nuclear-news

Starmer Lied: Britain Is Cutting £11 Billion from Frontline Defence

The new Defence Investment Plan delivers almost nothing for our armed forces in the near term

Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Jul 02, 2026

The United Kingdom is in effect going to spend up to £11 billion less per year on the day-to-day running of its armed forces under Keir Starmer’s Defence Investment Plan — and that’s before we even take inflation into account.

Despite the apparent uplift in spending toward 2.7% of GDP by 2029, the UK will get no meaningful increase in front-line conventional capability or personnel.

Our armed forces are at their smallest size in two hundred years, and that situation is not going to change under this plan.

Spending on long-term nuclear capabilities — programmes that will not deliver anything usable until the 2030s and 2040s — is absorbing the great majority of the headline increase.

This comes at a time when the government claims Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO by the end of this decade.

At the heart of the problem is a foreign policy that wants to confront multiple adversaries while maintaining armed forces that simply do not have the mass or readiness to do so credibly.

Important to point out that I am the son of a former British soldier and I am incredibly proud of the armed forces and anyone who serves this country. I also served alongside the British Army in Helmand province in 2010 and worked with some truly remarkable people. I am not criticising the men and women who put on the uniform. I am criticising how badly led we are as a country.

Keir Starmer announced the UK’s long-awaited Defence Investment Plan yesterday, 30 June. To describe it as a damp squib would be generous. It is a document that confirms the continued stagnation of the UK armed forces and the deep sclerosis at the heart of defence procurement.

Do not believe the headlines and the spin.

This plan will not transform our hollowed-out forces.

The British Army is already at its smallest size since 1823. That will not change.

There are no new soldiers being recruited in any significant numbers. Money available for the day-to-day operation of the armed forces is not going up — in real terms it is under severe pressure.

Having crunched the numbers, it’s clear to me that yearly spending on the actual running of the armed forces has effectively declined by up to £11 billion per year under this plan, set against the government’s claim of a £15 billion per year increase by 2027…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The outgoing UK Prime Minister has declared a big increase in defence spending, yet we are getting no new troops and very little new conventional capability in the near term.

Why?

Because the great majority of the additional money is being directed into nuclear programmes and a procurement system that has repeatedly failed to deliver on time or on budget.

………………………………………………….. As I write, I understand that all of the Astute-class submarines are operationally unavailable.

……………………the largest cost increases and overruns have been in the nuclear and naval programmes.

………….As the National Audit Office reported in 2023, the combined costs of nuclear and naval programmes rose by £54.6 billion between 2022 and 2023, with the nuclear element increasing by £38.2 billion.

The three biggest programmes are the SSN-AUKUS attack submarines, the Dreadnought ballistic missile submarines, and the new Astraea nuclear warhead.

The first UK-built AUKUS submarines are not expected until the late 2030s.

We already have ballistic missile submarines maintaining Continuous At-Sea Deterrence.

We already have attack submarines, even if they cost too much, took too long to build, and don’t work.

We already have nuclear warheads. Do we really need a slightly flashier design folks? Serious question.

The plan is being presented as a response to current and near-term threats, while a war continues in Ukraine and with political leaders abandoning diplomacy.

……………………I have a clear alternative. We should cancel or significantly scale back the highest-risk and longest-lead nuclear programmes — particularly the new Astraea warhead and major elements of the SSN-AUKUS programme.

The savings should be redirected into fixing and sustaining the equipment we already possess, improving the availability of existing platforms, and beginning the serious work of rebuilding conventional force numbers and readiness for the core task of defending the United Kingdom and its immediate interests………………………….. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/starmer-lied-britain-is-cutting-11?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=204491995&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

July 5, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK, weapons and war