Starmer insists defence plan ‘will keep us safe’ after Healey resigns in protest over funding – UK politics live

Here is more of Starmer’s letter to Healey, who resigned earlier today, on Thursday evening.

“The world today is more dangerous and uncertain than at any point in our lifetimes. That requires a serious response to build our economic resilience and our national defences.

“We have achieved a great deal working together. We inherited a situation where our armed forces had faced years of underfunding and neglect. Our work leading the coalition of the willing on Ukraine, defending our Gulf allies, and working together with like-minded nations on a plan for the Strait of Hormuz has helped make the world more secure. I am proud of our record on funding. When we entered government in 2024, I took the decision to increase defence spending after the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces. That required a cut to the international aid budget but the result was the highest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. I will always do what is needed to keep our country safe. I thank you for your work to deliver on all of this.

“You are also right that we have to go further. The defence investment plan does just that — delivering an unprecedented increase in defence spending in a sustainable way. It will provide the resources our military needs to keep us safe and the clarity the British defence industry needs to plan. It will make the big strategic investments we need for the long-term and give the certainty which private finance needs to invest. It will allow our armed forces to transform and modernise and back them with the tools they need to change the way we fight — and to deter our enemies. And crucially it will ensure the money spent is spent wisely and used to back jobs and growth here in Britain.

“We are backing this with the necessary investment. The increases in spending that underpin this plan will be sustainable and fair. They will mean significant reallocations of funding from across government departments and the right choices to protect our nation.”

Starmer’s letter to Healey concludes: “Strong public finances are part of what keeps us safe – irresponsible borrowing only puts that at risk.

“Taking these decisions is never easy. I am determined to rebuild our country after years of being buffeted by crises. I am sorry that you will not be part of that work.”

Keir Starmer has insisted a key defence funding plan “will provide the resources our military needs to keep us safe” in a letter to John Healey, who the prime minister said he was sorry to see resign as defence secretary.

Starmer added: “You are also right that we have to go further. The Defence Investment Plan does just that – delivering an unprecedented increase in defence spending in a sustainable way.”

General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the three experts who wrote the government’s 2025 defence review, has said John Healey’s resignation, and the decisions that prompted it, shows the government is “going backwards” on defence spending.

In a statement he said:

The SDR [strategic defence review] was clear that preparing for war in the 21st century is not simply about filling long-standing gaps in equipment, personnel or capability. It is about transformation: changing the way the UK thinks about, funds, organises and delivers defence.

Yet, a year after the SDR was agreed, the government has decided not to fully fund its own review. In doing so, it is not merely failing to move forward; it is actively going backwards.

It diminishes the UK’s standing within Nato, weakens our credibility with allies, and increases our vulnerability to the realities of 21st-century conflict. Allies and adversaries alike will be paying attention.

The government has, in effect, decided not to fund the defence review it commissioned and endorsed, because it prefers to spend money elsewhere. That is a political choice.

No one wants to spend more on defence for its own sake. But we are living in the world as it is, not the world as we would like it to be. We do not get to choose whether war matters. War can choose us, whether we prefer to ignore it or not.

Barrons, who was commander of Joint Forces Command until 2016, co-wrote the defence review with Lord Robertson, the former Nato secretary general, and Fiona Hill, a former White House intelligence expert.

That’s all from me for today. Nadeem Badshah is taking over now.

Kemi Badenoch has suggested that, if Reform UK were the largest party in the hung parliament, the Conservatives might enable Nigel Farage to run a minority government.

She dropped the hint in an interview with the Spectator’s political editor Tim Shipman, where she also ruled out a pre-election deal with Reform UK.

But when Shipman asked if she would rule out an arrangement with Reform UK after an election, Badenoch replied:

This country cannot have another leftwing government. This is the most leftwing parliament we have ever had.

Shipman interpreted this as a clear sign that Badenoch would keep a minority Reform UK government in power, for example by not voting against it on budget or confidence matters.

In response to the interview, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said:

Kemi Badenoch just said the quiet bit out loud, the Conservatives are now openly planning to put Nigel Farage into Number 10.

This will put a shiver down the spine of millions of Conservative voters across the country who believe in British values of decency, tolerance and the rule of law.

In fact, Badenoch did not say “out loud” that she would prop up a Reform UK government and, when a politics account put a message on X saying she was suggesting a coalition with Farage, she posted a response describing that as “bullshit”. She also posted a clip from the interview.

In his own response, Shipman pointed out that she has edited the clip selectively. He said:

Kemi Badenoch has conveniently cut the question I asked her, which was directly relating to propping up Reform AFTER an election as an alternative to Labour plus some crazy lefties.

