This week, the government suffered its latest humiliation when Lord George Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General, ex-Labour Defence Secretary and chair of the government’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review accused the government of “corrosive complacency” in risking the country’s security by dragging his heels on how the government will fund rebuilding its military in the face of the growing threat from Russia.
A rising crescendo of articles and speeches by ex-military, defence correspondents and experts – and our very own Lib Dem defence spokesperson James MacCleary MP – have been highlighting that the government’s Strategic Defence Review remains little more than rhetoric after one year.
Poland (4.5%), Latvia (4%) and Lithuania (3.7%) have the highest GDP % expenditure of NATO members on defence. Germany is hugely increasing its defence budget by lifting its debt brake to spend nearly €650bn over the next five years. Even France has managed an increase in its defence budget by EUR 6.5bn for 2027, despite a debt level (117% of GDP), higher than the UK’s (110%). However, the UK is in last place (alongside France), in terms of growing its defence budget amongst European NATO partners during the past decade.
The shocking state of British armed forces means that we cannot defend ourselves effectively. Aircraft carriers that cannot be adequately protected, an eviscerated Royal Navy with all major ships but one destroyer, one frigate and one Astute class nuclear submarine under maintenance or repair, an army that can barely pull together a functioning brigade of soldiers for immediate deployment. Surely, our armed forces, whose men and women put their lives at risk for the nation, deserve better.
The Defence Investment Plan – which our industry needs to produce the weapons and equipment – continues to be “missing in inaction”. The Ministry of Defence is in a fight with the Treasury for more money – and not getting very far. We are meant to increase our defence budget from 2.3% (£68 bn) to 2.5% of GDP by next year, yet the defence chiefs are now being asked to find £3.5bn of savings, raising fears that weapons projects may be even further delayed. If the Chagos Islands deal eventually goes through, it will lop another 0.2% of GDP off the defence budget. Neither logic nor maths add up.
Commentators are saying we only have 2-3 years to fix the problem at best we can because of the Russian threat. And already a year has been lost (and four since the second invasion of Ukraine). So the painful question is how can we raise the money for defence in the short time (let alone manufacture the equipment we need)? Some ideas:
- Consult the City as to the best ways to raise money for rearmament. The Lib Dems have suggested that the government issues £20bn of war bonds. Pension funds, international investors, banks and the general public could buy into them. Others have suggested forming a Rearmament Bank. We need to consult the financial world and get their expertise working on it.
- End the Triple Lock on state pensions. The Office of Budget Responsibility said the annual increase in cost of the triple lock is expected to be £15.5bn by 2030. A number of political parties have recently supported ending the triple lock, only to pull back, fearing their rivals would gain electoral advantage. If all our political parties could gt on board, ending the Triple Lock could be politically possible – and hugely help UK finances.
- End the HS2 railway fiasco, which will now cost an estimated cool £80bn to half-complete (the northern leg being cancelled). In my view, as a nation, we need to swallow our pride, take the hit of the considerable amount it has cost so far, stop work and redeploy any savings to defence.
- A special Armed Forces Solidarity Levy increase in VAT from 20% to 21% for 5 years would raise around £45bn ringfenced for defence.
- Reform the welfare benefits system. Again, such a politically bold move will need to have the backing of the main political parties to see it through, given the government seems unable to muster the majority amongst its MPs to carry through the necessary legislation themselves.
In all this, we must continue to fund Ukraine’s defence which is keeping overt Russian aggression towards the rest of Europe at bay. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have paid the ultimate sacrifice to gain us time. We must use their sacrifice to do all we can to bolster our defences right now.
* George Cunningham is Vice-Chair of the Lib Dem Friends of Armed Forces and Honorary President of Lib Dems Overseas. https://www.linkedin.com/in/george-cunningham-a6b160178/
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
20 Comments
How to make friends and influence people !
There is some hot potatoes in those remedies George, including 2 that have badly damaged the current UK government in their efforts to save money. Any talk of getting close to 5% is fantasy stuff.
“…… in the face of the growing threat from Russia.”
We need to get this into some perspective.
The population of Russia is around 145 million. Its GDP is $2.8 trillion which is about the same as Italy’s. The demographic problems of recruiting enough young people to create a sizeable army are even worse than in Western Europe.
The population of the EU is around 450 million and its GDP is $22.5 trillion. To pose a serious non nuclear threat to the UK, Russia would need to invade Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Begium and France. This would seem quite a tall order as it is currently bogged down trying to invade Ukraine.
Just how to deal with a nuclear threat is another matter. There’s no reason to suppose that even Putin would try something so stupid though.
As the USA is becoming an increasing unreliable ally, it would be good if our defence strategy focussed on definding the UK and our European allies, rather than acting as Robin to the USA’s Batman running intervening globally wherever happens to catch their fancy. We could start by telling the US that they can no longer use our bases to bomb Iran.
