On the brink of departure, Prime Minister Keir Starmer joins a long line of leaders who are discovering that even as power weakens, it can still arrange the future and write commitments to those who come next.
Before Prime Minister Keir Starmer turned his page in Downing Street, he placed on the desk of his potential successor, Andy Burnham, a file that was difficult to ignore, including a defense plan for the next decade, 15 billion pounds sterling (about 20 billion dollars) of new spending, declared preparation for a possible war with Russia, and a financing gap that has not yet been closed.
Read also
list of 3 itemsend of list
Thus, the defense investment plan – according to British newspapers – turned from a final attempt to write a legacy for the resigned prime minister to an early burden on a government that had not yet been formed.
Starmer said the document represented the “best estimate” of what the country would need militarily by 2030, but its critics saw it as a mix of restatements of outdated programmes, misleading figures and delayed decisions that would haunt Andy Burnham in his first financial and political test.
Legacy in doubt
The Economist says that if Starmer is counting on the defense investment plan to cement his legacy, he is likely to be disappointed.
The magazine acknowledges that the document includes what is “reasonable and even bold,” but it believes that raising defense spending to 2.7% of GDP by 2029 seems limited at a moment when European allies are rushing to rearm, and international threats are increasing.
The magazine adds that NATO leaders, at the upcoming Ankara summit, which may be Starmer’s last appearance as prime minister, will ask difficult questions about Britain’s ability to fulfill its pledge to raise basic defense spending to 3.5% of domestic product by 2035.
As for defense expert Francis Tusa, he wrote in the Independent newspaper in a more harsh tone, asking whether this document was actually the result of a year and four months of work.
He described it as a plan of about 70 pages that rehashes projects approved over the past two years, repeats old announcements, makes vague promises about financing, and then adds to this a deliberate obfuscation of the details of spending.
Vague numbers
Tusa pointed out that the Ministry of Defense’s announcement to provide about 300 billion pounds sterling over 4 years to make the British army carry advanced equipment is not what it seems.
This number – according to the author – does not represent new spending on equipment and systems, but rather the total defense budget during the next four years, and therefore Tusa asks, “If the message is as strong as the government says, why does it need to camouflage facts and figures? Are the announced funds actually additional, or are they part of the regular budget?”
The writer believes that the plan is based on a lot of “smoke and mirrors,” but Britain’s allies will be able to realize this, which will weaken their confidence in it as a defensive ally.
The Economist says that the new Minister of Defense, Dan Jarvis, who took office after the resignation of Defense Minister John Healey in protest against the lack of sufficient defense resources, confirms that defense will be the “first priority” in the upcoming spending review.
But the newspaper points out that the plan does not bind Starmer’s successor – Andy Burnham – if he becomes prime minister.
Bet on marches
If the plan has a clearer axis than others – as Tusa wrote – it is the focus on drones and unmanned systems, which are the weapons whose great impact the Ukraine war demonstrated in changing the nature of the fighting.
The Independent says that one of the most prominent numbers of the plan is to allocate 5 billion pounds to “transform marches” within the armed forces, but Tusa points out that the question still remains: Is this really new money? Will it be spent during the next four years?
The Economist says that the government is betting on compensating for the decline in traditional capabilities by investing in less expensive and more numerous systems, including attack drones, unmanned ground vehicles, and digital targeting systems supported by artificial intelligence.
The magazine describes the “Hybrid Navy” project as the boldest and most controversial, because it is based on a mixture of manned and unmanned ships carrying weapons, sensors, and anti-submarine systems.
The magazine quotes the Director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute as saying that relying on drones and unmanned systems represents a “bold bet on technology,” but it is a bet that cannot tolerate slow purchases or faltering implementation.
Burnham’s bill
However, the most prominent political question – as the I-Paper newspaper reveals – is not related to the type of weapon, but rather who will pay for it. The newspaper reported that Starmer risked causing a major dispute with his potential successor, after it became clear that Andy Burnham was not aware of all the details of a funding gap of 4.7 billion pounds in the British war plan.
The newspaper says the plan will cost an additional 15 billion pounds, but Finance Minister Rachel Reeves has left nearly a third of the package without specific funding until the autumn budget.
In a written statement after the plan was published, Reeves said that 10.3 billion pounds “has now been determined,” while 4.7 billion pounds will be decided in the 2026 budget “in a fair and balanced manner.”
iPaper explained that this means that the Minister of Finance in Burnham’s government, if he becomes prime minister and replaces Reeves with someone else, will find himself facing two difficult choices in the first budget of the new administration: either look for cuts worth 4.7 billion pounds or finance the amount by borrowing, which may clash with the financial rules to which Burnham himself has committed.
Early testing
The Economist believes that Burnham will inherit with the plan a political and financial problem at the same time, because making room for it means – according to the magazine – reducing projects in energy and transportation, which is an embarrassing paradox for a government that says that infrastructure is a basic condition for growth.
iPaper says that what Starmer and Reeves left behind may weaken the agenda that Burnham put forward a few days ago, which is based on revitalizing British regions and supporting local communities and industries.
The cuts sparked anger within the Labor Party, with the newspaper quoting East Midlands Mayor Clare Ward as saying that divestment from major road projects in her region was “completely unacceptable”, considering that the regions must be treated as true partners if the government wants them to accept difficult trade-offs.
The iPaper report reported that Dan Jarvis refused to describe the financing gap as a “hand grenade” to be handed over to the next Minister of Finance, saying in an interview with Sky News that the worst scenario would have been that the plan would not have been resolved at all.
But the newspaper also quoted chief economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Max Werner, that the decision means additional impacts on spending, taxes, or borrowing, beyond what the government announced, making it one of the first major decisions that will face the next prime minister.
