5 hours ago
8
John Healey’s resignation as defence secretary on Thursday morning was genuinely shocking. Mr Healey is not just a veteran minister, but a Labour loyalist who previously served both Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. In an interview in March, he observed that he didn’t toil to rebuild confidence in Labour “just to see that wasted with internal chatter and commentary”.
Now he has maximised external chatter with a withering denunciation of the prime minister and chancellor. In his resignation letter, Mr Healey said that Sir Keir Starmer was “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to provide the budget needed to protect the UK – forcing him to make decisions that increased the risk to personnel and could make the country less safe. Having spent years rebuilding Labour’s credibility on national security, he appears to be demolishing it, weeks before Sir Keir faces a Nato summit. Doubtless he feels the damage was done by the repeated failure to publish the defence investment plan (DIP) – originally due last autumn – or match the armed forces’ expectations.
Though the defence secretary’s decision was startling, its security and political contexts were both well rehearsed. Russian menace, Chinese might, Middle Eastern chaos and the disintegration of relations with the US have forced European countries to bolster defence investment. The UK committed to increase spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, in line with a Nato target. The DIP was supposed to lay out the detail.
The government postponed difficult decisions in last year’s cross-government spending review. It didn’t help when defence officials then came back and demanded billions more in funding. Rachel Reeves eventually agreed to more modest additional spending, funded by cuts to other departments. The chancellor’s self-imposed fiscal restraints were partly responsible for a bitter “guns v benefits” row.
Mr Healey quit rather than accept the finalised plan. He believes spending must hit 3% by 2030 to meet the 2035 target – and revealed that Sir Keir planned to raise it to just 2.68% by 2030. Debate will continue over whether he has been captured by the defence establishment, or is simply willing to face hard truths; and whether the armed forces have correctly identified the best areas and strategy for investing whatever money they are given, or are still in thrall to an anachronistic transatlanticism.
The politics, however, are clear. International affairs and security were rare areas of relative credibility for Sir Keir. No longer. The core of Mr Healey’s attack is familiar from the resignation letters of other ministers and the private complaints of many more: the prime minister is too weak and indecisive to make clear plans or push them through. Colleagues have concluded that he cannot change. Mr Healey is said to have privately urged the prime minister to consider his future after May’s elections. (While he has previously been touted as a potential caretaker, allies insist he is not interested in the leadership.) Now he has gone public.
A prime minister who appears destined for his own exit has little to offer colleagues, who are inclined to look to their political future or their legacy. Principle appears to have driven Mr Healey’s departure, but such considerations surely factored in – as they may have in the refusal of the chancellor and others to accept cuts elsewhere. A successor to Sir Keir, however, would face their own challenge. Mr Healey has presented a willingness to meet the budgetary demands of the defence establishment as the bar for Labour’s credibility on national security.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
