As John Healey prepares to deliver his first Budget next week, he does so with a plethora of pressures on the public finances, not least of which are the endless calls for further increases in military spending at the expense of other departments.
Adding to the dilemmas facing the Chancellor is the fact that he resigned as Defence Secretary during the previous administration, saying that Keir Starmer had “been unable, and the Treasury unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats”. At the time of his appointment, many commentators wondered how he would walk the tightrope between the fiscal rules set out in the Labour Party manifesto from the 2024 election and his personal desire to see extra military spending. We may find out the answer to that conundrum next Wednesday.
The problem with Healey’s analysis at the time of his resignation, along with others who advocate for billions to be diverted from public services and welfare into the military, is that the definition of “threats” is narrowly limited. There has been little discussion, for example, about the need for much more investment to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis, not least with the Super El Nino which is threatening to bring extreme weather over the coming months. The recording-breaking heat of the past summer led to thousands of additional deaths, with hospitals and schools struggling to cope, but the best the government could do was announce a temporary ban on disposable barbecues. Meanwhile government funding for the installation of heat pumps and other measures to reduce carbon emissions are being diverted to the military.
There is also the need for financial support for those who continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis. Inflation in the UK is described as “sticky” and Donald Trump’s war on Iran – undertaken with British military assistance – and the wider conflict in the Middle East continues to drive up the price of fuel and energy. New Prime Minister Andy Burnham came to office in July promising help, but just a month later was forced to admit it “isn’t enough”. Healey has said that the Budget would be an opportunity to “provide some breathing space” for households.
The leadership of the Labour Party, along with many others, has long supported the policy of increasing military spending. When Andy Burnham was challenged on the issue in the House of Commons by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch last month, he recommitted to spending 3% of GDP on the military by 2030, but added that national security “can’t come at the expense of social security”. This may have been seized on by some as a sign of military weakness, but to the most vulnerable in society, and those who stand in solidarity with them, it sounds like a refreshing change of policy from Keir Starmer’s desire to cut the welfare budget.
Rachel Reeves’ final budget last year increased core military spending to £61.7bn, with the recent increase funded by the swingeing cuts to overseas aid made shortly after the election. The figures showed that military spending will dwarf government departments with responsibility for other aspects of what is commonly referred to as ‘human security’. Core military spending will be 5.5 times larger than the allocation for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; 4.6 times larger than the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; and more than 8 times larger than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. All these ratios will get larger in the coming years if spending plans are adhered to, seeing military spending for the five-year period ending in 2029 reach £331.9bn, a 22% increase.
The UK is already one of the most militarised societies in the world. Latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute show that the UK has the 6th highest level of military spending globally, while analysis from the Transition Security Project has pointed to billions wasted in failed military projects, and concluded that about a quarter of Britain’s military budget is directed to ‘global force projection’, which could be cut, allowing more focus on equipment for basic territorial defence.
The choice before the Chancellor and the wider government is clear. The British people need properly funded public services to provide genuine security of health, education and access to essentials like food, while the most vulnerable in society need the support of the welfare budget to live with dignity. Citizens also need far more investment to help deal with the impacts of the climate crisis – as well as cutting the emissions that are causing this crisis.These cannot be guaranteed if military spending continues to rise by billions of pounds every year.
A much better investment would be to work for peace, especially in the Middle East and in helping to bring an end to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. National security is too important a topic to be reduced to a debate about how much we are spending on the military. It should instead be about how that money is prioritised to best protect the security of people at home and play our part in tackling the global threats facing humanity.
