Ex-defence ministers accuse John Healey of endangering the country’s security over his U-turn on plans to raise military funds
Chancellor John Healey has been accused by two former Conservative defence secretaries of jeopardising national security after abandoning plans to raise defence spending, plans he himself had demanded when he resigned as Defence Secretary in June. Sir Gavin Williamson and Dame Penny Mordaunt both criticised the U-turn, with Williamson suggesting Healey's earlier resignation was driven more by career ambition than principle, while a senior Labour MP also questioned what had changed since Healey insisted current spending was inadequate.
Healey quit as Defence Secretary in June after clashing with the Treasury over funding, calling for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. Now holding the Treasury brief himself, he is reportedly set to find only around £5 billion (roughly £1.2 billion a year) at the forthcoming Budget to cover a shortfall in the Defence Investment Plan, far short of the £10 billion needed to hit 3% of GDP or the £25 billion required to meet the new NATO target of 3.5%. A government spokesman said the upcoming spending review would set out a pathway to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035, with a target date for reaching 3% along that path.
- Healey accused of U-turn on defence spending he once demanded
- Ex-ministers say move undermines UK security and his own credibility
- Budget expected to fall well short of 3% GDP defence target
New here? Start with this
Defence spending in Britain has been a source of tension within government for months. The row centres on how quickly the UK should raise military spending as a share of national income, with figures such as 3% and 3.5% of GDP being used as target benchmarks, and on where the extra billions of pounds needed to fund equipment and investment plans should come from.
John Healey served as Defence Secretary before resigning in June, having pushed for a firmer commitment to increase defence funding. He has since moved to become Chancellor, the minister in charge of the Treasury and the government's overall tax and spending decisions, putting him on the other side of the argument he previously made.
The issue matters because defence spending decisions affect the armed forces' equipment, readiness and Britain's commitments to allies such as NATO, at a time of heightened concern about international security. Any gap between promised funding levels and what is actually allocated in the Budget, the government's annual statement of tax and spending plans, is likely to draw scrutiny from politicians across the political spectrum.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those defending the Chancellor's position argue that responsibility for the whole public purse looks different from responsibility for a single department, and that Healey is now weighing defence spending against the NHS, welfare and debt costs in a way he did not have to as Defence Secretary. They would point out that the government has not abandoned the ambition but set a pathway to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 with an interim target, which they see as a more credible, fully funded approach than promising a faster rise without showing how it would be paid for. On this view, borrowing or cutting elsewhere to hit an accelerated target would itself carry economic and strategic risks, so a measured, affordable increase serves national security better than a rushed one.
The case against
Critics make the case that Healey resigned explicitly because he judged existing funding inadequate for a dangerous security environment, and that nothing about the threats facing Britain has diminished since June, so the reversal looks less like prudent recalibration and more like a change of principle to suit a change of job. They would argue that the shortfall against both the 3% and the new NATO 3.5% target leaves real gaps in the Defence Investment Plan, and that allies and the armed forces need firm, timely commitments rather than a target pushed out to 2035. For them, the inconsistency between Healey's past resignation and his present decisions raises legitimate questions about whether Treasury orthodoxy is being allowed to override the security case he himself once made.