Defence investment plan criticised as ‘too little, too late’ ahead of launch – UK politics live
이 뉴스, 어떠셨어요?
한 번의 탭으로 반응을 남겨요 · 로그인 불필요
Defence investment plan, which was originally due in the autumn, criticised by Tories and Lib Dems
Good morning. After Keir Starmer agreed to stand down next month to let Andy Burnham replace him, he said that he would not make major policy announcements in his final days in office. But there was one exemption; Starmer was committed to publishing the defence investment plan (Dip) before the Nato summit in Turkey next week, and he took the view that, since it was more or less ready, this was an existing policy commitment, not a new one.
It is certainly a policy that has already consumed vast amounts of goverment time. The government published its strategic defence review (SDR) more than a year ago. The Dip, the plan setting out how much money ministers would commit to defence spending to meet the threats identified in the SDR, was originally due in the autumn. It is finally coming today – but only after triggering the resignation of John Healey as defence secretary earlier this month because he wanted defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP by 2030 – and was not happy about the Dip only lifting it to 2.68% by the end of the decade. The new defence secretary, Dan Jarvis, has squeezed a bit more out of the Treasury, and he will present the Dip in a statement to MPs later.
This is too little, too late. Too little because it is barely more money than John Healey and Al Carns resigned over when they said Britain would be “less safe”. And too late because the plan is now almost a year overdue and only being rushed through because Keir Starmer is desperate for a legacy.
This late and underfunded plan is unforgivable. It is a political choice that makes us all less safe, puts jobs at risk and threatens businesses across the country in supply chains.
The government have dangerously short-changed our armed forces when they need urgent investment after years of Conservative negligence. Defence chiefs have been forced to make hard choices, when they should be given what they need.
Continue reading...