Best Of

X
David Wolfson@DXW_KC·2h
Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.


Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope·4h
Kemi Badenoch’s six questions on defence spending at Prime Minister‘s questions yesterday suddenly look very well targeted,
Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope
Lessons from John Healey's resignation:
- Huge blow to Sir Keir Starmer a week out from the Makerfield by-election;
- Defence was of the few areas where the PM was meant to be strong;
- Pressure now on Chancellor Rachel Reeves over why she drove such a hard bargain on defence;
- The Labour Government feels it is fraying at the ages once again.
More reporting and analysis on @GBNEWS
now.

It's not really huge blow to Starmer for the Makerfield by-election as Starmer's Labour isn't standing in the contest!!

Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.

In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes

If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.

What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.

We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.

Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.

And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.

I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.

I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.

I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.

Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.

I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.

This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.

"You just carry on with that thinking Butch. It's what you're good at."

Can you please tell us how Keir and Rachel managed to defund, hollow out and reduce UK Armed Forces between 2010 and 2024.

Any tips for the footie ?

Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.

But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).

I've not tried it but have heard good things about the Guardian's bracketology:-
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2026/jun/04/bracketology-predict-a-path-to-world-cup-victory

Three host countries means three opening ceremonies! Can't wait. /s

Ok I’ll bite on this. Which England players are suited to the heat and bad pitches?

I'm thinking long passes rather than running with the ball so Foden, Palmer and Trent.

Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.

In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes

If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.

What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.

We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.

Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.

And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.

I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.

I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.

I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.

Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.

I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.

This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.

I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.

And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.

On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.

Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.

In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes

If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.

What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.

We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.

Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.

And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.

I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.

I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.

I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.

Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.

I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.

This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.

I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.

And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.

On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.

We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.

Potemkin village in action.

You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?

I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.

Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.

That constant drilling does have a purpose: it reinforces the need to follow orders exactly and according to a precise timeline. There's a reason why basically every professional army at peace does similar.

Any tips for the footie ?

Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.

But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).

I've not tried it but have heard good things about the Guardian's bracketology:-
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2026/jun/04/bracketology-predict-a-path-to-world-cup-victory

Three host countries means three opening ceremonies! Can't wait. /s

Ok I’ll bite on this. Which England players are suited to the heat and bad pitches?

Myles Lewis-Skelly.

But I wouldn’t worry too much. England are good. They can win it.

On Germany having a weak group, I don’t think they do actually. Ecuador can defend and Ivory Coast won’t be easy. Curacao might surprise too.

Spain have a weak group.

I hope Curacao play in blue.

They do actually

Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.

In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes

If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.

What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.

We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.

Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.

And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.

Not convinced. I'd say even a strategy of simply maintaining spending until maybe 2029 but spend that time planning and understanding better how tech is changing warfare before investing heavily in the 2030s will play out better than making medium and long term procurements now.

And ultimately if we think we should be spending 3.5% to deter Russia, China (and US? EU?), we should be spending at least that on managing and controlling AI which is the existential threat.

There's a lot that we need to spend in the short term just to stop from losing existing capability. The cheese-paring approach to defence spending that had been going on for at least three decades now has created so many problems that they're are masses of short-term cuts from the past that have stored up problems that are coming due now.

And there are major commitments that Britain is making that it doesn't have the capability to meet without a large expansion in defence spending now.

We're four years behind where we should be in preparing for future conflict. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been a major wake-up call and Britain is still dithering about what to do and delaying doing it.

Why do you think Britain had the luxury of waiting until 2030 to work out how to rebuild its defences when so many other countries in Europe have decided they needed to spend more years ago? Are the Germans, Danes, Poles and others just stupid and wasting their money?

Something needs to be done has been a winning argument forever. Planning before starting has been a winning strategy forever.