Healey damns Starmer for allowing the Treasury to run defence policy

Former defense secretary John Healey has issued a scathing assessment of how Sir Keir Starmer allowed the Treasury to run UK defense policy based on saving money.

In his resignation statement sent to the House of Commons, Mr Healey warned: “Our enemies are not following the timescales set by the Treasury.”

But his resignation came after Sir Keir Starmer made clear there would be no extra money allocated to defense spending.

The Prime Minister signaled this position when one of his military chiefs warned that cuts in the armed forces would be necessary.

Addressing the House of Commons about his dramatic resignation last week, Mr Healey told MPs he wanted to make his first remarks about his resignation in the House of Commons “sitting in the backbenches for the first time in 10 years”.

Expressing disappointment at the row over Sir Keir’s surprise departure from his government, he said: “This is not a time for calibration or incremental change. This means bigger policy, bolder priorities and tougher choices.”

His comments come as military chiefs warn Britain could go to war with Russia within the next five years, with the situation in the Middle East increasingly uncertain.

He was followed by Mr Carns, who made a personal statement about his departure as armed forces minister. He described the Defense Investment Plan (DIP) as “inadequate”.

He said: “There comes a point when integrity requires action, and for me that point came last week.”

He pointed out that 90 percent of the losses in Ukraine were caused by drones.

He continued: “What will it take for these figures to be not fiction, but facts born of the blood and steel of a hot war?”

But Sir Keir has previously insisted his plans are sufficient.

Speaking to reporters at the G7 meeting in France attended by leaders of the world’s largest economies, the prime minister insisted that he had achieved the biggest increase in spending since the 1980s.

Days after losing defense secretary John Healey and armed forces minister Al Carns, Sir Keir insisted the money had been allocated.

“Our stance on defense investment is, first of all, that we increased defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.6 percent last year. This is the largest increase since the 1980s.

“And that means parliament will spend £270bn on defence. In addition to the defense investment plan that gives us capability for the future, we will put even more money into it in conjunction with that. I’ve made it clear that this requires tough decisions.”

But when asked if there would be more money, he made it clear there would not be. He said: “I have taken the decision to reallocate money from other departments. Obviously, the new defense minister [Dan Jarvis] He reads it and we talk to him about how and what we will spend this money on in terms of talent.

“And now they have their own ideas about what the priorities should be, and I think that’s the debate we’re in the middle of right now.”

Mr Healey and Mr Carns resigned because the amount of extra cash available was a tiny fraction of what was needed, with only £10bn allocated; this meant the UK was far from on track to reach 3.5 per cent in the next parliament.

Speaking to the International Affairs and Defense Committee in the House of Lords, chief of the defense staff, air chief marshal Sir Richard Knighton, warned that operations and capabilities would have to be “dial-backed” unless the funding offer increased from £13.5bn.

He was initially questioned by committee chairman Lord George Robertson, the former Labor defense secretary and NATO chief who chaired Sir Keir’s defense review and was highly critical of the prime minister’s approach.

Sir Richard said: “If the level of resource funding available to us does not increase we will have to turn back our activities, exercise and operational activities.”

He gave the example of rising aviation fuel costs putting a strain on spending at the RAF.

“The levers we need to pull to reduce these expenses revolve primarily around our activities, namely exercises, training and operations,” he noted.

“So we will prioritize the activities the government cares about most, but it would be disingenuous to suggest there will be no consequences for this agreement.”