When Donald Trump and Keir Starmer met in Scotland last week, global conflict was at the top of the agenda. The pair discussed Russia-Ukraine, Gaza-Israel, and even DR Congo-Rwanda. These conversations are symptomatic of the increasingly unstable global landscape.
This growing uncertainty has had far-reaching consequences, some of which are being felt in the UK. War has returned to Europe’s borders, a British ally in the Middle East was invaded and has since conducted a painful and unpopular war, and the ramifications of a hastily and clumsily executed withdrawal from Afghanistan are still being felt. Simultaneously, President Trump has vowed that any country wanting to be considered an ally of the U.S. must pay its fair share in defense spending. Starmer will hope he can maneuver this tricky environment as well as he maneuvered the press conference in Trump’s Turnberry ballroom—but the forecast looks challenging.
Conditions have prompted the Prime Minister to announce plans for the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War, followed by the Ministry of Defence releasing its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review, published in June. Whilst developments overseas may have motivated the government’s defense spending plans, domestic affairs since the February announcement have undoubtedly complicated its commitment. Domestic considerations, however, do not make this defense spending commitment expendable. The government must be prepared to take a firm stand on national security, finding ways to galvanize the nation.
The wheels are already in motion for this increased spending plan. Almost six months on from Starmer’s initial announcement, the government has issued a £1.5 billion defense contract to British defense firm QinetiQ for testing and trialing new equipment and another £1.6 billion contract to another British firm, Babcock, which will assist with ‘vital military assets including Challenger 2 tanks, 105 mm artillery guns, and Trojan armored vehicles, ensuring they remain combat-ready to meet emerging threats.’ The government has accepted the SDR’s 62 recommendations in full, committing to spending 2.5% of GDP on defense by 2027, and, less emphatically, it has an ‘ambition’ to spend 3% of GDP on defense by the end of the next parliament ‘if economic conditions allow.’
Despite a promising start, there are troubling signs. British public finances are in a dire state, something the government has appeared ill-equipped to reconcile with other policy proposals. The treasury has remarked consistently on a £20 billion black hole left by the previous government, and Labour has been forced to backtrack and make concessions on policy proposals under threat of revolt from their backbench MPs, despite a working majority of over 150 in the Commons. At the same time, fringe MPs are leaving Labour (making the Labour party a better place in the process, might I add, but leaving nonetheless). The government’s U-turn on cutting disability benefits also created another multibillion-pound funding black hole, leaving the Chancellor crying at PMQs in the process. Though this doesn’t directly infringe on the government’s commitment to increased defence spending, which Starmer has said will be funded by a cut to international aid, it does highlight a general lack of unity on key policy areas and a fragility in the governing party.
These challenges also come at a time when the British public’s priorities lie elsewhere. A YouGov tracker found that, when asked, ‘Which of the following do you think are the most important issues facing the country at this time?’ ‘Immigration and asylum’ was in the top three for 56% of people and ‘the economy’ for 46% of people, whereas ‘defense and security’ ranked in the top three for only 18% of the public. Britain is experiencing, what feels to many, like an ever-increasing cost of living crisis, which is worsened by stagnating wages. The government’s handling of immigration is roundly rebuked. These are real and valid concerns, but they do not diminish the national security threats faced by Britain—the government must do more to deliver this message.
The government has correctly diagnosed a problem, for which the SDR has prescribed a remedy. Despite this, the government is failing to convey to the public just how important increased defense spending is for national security. At the same time, it has shown itself to bend on domestic policies at the behest of backbench MPs. That precedent must not extend to defense spending. “We need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defense front and center—to make it the fundamental organizing principle of government,” the prime minister declared in his introduction to the Strategic Defence Review, outlining his philosophy. Now is the time to implement it.
