Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an “era of radical uncertainty” – but without promising any additional cash.
The move – part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance – was panned as deceptive “smoke and mirrors” by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was “very slow” and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years.
“In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities,” he told chief presenter Mark Austin.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:32
‘Russia could attack a NATO country’
The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO’s 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today.
It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence.
The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower.
Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital.
NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual – all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early.
He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up.
There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump’s commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago.
He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves.
Image: Trump is expected to join Starmer and fellow leader NATO leaders at The Hague. Pic: Reuters
This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.
Spain’s position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it.
The UK was also slow to say yes – a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a “NATO-first” policy.
As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders.
There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK’s Cold War past.
Image: Preparations for the NATO summit at The Hague. Pic: Reuters
It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of “national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945”.
Sir Keir said: “We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe.
“That’s why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation’s wider security and resilience.”
The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience – a new and so far less clearly defined criteria.
Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029.
Image: Starmer today met with Zelenskyy at Downing Street. Pic: Reuters
The defence goal is higher than the government’s current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently.
The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 – a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies.
This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops.
The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027.
However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for “resilience and security” to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge.
A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category.
It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways.
For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn – a significant chunk of national income.
Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of “spin” over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon.
“The threat to our country is real not spin,” he told Sky News.
“This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one.”
Over and over again, in the run-up to the election and beyond, the prime minister and the chancellor told voters they would not put up taxes on working people – that their manifesto plans for government were fully costed and, with the tax burden at a 70-year high, they were not in the business of raising more taxes.
On Wednesday the chancellor broke those pledges as she lifted taxes by another £26bn, adding to the £40bn rise in her first budget.
She told working people a year ago she would not extend freezing tax thresholds – a Conservative policy – because it would “hurt working people”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:00
Beth Rigby asks Reeves: How can you stay in your job?
On Wednesday she ripped up that pledge, as she extended the threshold freeze for three years, dragging 800,000 workers into tax and another million into the higher tax band to raise £8.3bn.
Rachel Reeves said it was a Labour budget and she’s right.
In the first 17 months of this government, Labour have raised tens of billions in taxes, while reversing on welfare reform – the U-turn on the winter fuel allowance and disability benefits has cost £6.6bn.
Ms Reeves even lifted the two-child benefit cap on Wednesday, at a cost of £3bn, despite the prime minister making a point of not putting that pledge in the manifesto as part of the “hard choices” this government would make to try to bear down on the tax burden for ordinary people. The OBR predicts one in four people would be caught by the 40% higher rate of tax by the end of this parliament.
Those higher taxes were necessary for two reasons and aimed at two audiences – the markets and the Labour Party.
For the former, the tax rises help the chancellor meet her fiscal rules, which requires the day-to-day spending budget to be in a surplus by 2029-30.
Before this budget, her headroom was just £9.9bn, which made her vulnerable to external shocks, rises in the cost of borrowing or lower tax takes. Now she has built her buffer to £22bn, which has pleased the markets and should mean investors begin to charge Britain less to borrow.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:19
Reeves announces tax rises
As for the latter, this was also the chancellor raising taxes to pay for spending and it pleased her backbenchers – when I saw some on the PM’s team going into Downing Street in the early evening, they looked pretty pleased.
I can see why: amid all the talk of leadership challenge, this was a budget that helped buy some time.
“This is a budget for self-preservation, not for the country,” remarked one cabinet minister to me this week.
You can see why: ducking welfare reform, lifting the two-child benefit cap – these are decisions a year-and-a-half into government that Downing Street has been forced into by a mutinous bunch of MPs.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
With a majority of 400 MPs, you might expect the PM and his chancellor to take the tough decisions and be on the front foot. Instead they find themselves just trying to survive, preserve their administration and try to lead from a defensive crouch.
When I asked the chancellor about breaking manifesto promises to raise taxes on working people, she argued the pledge explicitly involved rates of income tax (despite her pledge not to extend the threshold freeze in the last budget because it “hurt working people”).
Trying to argue it is not a technical breach – the Institute of Fiscal Studies disagreed – rather than taking it on and explaining those decisions to the country says a lot about the mindset of this administration.
One of the main questions that struck me reflecting on this budget is accountability to the voters.
Labour in opposition, and then in government, didn’t tell anyone they might do this, and actually went further than that – explicitly saying they wouldn’t. They were asked, again and again during the election, for tax honesty. The prime minister told me that he’d fund public spending through growth and had “no plans” to raise taxes on working people.
Those people have been let down. Labour voters are predominantly middle earners and higher earning, educated middle classes – and it is these people who are the ones who will be hit by these tax rises that have been driven to pay for welfare spending rather than that much mooted black hole (tax receipts were much better than expected).
This budget is also back-loaded – a spend-now-pay-later budget, as the IFS put it, with tax rises coming a year before the election. Perhaps Rachel Reeves is hoping again something might turn up – her downgraded growth forecasts suggests it won’t.
This budget does probably buy the prime minister and his chancellor more time. But as for credibility, that might not be recoverable. This administration was meant to change the country. Many will be looking at the tax rises and thinking it’s the same old Labour.
Britain’s top military chiefs held a “very difficult” meeting this week over how to fund plans to rebuild the armed forces amid fears of further cuts, defence sources have said.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) played down a report in the Spectator magazine that the top brass, led by Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton, the chief of the defence staff, planned to write an extraordinary joint letter to John Healey, the defence secretary, to explain that his defence review published in June cannot be delivered without more cash.
“There is not a letter,” an MoD source said, adding that such a communication was not expected to be received either.
However, other sources from within the army, navy and air force confirmed to Sky News there is growing concern among the chiefs about a gap between the promises being made by Sir Keir Starmer’s government to fix the UK’s hollowed-out armed forces and the reality of the size of the defence budget, which is currently not seen as growing fast enough.
That means either billions of additional pounds must be found more quickly, or ambitions to modernise the armed forces might need to be curbed despite warnings of mounting threats from Russia and China and pressure from Donald Trump on the UK and the rest of Europe to spend more on their own defences.
“The facts remain that the SDR (Strategic Defence Review) shot for the stars, but we only have fuel for the moon,” one source said.
A second source agreed.
Image: Pic: Ministry of Defence
By way of example, they said General Sir Roly Walker, the head of the army, was all too aware of the financial challenges his service in particular was facing, especially given plans to regrow the force to 76,000 soldiers from 72,500 in the next parliament.
The defence review set out the requirement for more troops, but such a move would need sufficient money to recruit, train and equip them.
There is also a goal to expand reserve forces, which similarly costs money.
Air Chief Marshal Knighton and General Walker were joined in the meeting on Tuesday at the Ministry of Defence by the other service heads, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, the First Sea Lord, and Air Chief Marshal Harv Smyth, the Chief of the Air Staff.
General Sir Jim Hockenhull, the commander of Cyber and Special Operations Command, was also likely to have been present.
It is a regular fortnightly gathering of chiefs.
This week they discussed the content of an upcoming plan on defence investment that is expected to be published next month – a timeline that is understood to have been delayed because of friction over how to make the money match the ambition.
“I know there was a very difficult meeting,” a third source said.
“Shoehorning the SDR into the DIP (Defence Investment Plan) as inflation, foreign exchange movement, re-costing, in-year delivery drama and unforeseen additional costs arise was always going to be hard,” the source said.
“The amount of money needed to make the thing balance is both small compared to other parts of the public sector, but also not available from this government. It’s still a matter of choices, not overall affordability.”
The source pointed to what Germany and Poland are doing on defence, with both countries significantly and rapidly ramping up defence spending and expanding their militaries.
By contrast, the UK will only inch up its core defence budget to 2.5% of GDP from around 2.3% by 2027, with plans to hit a new NATO target of 3.5% not expected to be reached until 2035.
Responding to the Spectator claim, an MOD spokesperson said: “All of defence is firmly behind delivery of our transformative Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which set out a deliverable and affordable plan to meet the challenges, threats, and opportunities of the 21st century.
“The plan is backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War – hitting 2.6% of GDP by 2027.”
The 2.6% figure cited by the spokesperson also includes intelligence spending on top of core defence spending.
On the edge of the Chilterns and 30 minutes from central London by train, it’s Britain’s most expensive market town for first-time buyers. It’s also been voted one of the top 10 best, and top 20 happiest, places to live in the country.
Last summer Labour did well in the polls here too. Hitchin’s 35,000 inhabitants, with above average earnings, levels of employment, and higher education, ejected the Conservatives for the first time in more than 50 years.
Having swept into affluent southern constituencies, Rachel Reeves is now asking them to help pay for her plans via a combination of increased taxes on earnings and savings.
While her first budget made business bear the brunt of tax rises, the higher earners of Hitchin, and those aspiring to join them, are unapologetically in the sights of the second.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:37
How will the budget impact your money?
Kai Walker, 27, runs Vantage Plumbing & Heating, a growing business employing seven engineers, all earning north of £45,000, with ambition to expand further.
He’s disappointed that the VAT threshold was not reduced – “it makes us 20% less competitive than smaller players” – and does not love the prospect of his fiancee paying per-mile to use her EV.
But it’s the freeze on income tax thresholds that will hit him and his employees hardest, inevitably dragging some into the 40% bracket, and taking more from those already there.
“It seems like the same thing year on end,” he says. “Work harder, pay more tax, the thresholds have been frozen again until 2031, so it’s just a case where we see less of our money. Tax the rich has been a thing for a while or, you know, but I still don’t think that it’s fair.
“I think with a lot of us working class, it’s just a case of dealing with the cost. Obviously, we hope for change and lower taxes and stuff, but ultimately it’s a case of we do what we’re told.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:00
‘We are asking people to contribute’
Reeves’s central pitch is that taxes need to rise to reset the public finances, support the NHS, and fund welfare increases she had promised to cut.
In Hitchin’s Market Square it has been heard, but it is strikingly hard to find people who think this budget was for them.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:41
OBR gives budget verdict
Jamie and Adele Hughes both work, had their first child three weeks ago, and are unconvinced.
“We’re going to be paying more, while other people are going to be getting more money and they’re not going to be working. I don’t think it’s fair,” says Adele.
Jamie adds: “If you’re from a generation where you’re trying to do well for yourself, trying to do things which were once possible for everybody, which are not possible for everybody now, like buying a house, starting a family like we just have, it’s extremely difficult,” says Jamie.
Image: Hitchen ditched the Conservatives for Labour at the 2024 election
Liz Felstead, managing director of recruitment company Essential Results, fears the increase in the minimum wage will hit young people’s prospects hard.
“It’s disincentivising employers to hire younger people. If you have a choice between someone with five years experience or someone with none, and it’s only £2,000 difference, you are going to choose the experience.”
After five years, the cost of living crisis has not entirely passed Hitchin by. In the market Kim’s World of Toys sells immaculately reconditioned and repackaged toys at a fraction of the price.
Demand belies Hitchin’s reputation. “The way that it was received was a surprise to us I think, particularly because it’s a predominantly affluent area,” says Kim. “We weren’t sure whether that would work but actually the opposite was true. Some of the affluent people are struggling as well as those on lower incomes.”
Customer Joanne Levy, shopping for grandchildren, urges more compassion for those who will benefit from Reeves’s spending plans: “The elderly, they’re struggling, bless them, the sick, people with young children, they are all struggling, even if they’re working they are struggling.”