After months of anticipation and increasingly fervoured speculation, the Defence Investment Plan was published by the Government this week. One of Keir Starmer’s last acts in government before handing the keys to Number 10 over to Andy Burnham on 17 July. But what will the DIP mean in practice? Will it actually do anything to keep us safe? And will it even survive first contact with the new administration?
The DIP was promised after the Strategic Defence Review in June lasty year first promised tens of billions pounds more to be spent on the military. Writing in the foreword to the document Secretary of State Dan Jarvis (who replaced John Healy after he resigned in protest at the DIP) boasts that by 2029/30 spending on the military will be “27% higher in real terms than in 2023/24” adding that £298bn will be spent over the next four years.
The media have reported, however, that the sums don’t quite add up, and Andy Burnham will be left with a black hole in the plans of almost £5bn. One source close to the PM in waiting described this an “unexploded bomb” – while another told The Guardian it was “madness after all that wrangling to have left a £4.7bn black hole for someone else to fix”
In the House of Commons during a debate on the DIP, Jeremy Corbyn MP questioned where the foreign policy strategy was to deal with the “world of insecurity and conflict”. Dan Jarvis referred to the “tough choices” which had resulted in cuts to almost every other government department, on five occasions during that debate. While some MPs questions whether even the extra billions of pounds was enough, calling for a 3% of GDP to be spent – with no mention of the consequences this would have for other public services.
Responding to the DIP, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that military spending “will likely remain one of the biggest fiscal pressures facing the UK in the medium term” before noting that the pledge to spend 3.5% of GDP on the military by 2035 will require “finding around an additional £25bn each year by 2035 in today’s terms relative to the newly announced plans.” With taxation already at the highest levels for decades, more spending for the military looks likely to be funded by swinging cuts to spending in other areas.
This wouldn’t be a new approach. The budget for international development was raided at the start of 2025, diverting billions away from the most vulnerable around the world into the bank accounts of arms manufacturers. These spending priorities will trickle down to every community in the country – with reports that MPs are angry that a road widening project on the A46 in Nottingham will be cancelled as money is funnelled into the MoD.
As Keir Starmer prepares to depart Downing Street, Andy Burnham will have to decide on the approach that his government will take to military spending. Will they continue to dance to the tune being played by Donald Trump that spending must continue to increase indefinitely with no regard to the consequences – or will a new approach be taken, where global insecurity is tackled by investing in measures to tackle climate breakdown, lift people out of poverty, tackle inequality and engage in meaningful international efforts to end current conflicts and bring lasting peace and justice to the world.