I am with you George we need more voices like this And as I spend half my life abroad in other countries I am noting with embarrassment and shame how much our country’s reputation is suffering from our government’s indecision and complete lack of progress on this issue! And 5% is not fantasy stuff when our nation’s security is at risk Richard
@Peter Martin – wars aren’t fought by populations and GDP, they are fought by trained soldiers and equipment. That is why we need to invest in defence – to be sufficiently well resourced to deter Russia.
“To pose a serious non nuclear threat to the UK, Russia would need to invade Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Begium and France” – if Russia were to invade tiny Estonia it will be our problem, unless you propose leaving NATO? Unless you are prepared to sacrifice smaller European states to Putin’s expansionism, again NATO needs to display the commitment and resolve to deter Russia.
Russia may be bogged down in Ukraine, but that has come at enormous cost to the Ukrainians. But again, if Putin had foreseen the current stalemate he would have been unlikely to invade in the first place. He greatly underestimated the determination and ingenuity of the Ukrainians, and so wasn’t deterred from invading.
Lord George Robertson was right to raise the issue of defence in a strong way but I shuddered when he suggested we cut welfar. It sounded like paying for defence by penalising the less well off in society and that is fundamentally wrong. In any case, he should have said it was up to us all to debate how we should find the money for defence.
You are Ok George in this article for starting such a debate. I agree for example with reviewing the triple lock in order to find a better way of helping less well off pensioners. This forms a huge part of the welfare bill. As to the rest of the welfare bill there may be ways of using the funds to help people develop themselves and need less state help and I would hope that to be the main aim of any review. It would be silly to stop HS2 to Birmingham and in any case, that part of the project is well and truly justified given the current relatively poor train service between London and Birmingham.
So let’s have wide debate about defence spending that does not penalise the less well off. What about taxing the rich more? We are in a state of growing inequality which will cause more harm if it is made even worse by cutting welfare overall.
“if Russia were to invade tiny Estonia it will be our problem”….
Never underestimate the propensity of centrist politicians & their supporters in sending working class squaddies – to die in a field far away in a place they’ve never heard of.
Russia poses no threat to our territorial borders.
For those who would go after the benefits budget – how would you explain that working age benefits have been broadly flat for decades (says Torsten Bell) and that what has risen is spending on pensioners? Would you abolish the Triple Lock? Given that pensioners have the greatest propensity to vote?
Perhaps our polling experts could advise?
This looks like another raid of the sort where the Lib-Dem inspired Dfid aid budget was plundered to plug gaps in defence. Quick, easy on paper, budget dancing, Treasury approved. It would also be easy politically to transfer a sum from one Department to another one. No need to ask and answer hard questions. War bonds might not be the final answer, but it starts a discussion.
While it might be a lower proportion of GDP, the UK’s defence budget also remains the third largest in Europe in absolute terms behind only Russia and (narrowly) Germany, and substantially higher than that of France, Poland or Italy. If we can’t produce a working military from that budget – Poland, on under half our budget, has a larger military force! – then it does feel that “not enough money” might not be the actual problem.
Also, none of this addresses the recruitment problem – the military is consistently failing to recruit enough to maintain even its current strength. No point – other than making some arms manufacturers very happy – in spending money on hardware if there’s no-one to use it.
Putin had several reasons for invading Ukraine, but one was the expansion of NATO, which is a defensive alliance, but which he claimed was a threat to Russia [as I understand it, Europe had reneged on a promise not to expand NATO after the fall of the USSR, which gave some superficial credence to that claim, even though an invasion of Russia by Europe remains a totally ludicrous idea].
Relations with Russia ought to be what 99.9% of Europeans want – friendly – but a psychopath in Moscow doesn’t agree. If we ramp up defence spending by billions of pounds or euros we will be dancing to the tune being played by Vladimir Putin.
Count me out of that one.
Another problem is that the Eurofighter (now called the Typhoon) was 25 years in gestation, and is now largely a relic from the 1990s, in a world of drones and AI warfare. Building the machinery of war now requires use of a crystal ball, given lead times and the pace of change.
What is the threat from Russia – tanks pouring in to Eastern Europe, for which we would need conventional hardware, or the cutting of data cables in the Atlantic (for which there is no known defence)? Or cyber-warfare to disable our energy infrastructure, against which no number of armoured cars, hugely expensive warships or any other kind of conventional weaponry would be any use ?
If we spend large percentages of our GDP on armaments, the armaments industry will be pleased, and so will Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile, the real war for the survival of the human race (against global warming) goes on, albeit with us, our children, and our grandchildren, on the losing side.
> Europe had reneged on a promise not to expand NATO
Russian talking point.
There was some chat around that in the periphery of one meeting. But nothing binding in writing. Did anyone think the EU or NATO would refuse free nations wanting to join?
It is also worth noting the mindset “Russia’s security is at the expense of other nations insecurity”. Mentally they seem to want a LARGE buffer zone. Both a Soviet Union and also a Warsaw Pact. Not a convincing peace project. I do note the words of the “realistic” historians – which boil down to “might makes right”. Not very convincing to a Lib Dem audience.
> then it does feel that “not enough money” might not be the actual problem
Which is why you hear briefs from Treasury about them “looking for £6 Bn efficiency savings” (in procurement).
We have heard here about AJAX. Which MOD were warned about by experts. Then there are the “12 nuclear F-35As” recommended by the recent SDR. Which will be funded by raiding the F-35B joint force budget. Which doubles the variance of capability type. To carry US nuclear weapons. We could look at the 3000+ days of sea time lost to HMS Daring caused by MOD insisting on fitting 2-off 12V200 diesel generators rather than the 3-off MTU 4000 series diesel generators that experts recommended. A short term saving causing a long term budget blow-out. There are examples of long-term overspend.
@Peter Chambers, the point I was trying to make was that for Putin, the expansion of NATO provides an excuse for a belligerent stance towards the countries he realises have far better standards of living than Russia. I doesn’t matter how predictable it was. Putin’s destructive envy means that if he can bring our economies down to the level of Russia’s that’s a win for him, and getting us to divert spending towards useless objects like devices for mass killing is one way of doing it.
@Peter, I’m also a bit baffled by your reference to the detailed HMS Daring problems. I think it would be better if someone could address the problem that defence spending is perpetually in catch up mode against technology. For example, we seem to have spent £4bn on a new troop carrier (which still doesn’t work) – but very soon, human troops won’t be involved in wars, because they’ll be fought by drones. In a similar way, we’ve spent many £bn developing sophisticated and expensive tanks, but they can now be taken out by $100 drones, and already fighter/bombers are too valuable to be risked in warfare – except against people with no air defences, like the civilians in Gaza, Iran or Lebanon.
Debating which increased fraction of GDP should be spent on weapons might please Putin or Trump, but what exactly would we spend it on ?
Countries with armies well equipped with boys’ toys feel safe and secure, but look at two countries in that position, Israel and the USA. Diplomacy is the way to resolve the issues they face, but in both cases they have opted for armed conflict. Conflict which has cost thousands of lives and caused misery to millions of others.
Might the attached be of interest/relevance?
https://www.google.com/search?q=european+country+with+best+armed+forces&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRifBdIBCjM0NTc5ajBqMTWoAgmwAgHxBSlVjgH1hsrJ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&udm=50&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3vxYI1tojT_24H7Q4iMwclRY3wEKpNQ5Wykbz5I1RBh_3MJDqoC8sd-Ng2GZ1qLhQmNX3gCBcPsLZ6eeAV55YuWOKreZopAFI5Ylk–rmetR22YedM8X0xq8pSv3fIpoyw9S9DR5oAcDCZBi0R0St1hVDmH4_QXmjlWqzwr_Osqm1fXyMw&ved=2ahUKEwjSlfmp-fuTAxVEU0EAHZ85OIgQ0NsOegQIAxAB&aep=10&ntc=1&mstk=AUtExfDhU9GQZcwxpYC6bxAyPEGf3ER7OurZiNnoOGCOizb2fAQAUHfYzxAT7MXoLHXmi_1M5ezTdLIHBDCDTAJcxayGSVklE27OcGIZn79-VrM_mttNj-c0ZsDGLVWmjiTSLCvraFEdA_tioFu2NlCkgp_eQUzDbTejTBXcBde8Z192bUjfF0IWcBRwi-DDFDHAYwsdKxXyjcEuWD5NDvQz8VaQ1lr9cLrWjcSzFxXSqggy24HfS035H-0Feu0v8sI8PFBidbZGrOBEomndZolOVScise4W2jxjKF1g2syAaxRVBALWnqKbkOc7lhBO45iBysLRrWTO7uFqqQ&csuir=1&mtid=bdvlaZuoAq-fhbIPmNaCwQI
If the long link above doesn’t work, then please dial up “Which European country has the best armed forces?”
Might successive governments have been mistaken in phantasising about “The Special Relationship”?
Ditto the whole society damaging policy of Austerity/Neoliberalism?
Diito the policy of the U. K.’s nuclear deterent being operationally dependent upon the U. S. A.?
Ditto the policy of de.industrialising so that we do not have enough independence of weapon research and production?
Might it be worth considering negotiations with Russia with the aims of obtaining a tolerable outcome for Ukraine and access to Russian oil and gas?
Don’t let the Conservatives off the hook.
Whatever they say now they have played a major role in shrinking the size and ability of the armed.forces.
I have said on many occasions political types like us shy aware from raising taxes in order to get elected.
The price is poor service provision of which this is but one.
When I read articles that switch from ‘percentages to pounds’, when they suit the writers narrative, I treat them with more than a little scepticism..
I am very pleased that my article has generated such interest, especially important at a time when the party is working on a new policy on International Security. We would be very pleased to welcome party members to join Lib Dem Friends of the Armed Forces where we have defence experts working on practical solutions hand in hand with Lib Dem Friends of Ukraine. Technical innovations taking place on the battlefield (drones and now robots) are completing changing the nature of warfare and require a completely different attitude and approach by our industry in partnership with Ukraine’s. Email [email protected], asking to join us!