Stewardship of Britain’s defenses was thrown into chaos on June 12 by the resignation of the widely respected Defence Secretary, John Healey, and several junior ministers, including the colorful Armed Forces Minister and former Special Boat Service officer, Al Carns. They complained that the nation’s defenses were badly underfunded and that the Treasury had blocked plans to fix the problem.
Healey is lower-key than the medal-winning Carns, but is a very experienced, loyal and hard-working Cabinet minister, and his resignation — on a principle — comes as a body blow to Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The departures deepen the shadows surrounding the current occupant of No 10, who is likely to face a leadership challenge from the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, should he win the Makerfield by-election on June 18.
Healey resigned because he failed to convince the Treasury to fully fund the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). That was published last year, 11 months after it was commissioned. It should have been followed last fall by the Defence Investment Plan (DIP), which was meant to operationalize the review. But it still has not been published despite an impending NATO summit, because Whitehall has been engaged in a fierce behind-the scenes battle over money.
There is little dispute that the UK’s defenses require more resources than the 2.5% of GDP allocated by the Treasury, which rises to 2.6% next year. Government sources said the finance ministry only offered a further 0.08% by 2030.
Starmer’s failure to act has been baffling. In February, he addressed the Munich Security Conference and said: “Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them. This time, it must be different. Because all of the warning signs are there.”
Yet Healey and his ministerial team say words have not been followed by action, even as they point to a darkening world situation, including Putin’s all-out invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump’s plans to cut US force commitments to Europe, and the urgent need for the UK to help NATO meet demands from Europe to the Straits of Hormuz.
Healey’s resignation letter, and that of Carns and two other members of the MoD ministerial team, reveal a deep paralysis at the heart of power and a fundamental inability to take tough strategic decisions. The Defence Secretary’s letter to Starmer baldly stated that “you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.”
Rather than take leadership, the Prime Minister seems to have washed his hands and left the problem to fester while the Treasury and Ministry of Defence fought it out for months on end, allowing the debate to become toxic. In the end, the Treasury won, but at the cost of the confidence of the entire British defense establishment and industry.
As Gen (rtd.) Richard Barrons wrote: “The level of funding currently being [proposed] means UK defense will not be fixed. In fact, it will continue to deteriorate. The transformation that the SDR says is imperative will simply not be affordable, [but] this is not ultimately a question of affordability. It is a question of choice.”
The result wounds Starmer before the upcoming NATO summit and is perhaps the death rattle of his premiership. It’s unlikely that the departure of the well-respected Healey will be welcomed by allies in Brussels, and they are likely to believe his assessment, and that of Armed Forces Minister, Carns, over Starmer.
Were Burnham to win his by-election, it is unclear how — or whether — defense policy might change. Many in the security establishment will hope for a significant U-turn on the incrementalism and vacillation that have characterized Starmer’s approach to rearmament.
In the meantime, as Stephen Bush noted in the Financial Times, the resignations: “Further add to the smell of decay around the government and Starmer’s premiership.”
Two other important issues were raised by Carns in his resignation letter.
Firstly, that the DIP is too focused on legacy platforms and needs to better embrace the lessons of Ukraine on autonomy, and secondly, that the Northern Ireland legacy act puts veterans at risk of prosecution and is not fit for purpose.
What, more than anything, this crisis highlights is critically poor leadership in the government. An inability to face up to difficult problems and find a way through them, however intractable, is the mark of a strong leader.
Instead, Starmer has made the right noises but failed to match them with action and resources. This has resulted in a say-do gap that will be his enduring legacy.
If the country is to protect its people and maintain its position in NATO, a change in leadership can’t come too soon. As Europe faces up to the likelihood of war, a vacuum at the heart of the British defense is the last thing it needs.
James Fennell MBE is an international peace and security expert and was Director of the UK FCDO’s flagship stabilization program in Ukraine from 2022-24. Since leaving the Royal Navy, he has spent 30 years as a senior executive and government adviser on conflict and security policy in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East for FCDO and international organizations. In 2012, he was awarded an honorary research fellowship by the University of Birmingham in peace and security.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
