‘In a less hyperbolic alternate universe, Labour would be regarded as strong on defence’

Imagine an alternate universe in which the Conservatives had won the last election and had cut the international aid budget to fund the biggest sustained uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. In this fictitious world, spending rose from the 2.3% inherited from Labour in 2024, reaching 2.5% this year and destined to reach to 2.6% by 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament.

Imagine if this fictional newly-elected Tory government had, within two years, increased armed forces’ pay cumulatively by 14.1%, shifted the dial on procurement practices to ensure that 94% of spending went to British-based companies, or created an Office for Defence Small Business Growth so that the countless billions spread beyond defence primes. Imagine if the government they had replaced, a Labour one, had previously cut defence spending and left the army smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars?

I very much doubt that such a Tory government in this alternate universe would be accused of being weak on defence. They would be crowing, shouting from the rafters about their achievements. Yes, there would be some retired generals asking for more. But the defence establishment and much of the media would revert to their comfort zone of regarding the Tories as “the party of defence,” in contrast to Labour, with its concerns about healthcare, education, and welfare.

READ MORE: ‘Capacity first: Building a Britain that works’

All you need to do is flip the names of the parties, and then ask whether the treatment this Labour government and this Prime Minister are receiving on defence, here in our actual universe, is reasonable. 

Defence is, in fact, a success story for this government. Of course we have made mistakes, and yes, there is far more to do as we respond to growing global instability, the erosion of the rules-based system, the seeming unpredictability of the United States, the weakening of multilateral organisations, and, of course, the consequences of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

This is a disagreement over the funding of the Defence Industrial Plan (DIP), not a cataclysmic moment for the government, or the end of the UK’s ability to defend itself.

My observation over the years is that politicians at all levels, of all parties, are understandably and rightly keen to demonstrate their ‘strong on defence’ credentials. 

What politicians seem less willing to discuss are the trade-offs and how to pay for these huge increases. They rarely outline – fully or even partially – whether this means drastic cuts to frontline public services, tax rises, or undermining economic credibility through massive increases in borrowing. Their arguments on the former would have more weight if they addressed the latter.

And while I support increasing the defence budget, I need further reassurance that the uplift will translate into better defensive or war-fighting capability at the operational level, particularly given the publicly acknowledged problems (to put it politely) with defence procurement, and given the added moral imperative to spend money efficiently if it has been taken out of the overseas development aid budget.

That’s why I was particularly glad to hear the PM say to the BBC’s Political Editor Chris Mason today that, regarding the Defence Industrial Plan, “the important question is: is that going to give us the capability for the future?”

As he said, it is “hard-edged” because to fund the DIP, he’s reallocated resources from all other departments to defence, outside of the spending review. 

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

As a backbencher, I have had no involvement in discussions within government about how to reverse decades of underinvestment in defence. But I know that the Prime Minister and Chancellor are just as concerned about the threats we face as any politician or commentator – perhaps more so, given the enormity of their responsibilities and the fact that the buck ultimately stops with them. 

Their calculation is, as always, a balancing act. They do not have the luxury of talking tough without addressing what those trade-offs mean in real terms – fewer hospitals or schools built or repaired, reduced support for young people, and poorer transport infrastructure, among other consequences. 

The country expects us to put it first, not our internal debates. We are strong on defence, and John Healey and Al Carns played a significant part in ensuring this. We will be stronger still if we unite behind the Prime Minister. I wish Dan Jarvis and Calvin Bailey well in their new roles. They demonstrate that Labour has strength in depth and that the task of keeping our country safe continues and is in good hands.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].