That’s when she said there must never be another left wing govt. Her ‘no, no, no…’ answer was about pacts BEFORE an election. It did not follow on directly.

Yes, she says Reform has some leftwing policies, but she made totally clear she would work with a party pursuing a ‘conservative’ agenda, which is clearly what Reform is mostly advocating.

The proof is that she says she is already in a casual arrangement with Rupert Lowe. The lady doth protest too much. It was very clear in the room what I was asking NO ONE, me or her, was talking about a coalition

Although Badenoch has accused Reform UK of being leftwing in some aspects, in most policy areas their approach is similar to the Conservatives’ and no serious commentator thinks they are anything other than a rightwing party.

In his write-up of the interview for the magazine, Shipman said:

Badenoch also gave the clearest answer to what I find the most tedious question in British politics: whether there will be a pact or deal between Reform and the Tories. The truth is obvious: there won’t be unless there needs to be, though that is more likely after a general election than before it.

Badenoch says the Tories could win and claims there is a ‘high chance’ she will become prime minister. But asked explicitly whether she would be prepared to put Farage into No 10 if he fell short of a majority, she made it clear the answer is yes: ‘This country cannot have another leftwing government.’

She ruled out standing down candidates or an arrangement to target resources so the two parties could focus on different seats, however. ‘We don’t need to do a pact … deals, non-aggression pacts. These things end up falling apart anyway.’ Instead, Badenoch implied she would accept a confidence and supply deal to ‘deliver a conservative agenda’.

The Spectator subsequently amended the online version of the article (presumably in response to a complaint) so that passage marked in bold above reads (new text in bold):

But asked explicitly whether she would be prepared to put Farage into No 10 if he fell short of a majority, she made it clear the answer is likely yes, as long as he pursues conservative policies.

The tweak does not alter the substantive point; Farage would pursue conservative policies.

Ben Quinn is a Guardian political correspondent.

All asylum seekers have been vacated from the Bell hotel in Essex, which became a flashpoint for anti-immigration protests last summer, according to local council authorities.

Only security staff remain onsite, Epping Forest district council said in a short statement which said it had been taken by surprise despite ongoing talks with the Home Office,

The hotel, which is on the outskirts of Epping, became the focus for increasingly large protests last summer.

While local people were among those involved, far-right activists and others from outside the area sought to exploit tensions after Hadush Kebatu, an asylum seeker who was living in the hotel, sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl and a woman.

Epping District council said in a statement:

We are aware that the Home Office has vacated all residents staying at The Bell hotel, Epping and that only security staff remain onsite.

Despite ongoing engagement with the Home Office, we did not know in advance that this was going to happen. We are seeking clarification from the Home Office on the details of what has happened and what their next steps will be.

It’s not clear if the move is permanent and the Home Office had yet to respond. However, local people who spoke to the Guardian today criticised the council for releasing the statement and said it was understood that the move may only be temporary.

The high court ruled in November that asylum seekers could continue to be housed at the Essex hotel.

Lawyers for the local district council had sought a permanent injunction against the current use of the Bell hotel in Epping, arguing at the high court that it was a “feeding ground for unrest and protest”.

Kebatu was deported in October to Ethiopia. But protests have intermittently continued outside the hotel, where two security guards were assaulted in what police described as a “racially motivated attack” during the summer.

Police were also attacked and made dozens of arrests as the protests spilled over into violence in July.

This is what some commentators are saying about John Healey’s resignation.

From Shashank Joshi, the Economist’s former defence editor:

A few thoughts on Healey’s departure.

At the end of the day, the root cause is a failed defence review process. The review proposed things on the basis that spending would rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, a relatively modest pace of growth that was & is incompatible with everything the UK wants to do—GCAP, AUKUS, a strategic reserve corps for NATO on land, carrier strike & more munitions/readiness.

The gov’t was unwilling either to make choices among these, which would have been politically and diplomatically painful, or to spend *significantly* more in the short & medium term, instead pointing to non-credible commitments out into the mid-2030s. There was and is no credible path to the 3.5% of GDP target by 2035 that the PM publicly agreed at the Hague last year.

Now the UK is going to go into the Ankara summit in a weak position, with a teetering government, and with a likely successor to Starmer who is no more likely to support higher defence spending, all with predictable consequences for the US-UK relationship.

From Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor:

The fact that Starmer was unable to come up with adequate cuts in other departments, to finance the extra £18bn per annum that Healey sees as the minimum required by 2030, was foreshadowed in a conversation I had with a member of the cabinet a couple of days ago.

