The prime minister briefly indicated he would commit to spending 3% on defence (Image: Getty)
How quickly optimism can fade. Just months ago, John Healey swanned up Downing Street to accept his role as Chancellor and the country breathed a collective sigh of relief that our armed forces would be funded properly.
Surely, in appointing a man who had recently resigned from his role as Defence Secretary over a failure to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence, Andy Burnham was signalling that he agreed with Healey’s assessment. Two months later, it appears that that is not quite the case. Listening to the Prime Minister yesterday in his maiden PMQ appearance, I was left with the lingering feeling that his Government was a continuation of what went before when it comes to defence.
Get exclusive defence news and analysis from our experts and more Invalid email
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Aides were forced to clarify Burnham’s defence comments (Image: x)
It appears that the Starmer/Reeves policy of saying the right things and talking tough whilst simultaneously booting the can down the road is set to stay despite the change in leadership.
Answering questions on defence yesterday, Burnham appeared to contradict reports that his Chancellor was set to U-turn on his belief that committing to 3% was of paramount importance.
When told that vibes alone were not enough to keep the country safe, the Prime Minister appeared to commit to the 3% target by 2030, although aides clarified in the aftermath that this was not the case.
It is likely that he misspoke, and I am not one to criticise somebody for a slip of the tongue – we have all been there.
But on an issue such as defence, where we need to be resolute in defending ourselves and be seen to be serious about it, the constant flip-flopping over where defence sits in the Government’s list of priorities is not only unhelpful but dangerous.
Healey looks set to u-turn on his 3% commitments (Image: Getty)
After a summer of seemingly saying yes to every request that has come across his desk, Burnham is now faced with the challenge of leading in a strained economy where difficult decisions need to be made.
Perhaps he wants to wait for a consolidation of early favourable polling to build up the credit he will need to make the sacrifices required to fund defence.
Perhaps he is naively hoping that the geopolitical realities will shift in the medium term, meaning 3% is no longer necessary.
Or perhaps he wants to continue forcing our armed forces to do more with less, so he can spend money in areas that will bring him greater praise and popularity.
The fact is, after gaining the crown via coronation rather than contest, we know very little about what the former Manchester Mayor’s views are on areas such as defence.
Many saw his appointment of Healey as a signal of intent, but the evidence thus far suggests that assumption was wide of the mark.
The Prime Minister may have misspoke yesterday; he might be in two minds on defence spending or simply hoping to kick the matter down the road. Only he knows. But as we wait for the investment required to hit our military, it is all of us who will be forced to live with the consequences.