to find nearly £5bn more in savings before autumn.
- The money will not come from borrowing but from cannibalising other departments' investment budgets — road schemes, energy projects, and public services will pay the price.
- Two senior defence ministers had already resigned in protest, arguing the plan was too modest, while opposition leaders called it underfunded and dangerously late.
- The armed forces will receive transformative new capabilities — nuclear submarines, stealth jets, drone fleets, and six new warships — but generals warn the timeline is still too slow to meet real security threats.
- NATO welcomed the commitment as a credible step toward its 3.5% GDP target, yet the plan's credibility now rests on decisions a new prime minister has not yet made.
Sir Keir Starmer used what may be one of his final days in Downing Street to announce a £15 billion increase in defence spending, committing the UK to £80 billion in annual military expenditure by 2029 — equivalent to 2.7 percent of GDP and a step toward NATO's 3.5 percent goal by 2035. The announcement is sweeping in ambition but constrained in method: rather than borrowing or raising taxes, the government will extract the money by trimming 1 percent from the long-term investment budgets of other departments. Road schemes including the A38 Derby Junctions and the A46 Newark Bypass face cancellation, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero must find an additional £2 billion in cuts.
The timing carries its own weight. Starmer announced his resignation last week and is expected to hand power to Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, who has not publicly responded to the plan. The Treasury has identified only £10.3 billion in savings so far, leaving a £4.7 billion shortfall that Burnham will need to resolve in his first autumn Budget — a burden he may not have fully agreed to inherit. Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis consulted Burnham on the investment plan but was unable to share certain security details, leaving the extent of Burnham's buy-in uncertain.
The plan itself is substantial. More than £64 billion over four years will go toward the nuclear deterrent, including new submarines and F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The armed forces will receive £5 billion for drone transformation, over £8 billion for the next-generation stealth jet developed with Japan and Italy, and funding for six new warships as the Royal Navy moves toward a hybrid model of autonomous and crewed vessels. The RAF will develop uncrewed fighter jets and deploy an electronic warfare drone system as early as 2026.
Yet the announcement was met with criticism from nearly every direction. Two defence ministers — John Healey and Al Carns — had already resigned, arguing the uplift did not go far enough. General Sir Richard Barrons, a principal author of last year's Strategic Defence Review, said the plan represented progress but would not adequately secure the country quickly enough. Opposition figures called it underfunded and overdue. The £15 billion increase exceeds what Healey had secured but falls well short of the £28 billion defence chiefs had sought.
The Ministry of Defence will attempt to close part of the gap through nearly £11 billion in internal efficiencies by 2030, including civil service reductions and cuts to consultancy. Several programmes have been scrapped entirely, among them Storm Shadow missiles and Wildcat helicopters. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte welcomed the plan as a meaningful step, but the real reckoning arrives in autumn, when Burnham must decide whether to honour the inherited shortfall — or reopen the question of who else must pay.
Sir Keir Starmer announced a £15 billion increase in military spending on what may be one of his final days as prime minister, a decision that will reshape how the government allocates money across nearly every department. The plan commits the UK to reaching £80 billion in annual defence spending by 2029—a figure that will consume 2.7 percent of gross domestic product and inch the country closer to NATO's 3.5 percent target by 2035. But the money will not come from new borrowing or fresh revenue. Instead, it will be extracted from the long-term investment budgets of other government departments, each asked to surrender 1 percent of their spending. Road projects and energy initiatives will be shelved. The A38 Derby Junctions scheme and the A46 Newark Bypass are now under consideration for cancellation. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will find an additional £2 billion in cuts.
Starmer's timing is striking. He announced his resignation last week and is expected to be succeeded by Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, who has not yet commented on the plan. The Treasury has only identified £10.3 billion in savings so far, leaving a gap of £4.7 billion that Burnham will need to fill in his first Budget this autumn—a task the incoming prime minister may not have fully signed off on. Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis discussed the investment plan with Burnham but could not brief him on certain security matters, and it remains unclear whether Burnham was told he would inherit this funding shortfall.