This minister made two points:

First, why would the prime minister want to be remembered by posterity for re-imposing austerity on most public services other than defence;

Second, why would any minister agree to cuts wanted by Starmer when there was so much uncertainty whether he would actually survive as PM, if Burnham becomes an MP in eight days?

Healey’s double whammy against Starmer – accusing him of not keeping the nation safe enough, implying he has inadequate authority over his cabinet – could barely be more serious for the PM.

From Lewis Goodall from the News Agents podcast:

Consequences

1) makes even slimmer chance of PM surviving a Makerfield win for Burnham. Reeves surviving as Chancellor less probable too. Doesn’t get worse politically than your Defence Sec accusing you of leaving country vulnerable to attack, however fair.

2) places defence even higher up agenda. Pressure will be on Burnham to pledge more, placing even greater pressure on spending.

3) internationally deeply awkward for Starmer. Trump/White House certain to notice.

4) makes any discussion about the WHAT we need not just how much % of gdp even harder to have.

From Tim Shipman, the Spectator’s political editor:

Proof of three things:

1) John Healey is not the shrinking violet some in the military feared

2) The government is in no way taking the current threats to the defence of the realm seriously

3) Starmer government is a sinking ship which can’t get out of the docks on key issues

Healey’s resignation is far more consequential on an issue of war and peace than Michael Heseltine’s over Westland. That was about contracts, this is about whether the Treasury is going to adequately protect the country. Starmer clearly hasn’t the clout to deliver what the armed forces need.

From Philip Stephens, the former chief political commentator at the Financial Times:

Striking contrast between the resignations of streeting and healey – first driven by personal ambition, second by difference over vital policy …that makes Healey’s departure much more dangerous , quite likely fatal for pm

Irony is that while Healey going makes Starmers position even more precarious it also makes the idea of a Burnham premiership look even more absurd …

Inscribed on Keir Starmer’s political gravestone – “I did what I was told by the Treasury”

Peter Walker has written a good profile of John Healey. He says Healey’s resignation should not have come as a complete surprise.

Here is an extract.

Despite his managerial veneer and quiet approach, Healey is a highly political operator, one who has spent nearly 30 years in parliament and held frontbench jobs under every Labour leader from Tony Blair onwards.

“If we go into government, the one thing we’ve got to remember is to remain political,” Healey told the Guardian shortly before the 2024 election, recounting his previous experience of being in meetings with colleagues who “simply read out their departmental line rather than as government ministers with a sense of what we were trying to achieve”.

Healey knew what he wanted to achieve – not just the promised 3.5% of GDP spent on defence by 2035, but at least 3% by 2030 – and he resigned rather than being forced to plan for the UK’s defence with less.

And here is the full article.

Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, has posted this on social media about John Healey’s resignation.

I had the privilege of serving as John Healey’s PPS in opposition back in 2015/16.

He is a man of deep principle and has been an outstanding Defence Secretary.

I’m saddened that he felt he had no choice but to leave government.

Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former chief of staff, has been tweeting about John Healey’s resignation letter. He has long been a severe critic of MoD procurement, and he has some sympathy with what Healey is saying. As usual with Cummings, his rant sounds entirely unhinged, but that does not necessarily mean it is wholly wrong. Here is an excerpt.

The DIP [defence investment plan] is a disaster because it combines: a/ continuing to fund old things which shd be scrapped but senior people’s careers rest on lying about, b/ failure to fund the future, c/ more dodgy accounts, d/ classified nuke shitshow, which forces lies/cannibalisation of conventional, and e/ continued failure to change procurement and long term budgets despite covid and UKR [Ukraine].

And here is a thinktank with a different take on the defence investment plan. This is from Khem Rogaly, co-director of the Transition Security Project, a research unit hosted by Common Wealth. He says:

The debate over increasing military spending has been unserious and damaging to our security. [John] Healey’s Ministry of Defence has constantly leaked its unpublished internal assessment that it faces a shortfall, despite a budget that has increased by nearly a third over the past decade and that is larger now in real terms than it was in 1980.

Too little attention has been paid to the Ministry of Defence’s litany of failed and delayed programmes, with more spending expected for the Ajax tank while cuts are demanded from departments essential to national resilience like net zero.

Even less attention is paid to the fact that the Ministry of Defence retains a global strategy, with bases across the world and forces designed for intervention overseas.

Instead of lobbying for yet larger spending increases and arbitrary targets set by percentage of GDP, the Ministry of Defence should be asked to focus its resources on national defence.

Here are comments on the significance of John Healey’s resignation from two thinktanks specialising in defence and foreign policy.

This is from Olivia O’Sullivan, director of the UK in the World programme at Chatham House.

