Defence

A Labour MP, reflecting on the problems the Prime Minister faces over the war in Iran, observed this week: ‘Keir got it right, but things keep going wrong.’ His point was that Starmer kept Britain out of the Israeli-American air strikes, a position popular both with the parliamentary Labour party and the electorate, yet the impact of that conflict has laid bare three serious problems at the heart of the British state. First, there has been a fracturing of relations between Starmer and Britain’s defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. Second is the vulnerability of the economy to energy price shocks. Third is Ed Miliband’s net-zero crusade, which

‘Shape without form, shade without colour. Paralysed force, gesture without motion.’ T.S Eliot’s lines from ‘The Hollow Men’ sum up in 11 words the emptiness of Sir Keir Starmer’s administration. Nowhere is the shade darker and the force more paralysed than in our government’s defence policy. At the Munich Security Conference last weekend, the Prime Minister boasted that he has demonstrated ‘Britain’s leadership on the world stage’ and pledged to augment our ‘huge defence capabilities’. A promise to increase defence spending further, faster, followed. But this is all gesture and no motion. The Prime Minister’s promises that Britain will be ready for global conflict are all shape and no form

When you’re the chief of the defence staff, the head of the British armed forces, it’s never a good sign if your phone rings on a Sunday evening and it’s the permanent secretary. On this particular Sunday, in March 2021, the reason for the call was the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, which was due to be published the following week. Although we had been closely involved in the work, the permanent secretary had been told that the chancellor had approved a settlement that would lead to punishing cuts. Something had to be done. I fully expected to get sacked or resign in protest when I

Last week, our political editor, Tim Shipman, revealed a recent meeting between Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the three heads of the services to discuss the defence investment plan. This plan governs the day-to-day armed forces’ budgets and follows the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which sets our military aims as a nation. The chiefs agreed to write an unprecedented letter to John Healey, the Defence Secretary, explaining that the SDSR couldn’t be delivered without the requisite funding. That money was not forthcoming in the Budget, so they are forced to contemplate a bleak alternative: immediate cuts to both our

Next month Jonathan Carley will appear in court in Carmarthen, charged with wearing military uniform without permission. This charge comes after a man purporting to be a Rear Admiral was pictured at a Remembrance Sunday service in Llandudno while wearing an impressive row of medals. One was Britain’s highest awards for gallantry – a Distinguished Service Order. This case of alleged ‘stolen valour’ highlights an odd loophole in the law. While it is illegal to wear military uniform if not serving in the armed forces, there is no current criminal sanction for wearing unearned medals. A previous legislative attempt to deal with this issue failed. Parliament should act again. Stolen

Rachel Reeves may not be the most mellifluous writer ever to inhabit 11 Downing Street. At the weekend, she informed readers of the Mail on Sunday that she would ‘make no apology for keeping an iron grip on the country’s finances’ but was happy to spend money on training more ‘brickies, sparkies and chippies’. The lurch from cliché to fake colloquialism does not suggest Reeves will be bracketed with Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill or Lawson. But there is one addition to the political lexicon for which Reeves is responsible and which deserves a revival – ‘securonomics’. Before Labour’s election, the term was never far from Reeves’s lips. Launched with great fanfare

Defence Secretary John Healey has announced more changes to the armed forces, detailing several capabilities to be cut to achieve savings of £500 million over the next five years. The Royal Navy’s two amphibious assault ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, will be retired at the end of the year, while HMS Northumberland, a Type 23 frigate, will be decommissioned because her structural damage is ‘uneconomical to repair’. The retirement of the amphibious assault ships has profound implications for the future role of the Royal Marines The Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s two Wave-class fast fleet tankers, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler, will also be retired. They have been in ‘extended readiness’ – that is, maintained but uncrewed and not

The new cabinet cannot be accused of laziness. John Healey, secretary of state for defence, has just been on a 48-hour tour of France, Germany, Poland and Estonia, all of them important military allies in different ways, trumpeting the new government’s ‘Nato-first’ defence policy. The highlight of Healey’s breakneck trip was his meeting with the German defence minister, Boris Pistorius. The two men have much in common: born 30 days apart in 1960, they worked as political advisers before achieving elected office. Both are solid, reliable, unshowy centrists within their parties. And on Wednesday, these two workhorses agreed a joint declaration on enhanced defence co-operation between the United Kingdom and Germany. It

Air defence was in the news this week, after Israel, with the help of allies including the UK, shot down around 99 per cent of over 300 cruise and ballistic missiles and drones fired at it by Iran. The perils of depleted air defences were shown by Russian missile and drone bombardments of Ukrainian energy infrastructure and cities, leading again to many civilian deaths. Eighteen civilians were killed in a Russian strike on Chernihiv. In the wake of the Iranian attacks, Tobias Ellwood, former chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, told the Telegraph that the UK needs to build ‘a permanent umbrella of security defending our key locations’. This required, he said, ‘investments,

Shortly after the invasion of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky made an offer to Vladimir Putin. Ukraine would drop its ambition to join Nato and would instead stay neutral, he said. It would not align with the West, in exchange for an end to hostilities. It was a sincere offer, and unpopular with Ukrainians. Yet it was significant: Putin had cited Ukraine’s Nato ambitions as the main reason for the invasion, saying it showed the West was somehow threatening Russia. But today, that offer ended and Zelensky is seeking the ‘accelerated’ Nato accession granted to Finland and Sweden this year. Will Nato accept? Jens Stoltenberg, Nato Secretary-General, dodged the question when asked today. ‘Our focus