The announcement comes after months of bruising Whitehall negotiations and two high-profile resignations. Former Defence Secretary John Healey quit earlier this month in protest at the scale of the uplift, arguing it did not go far enough. Armed Forces Minister Al Carns followed him out the door. Both men had pushed for more aggressive spending and clearer timelines. Starmer acknowledged the tension in his speech, saying "the hard truth is that there are no easy answers." The plan itself is ambitious in scope. Over the next four years, more than £64 billion will strengthen the UK's nuclear deterrent, including new submarines and F-35A fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The armed forces will receive £5 billion for a "drone transformation," more than £8 billion for the next-generation stealth jet programme developed with Japan and Italy, and funding for six new warships as the Royal Navy shifts toward a "hybrid" model combining autonomous vessels with traditional warships. The Royal Air Force will develop autonomous fighter jets and deploy an uncrewed electronic warfare drone system in 2026.
Yet even as Starmer unveiled these commitments, critics argued they fell short. General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of the Strategic Defence Review published last June, said the plan "does count as progress" but would not "crack the issue" of defending the UK "sufficiently well and quickly." He called for more money to arrive sooner. Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge accused Starmer of leaving a "legacy of failure," describing the plan as "underfunded" and "too little, too late." Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the government had "dangerously short-changed our armed forces." The £15 billion increase is more than the £13.5 billion Healey had secured but substantially less than the £28 billion defence chiefs had sought.
The Ministry of Defence will attempt to offset some of the burden through internal efficiency savings worth nearly £11 billion by 2030, achieved by reducing the civil service workforce, cutting consultancy spending, and expanding the use of technology. Several defence programmes have been scrapped entirely: Storm Shadow missiles, a new satellite system, and Wildcat utility helicopters, which will be phased out in favour of an autonomous replacement. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte welcomed the plan as a "good step" toward the 3.5 percent target, saying "stronger UK defence makes us all safer." He had previously urged alliance members to present "clear, concrete and credible plans" ahead of a leaders' summit in Turkey the following week. Starmer's plan does provide that clarity on paper, but the real test will come in the autumn, when Burnham must find the remaining billions and decide whether to defend cuts to roads and energy projects—or ask other departments to bear the weight instead.
Citações Notáveis
More has to be done sooner and that requires more money than is currently on the table— General Sir Richard Barrons, author of the Strategic Defence Review
The government has dangerously short-changed our armed forces— Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Starmer push this through now, when he's already announced he's leaving?
Because the defence establishment has been waiting for this plan since last autumn. The Strategic Defence Review came out a year ago and promised spending details. Starmer couldn't leave office without delivering something, even if it's incomplete.
But he's left his successor with a £4.7 billion hole to fill. That seems deliberate.
It might be. The Treasury could only identify £10.3 billion in cuts across other departments. Finding the rest means Burnham either makes deeper cuts to roads and energy, or he finds savings elsewhere. Either way, he owns the unpopularity.
Did Burnham agree to this?
Not exactly. Dan Jarvis discussed it with him, but couldn't brief him on security details, and Jarvis wouldn't confirm Burnham even knew about the £4.7 billion gap. It's a strange way to hand over a commitment.
Why did Healey and Carns resign if this is what they wanted?
They wanted more. Healey had secured £13.5 billion. This plan is £15 billion, which sounds like a win, but it's spread over four years and still falls short of the £28 billion defence chiefs asked for. They saw it as insufficient.
So the military is still unhappy?
General Barrons said the plan "does count as progress" but won't "crack the issue." He's saying it's not enough, and it's not arriving fast enough. The armed forces are being asked to make hard choices when they should be getting what they need.
What gets cut to pay for this?
Roads and energy projects. The A38 Derby Junctions scheme might be cancelled. The energy department loses £2 billion. Every department gives up 1 percent of its long-term investment budget. It's not dramatic, but it's real—infrastructure projects people were counting on simply won't happen.