Politically, this significantly undermines [Keir] Starmer. Healey has been an ally and a loyal minister to date. Starmer has also had a relatively assured track record on defence and foreign affairs, compared with other issues, and failing to secure agreement over the UK’s future plans for defence spending at a time of spiralling security risks in Europe undermines that potential legacy.

In policy terms, this is a symptom of a longer-term failure to reckon with the costs of rising defence commitments. The government put a target of 2.5% of GDP on the table in its first year – and is committed to hitting 3.5% of GDP within the next decade – and neither imposed tax rises, nor agreed cuts to public spending to pay for it; other than cuts to the aid budget, which were never going to yield enough to fill the gap, and have significant consequences of their own for the UK’s international policy.

Waiting this long to have the argument that should have been had when the targets were set, or in immediate response to 2025’s strategic defence review, suggests the government conversation on defence is still mired in unreality.

And this is from Prof Kevin Rowlands, journal editor at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Military capability development depends on long lead times, predictable budgets, and confidence that national security priorities will survive ministerial change. Without that confidence procurement decisions get deferred, industry pauses, and programmes slip. It affects manufacturing, supply chains, training and skills development, and even international alliances.

The delay to the DIP [defence investment plan] had become an unfunny running joke, but the decision of the defence secretary to resign is not the least bit amusing. Healey knows the threats we face, he knows the capabilities and shortfalls the armed forces have, and if he believes that the financial settlement is not enough to keep the country safe – to the extent that he cannot honourably stay in post – then we are in trouble.

Guido Crosetto, the Italian defence minister, has posted a message on social media expressing solidarity with John Healey. Crosetto says, in effect, that he agrees with what Healey has said, that he has considered resigning for the same reasons himself, but that for the moment he has decided to carry on fighting that battle within government.

Here is an excerpt.

I find myself in agreement with almost everything you have written, and the thoughts you have made public today have often been my own as well.

I have chosen to wait for less difficult times, hoping for a positive evolution of the current circumstances.

The Italian government has just announced that it has got its defence and security spending up to 2.8% of GDP.

Wes Streeting, the former health secretary, has posted this on social media about John Healey’s resignation letter.

John was an excellent Defence Secretary.

Every word of warning here needs to be heeded.

Streeting is already running an informal campaign for the Labour leadership (he has said that a proper contest should wait until Andy Burnham is back in parliament) and this sounds like he would give the Ministry of Defence much or all of what Healey is asking for if he were to become leader.

Burnham has not said much about defence policy in recent weeks. But, as Daniel Green says in a good LabourList guide to Burnham’s policy agenda, Burnham has backed higher defence spending in the past.

Any future PM wanting to boost spending in the defence investment plan would soon find out why Rachel Reeves did not give Healey what he wanted; something would have to give elsewhere.

(Burnham has suggested that extra borrowing, outside the fiscal rules, might be a way round that. Some argue that this would spook the bond markets, but Gordon Brown has also argued for a version of this idea.)

And Reform UK has issued this statement about John Healey’s resignation. It’s from Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader.

John Healey has exposed the prime minister’s true priorities, with the devastating admission that neither he nor the Treasury is willing to commit the resources needed to properly defend our country.

In effect, he has acknowledged that Keir Starmer is leaving the British people less safe. Much of the hot air and blather we’ve heard over the past year following the strategic defence review has been for nothing.

Healey, who is widely respected, has effectively revealed a government that is prioritising Benefit Street over the security of the British public.

This is quite similar to the Conservatives’ argument. (See 1.48pm.)

Here is some Labour reaction to the resignation of John Healey.

This is from Tan Dhesi, the chair of the Commons defence committee.

John Healey has been a serious, committed and respected defence secretary, who has understood the scale of the threats facing the UK and the urgent need to strengthen our armed forces.

That a defence secretary of his integrity and commitment has felt compelled to resign in response to the inadequacy of the proposed defence settlement is a grave moment. The government must take that warning with the utmost seriousness.

The defence committee has been clear that investment in defence must be accelerated to reach 3% of GDP by the end of this parliament, and that the defence investment plan cannot be delayed further or used to disguise hard choices.

And this is from Dan Carden, who heads the Blue Labour group of Labour MPs.

John Healey has resigned on a point of principle, and I have huge respect for him

Defence spending must rise significantly, but you do not keep Britain safe with a bigger cheque alone.

Britain has for decades mistaken wealth for strength, and spending for capability, and now we are neither safe nor sovereign.

A country with a shrinking industrial base that cannot power its own factories or make its own weapons is not strong, whatever it spends.

Strength is not only bought. It is built. We must spend more and build more. This government and my party have to commit to both, urgently.