The last Prime Minister to resign over national security was Neville Chamberlain in 1940. Eighty six years later, Sir Keir Starmer’s defence secretary and armed forces minister have resigned because they believe the current PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer are endangering national security through their refusal to fund the armed services properly. The UK is ranked 31st out of 32 on a database comparing how Nato members are meeting their rearmament promises. The only country below us is Iceland, which has no armed forces.
Chamberlain is rightly reviled over appeasement. But when the history comes to be written, Starmer’s record may be viewed as even worse
There could be no worse an accusation by a (now former) Defence Secretary. This should be climactic for Starmer. And yet there is zero possibility of him resigning in shame or, as with Chamberlain, having lost the confidence of his own MPs.
Chamberlain’s name is infamous for appeasement: for sending the message to Hitler that Britain was weak and would not protect our allies. In 2014, Putin learned a similar lesson about the West from his invasion of Crimea – and that lesson led to the subsequent invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Starmer has been widely praised – not least by John Healey in his resignation letter – for his support for Ukraine since taking office in 2024. But in reality that support is little more than verbal. Our armed forces are hollowed out and cannot meet even the existing demands placed on them – let alone step up support for Ukraine.
Chamberlain is rightly reviled over appeasement. But when the history comes to be written, Starmer’s record may be viewed as even worse. The case for Chamberlain has always been that Munich bought extra time to rearm in 1938, so that by the time Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 we were more prepared. Ignore the rights and wrongs of that defence (it’s obviously correct that we had more time but that ignores the impact of the message we sent to Hitler that we were spineless). That analysis misses another element which shows how Starmer is actually worse than Chamberlain. Because while he (rightly) came to be scorned over appeasement, he realised even as Chancellor in 1935 that there was a pressing need for rearmament – and provided money. In 1934, the Defence Requirements Committee identified Germany as the “ultimate potential enemy” and recommended an £85 million spending programme. Chamberlain prioritised bomber production, based on the notion that air power offered the most deterrent value per pound. In his 1936 Budget, he raised defence spending by 30 per cent.
Chamberlain was rightly criticised by Churchill for not spending enough – we were still spending only a fifth of Germany – but the increases were nonetheless substantial. Then as PM Chamberlain increased the RAF’s budget to £105.7 million (from £16.78 million in 1933), overtaking both the army and the navy (a decision over their relative priority which remains hotly debated among historians). He also funded industrial investment such as the shadow factory scheme, which brought care manufacturers like Austin, Rover and Daimler into aircraft and engine production. The Castle Bromwich plant in Birmingham became the world’s largest aircraft factory, intended to produce 1,000 Spitfires by 1940. By 1939, defence spending comprised 21.4 per cent of Britain’s GNP, with half of all government revenue going into defence.
In other words, even though Chamberlain’s handling of national security forced his resignation in 1940, even he understood early on the need to increase defence spending. Starmer has long said that he does, but his actions show that while he might acknowledge the need in theory, he is unwilling to act on that.
Which brings us to Starmer’s own version of appeasement: that of his own MPs. The fundamental issue with Starmer that he is too weak to act. The die was cast within weeks of taking office when he folded in response to Labour MPs’ hostility to the relatively minor welfare cuts Liz Kendall, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, was proposing. The series of U-turns that have since followed, each a product of the PM crumbling in face of opposition from MPs, have exacerbated the problem.
Even if Starmer was minded to fund defence sufficiently – and there is no evidence to suggest that is correct beyond some speeches and commitments made under pressure from President Trump – his record in office shows that there is no prospect of him ever taking the necessary tough decisions to find the money. Starmer is an appeaser of his own MPs. And, like all appeasers, he is spineless, weak and a danger to his country.
Comments