Rishi Sunak’s defence pledge sets trap for Sir Keir Starmer
On the plane from Warsaw to Berlin, Rishi Sunak was buoyant as he briefly chatted to the travelling pack.
Having delivered his hat-trick of welfare reforms, the Rwanda bill and now the big lift in defence spending, he was a prime minister who clearly feels on the front foot after a torrid few months.
He looked like a man enjoying the job.
Politics live: Sunak warns Europe is at a ‘turning point’
Allies said Mr Sunak has spoken a lot about the spending decision with his current Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron, who has “form” in prioritising these decisions, having committed to defence funding back in 2010 when he was prime minister in the face of competing spending demands.
“The PM’s thought about this a lot, which is why it’s so detailed today,” said one government source.
The big decision he announced in this election year to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030 was a choice.
He could have committed funding to schools, the NHS or local government. But, for this prime minister, it was the right choice.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
It might not be the most salient issue for voters at home, but in his speech today, he left his audience in little doubt about the risks we are facing with the rise of authoritarian regimes, such as China, Russia and Iran, working together to undermine our democracies and way of life.
But equally, Mr Sunak made this commitment knowing all too well that it may not be him that has to deliver it.
And while the sum is really big – £75bn of spending over the next six years – for this year the only commitment will be £500m for Ukraine, with the remainder of the funding coming in the next parliament.
Read more:
Sunak: World more volatile and dangerous than at any time since Cold War
On the assumed baseline, the government had already allocated the additional funding for 2.3% defence spending annually in the next parliament.
Increasing that to 2.5% by 2028-29 will, in cash terms, require £4.5bn of funding, which the government says will be paid for through £1.6bn from the annual research and development budget and £2.9bn from 70,000 cuts to civil servant jobs, taking the workforce back to pre-pandemic levels.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM: ‘We cannot be complacent’
It is a clear political trap for Sir Keir Starmer, who spent much of his early years as Labour leader trying to undo the damage done by his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn – who did not support NATO.
Starmer trap
Sir Keir has sought to re-establish Labour’s security credentials in recent years, most notably in his stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, in which he has made sure he sticks to the US position and stands with the government on matters of national security.
So this is a big test.
Sir Keir said recently that he wanted to commit to the 2.5% of “when resources allow”, giving a future Labour government some wriggle room as it contemplates how to allocate scarce public resource.
Because, as the polls stand, Mr Sunak won’t be the prime minister having to deliver on defence-spending pledges, and already Conservative politicians are challenging Labour to commit to their plans, knowing all too well that it reduces the party’s manoeuvrability in government should it win the general election.
Hard call
And this is a hard call for the Labour leader, who has been desperate to present himself as a politician who also puts the security of the nation above all else.
In Poland, Mr Sunak evoked Winston Churchill, saying: “We did not choose this moment, but it is for us to meet it.”
He also said that to lead was to make choices, and his choice was to protect his citizens above all else.
How can Starmer refuse to meet the commitment?
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
The Fellowship PAC, launched in August, said it had “over $100 million” from unnamed sources to support the White House’s digital asset strategy.
Politics
Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington – to an extent
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024