Britain cannot defend itself with John Healey's empty promises and wishful thinking

The Chinese have a saying: "Loud thunder, few raindrops." After the advance publicity surrounding yesterday’s Budget, it seems an appropriate description of what Britain’s armed forces received. There were promises about the future, but precious little clarity about how quickly the Government intends to repair our defences. To be fair, the Treasury says the Budget fully funds the existing Defence Investment Plan through reprioritised public spending. That deserves acknowledgement. But funding an announced programme and explaining how Britain will meet its longer-term defence commitments are different things. The Government reaffirmed its commitment to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, with a target date of 2030 for reaching three per cent. The detailed route to those figures, however, has been deferred to next year’s spending review. Once again, the destination has been advertised while the difficult decisions about the journey await another announcement. That is the central weakness. Ministers speak about an increasingly dangerous world, yet their financial timetable still assumes that Britain has ample time to prepare. Our adversaries are unlikely to arrange their activities around the Treasury’s calendar. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS A television drama is imagining war with Russia. Britain is rehearsing for it - Lt Col Stuart Crawford Reform UK's military credibility is squandered without a defence spokesman – Lt Col Stuart Crawford Even Argentina's own Falkland veterans aren't buying Milei's sabre rattling - Lt Col Stuart Crawford The armed forces need more than percentages attached to distant dates. They need trained personnel, serviceable equipment, adequate accommodation and sufficient ammunition and spare parts. Money must translate into capabilities that commanders can actually deploy and sustain. Nor can a promise of higher spending excuse ineffective procurement. Additional funding will achieve too little if programmes remain slow, requirements keep changing and equipment arrives after the circumstances that justified buying it have moved on. The Government must demonstrate that its investment plan can deliver military effect, rather than another collection of expensive aspirations. There is also a wider argument about priorities. Britain is forecast to spend around £353billion on welfare, including the State Pension and other pensioner benefits, in 2026/27—more than five times the published £68.3billion Ministry of Defence budget. These are broad spending categories, and the MoD figure excludes some NATO-qualifying expenditure, but the comparison deserves a serious debate about national priorities. Welfare reform, taxation and other spending choices are politically difficult, but defence cannot simply receive whatever remains after the more immediately contentious decisions have been avoided. If national security is the government’s first duty, ministers must explain what they are prepared to change to fund it. None of this means abandoning people who need support. It means recognising that an inadequately defended country cannot guarantee the security on which its public services, economy and way of life depend. The Chancellor’s job is to confront that uncomfortable balance. Burnham and Healey have bought themselves another year before setting out the detailed spending trajectory. They may regard that as prudent management. From a military perspective, it looks rather more like putting the hardest decisions in the “all too difficult” folder. Britain needs a funded route to readiness, with clear milestones and ministers accountable for meeting them. Yesterday delivered another promise that the fuller explanation will come later. Loud thunder, few raindrops—and the armed forces are still waiting. Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter