Britain’s next prime minister is expected to inherit an immediate fiscal challenge after the government unveiled a major defence spending plan that leaves a significant portion of its funding unresolved. The strategy, announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, aims to strengthen the UK’s military capabilities amid growing security threats in Europe, but official documents show that £4.7 billion of the promised funding has yet to be identified.
If Andy Burnham succeeds Starmer as expected later this month, he will face early decisions over whether to raise taxes, increase borrowing or impose deeper spending cuts to finance the government’s defence ambitions while managing broader pressures on the public finances.
Defence strategy leaves funding shortfall
The government’s new defence plan commits an additional £15 billion to modernise Britain’s armed forces and improve military readiness in response to a deteriorating European security environment.
However, budget documents indicate that roughly one-third of the planned spending remains unfunded, leaving the incoming government responsible for identifying the remaining resources during the next budget cycle.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Growing security threats drive higher spending
The defence strategy reflects mounting concerns over Europe’s security landscape, with NATO allies accelerating military investment following Russia’s war in Ukraine and warnings that Moscow could pose a wider threat to the alliance in the coming years.
The UK has pledged to strengthen its armed forces while working towards NATO’s long-term defence spending target of 3.5% of gross domestic product by 2035.
Incoming government faces difficult fiscal choices
The unresolved funding gap is expected to become one of the first major economic decisions confronting the next prime minister.
Closing the shortfall may require reductions in other areas of public spending, higher taxation or increased government borrowing, each carrying political and economic consequences at a time when public finances remain under pressure.
Infrastructure spending may face further pressure
The defence package has already prompted criticism after the government indicated that some funding would come from reallocating money originally intended for infrastructure projects, including transport and energy investments.
Further adjustments to public spending could intensify debate over balancing national security priorities with long-term economic development and public services.
Questions remain over long-term defence commitments
Critics have also questioned the absence of a clear timetable for achieving higher defence spending targets beyond the immediate package.
Independent analysts estimate that reaching NATO’s longer-term objective could require substantially greater annual spending over the coming decade, suggesting that defence will remain a significant source of fiscal pressure regardless of who leads the next government.
Implications
The funding gap highlights the increasingly difficult balance facing European governments as they seek to strengthen military capabilities while maintaining fiscal discipline. Britain’s experience reflects a broader challenge across NATO, where higher defence commitments are competing with demands for investment in healthcare, infrastructure, energy transition and other domestic priorities.
How the next government addresses the shortfall could also influence investor confidence in the UK’s fiscal strategy and shape broader debates over taxation and public spending.
Future Outlook
The next UK budget is expected to provide the first indication of how the incoming government intends to finance its defence commitments. Decisions on taxation, borrowing and spending priorities will determine whether the current defence plan can be fully implemented without significantly affecting other areas of government expenditure.
Beyond the immediate budget, pressure is likely to increase as Britain works towards meeting NATO’s higher defence spending targets. Maintaining military modernisation while preserving fiscal sustainability will remain one of the central economic and political challenges facing the next administration.
Analysis
The debate surrounding Britain’s defence strategy illustrates the growing tension between geopolitical realities and fiscal constraints. The war in Ukraine and broader security concerns have strengthened the political case for higher military spending, but financing those commitments is becoming increasingly difficult as governments face slower economic growth, elevated borrowing costs and competing domestic priorities.
The immediate £4.7 billion funding gap is significant, but it represents only part of a much larger long-term challenge. Independent estimates suggest that meeting NATO’s 3.5% defence spending target by 2035 will require substantially greater annual expenditure, meaning future governments are likely to confront repeated trade-offs between defence, public services and taxation.
For the incoming administration, the issue extends beyond defence policy. How it chooses to fund higher military spending will serve as an early indicator of its broader fiscal philosophy and its willingness to make politically difficult decisions. Whether through spending restraint, tax increases or additional borrowing, each option carries implications for economic growth, public finances and political support.
Ultimately, the funding debate reflects a broader shift taking place across Europe, where governments increasingly view defence as a long-term structural expenditure rather than a discretionary budget item. The challenge will be sustaining that commitment without undermining investment in the economic foundations that also contribute to national resilience.
With information from Reuters.
