---

A Lame Duck PM Just Signed Off a Defence Plan His Own Defence Chiefs Said Wasn't Enough

A Prime Minister who has already resigned just committed £15 billion of public money to a defence plan his own defence ministers quit over. That is where we are.

Keir Starmer announced the UK's Defence Investment Plan on 30 June 2026. He is leaving office. Nominations for his replacement open on 9 July. He is, by any reasonable definition, a man on his way out the door — and he just signed off one of the biggest shifts in UK public spending in a generation.

That matters. Not because the argument for defence spending is wrong. It's not. But because the person making this decision has no mandate to make it stick.

What's Actually in the Plan

The numbers are significant. Total defence spending is expected to hit almost £80bn a year by 2029. That's up from £54bn under the previous government. The UK's defence spending would reach 2.7% of GDP — the highest in thirty years.

The breakdown: £8.2bn for the sixth-generation Tempest stealth fighter, developed with Italy and Japan. £5bn for drones and autonomous weapons. £64bn over the longer term for nuclear deterrent — Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS submarines, a new warhead, and 12 F35-A jets joining NATO's nuclear mission. Some existing programmes are being scrapped entirely, including Storm Shadow missiles and Wildcat helicopters.

On paper, that sounds like serious investment. In practice, there's a problem.

The Gap Nobody's Pretending Isn't There

Defence chiefs asked for £28bn. They got £15bn. That's not a rounding error. That is nearly half of what the military said it needed.

General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the Strategic Defence Review, was direct about it: "It is still not going to crack the issue of, in order to defend the UK sufficiently well, sufficiently quickly, more has to be done sooner, and that requires more money than is currently on the table. We're not keeping up with our allies, we're certainly not keeping up with our enemies."

Starmer committed at NATO last year to 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. This plan gets to 4.2% when national security spending is included — but 0.8% short of the 5% target Donald Trump pushed NATO towards. The plan for hitting 3% is being deferred to the next spending review, scheduled for next year. The plan for the rest? Someone else's problem.

His Own Ministers Walked Out First

This isn't opposition spin. Defence Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns both resigned on 11 June — weeks before this announcement — because they said the plan wasn't good enough.

Healey's resignation letter said Starmer had been "unable" and the Treasury had been "unwilling to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country." Carns, in his own letter, called the DIP "neither transformative enough nor sufficiently funded." Before he resigned, Carns told Times Radio the plan "is not fit for purpose."

These are not backbenchers. These are the men who were supposed to deliver this plan. They looked at the numbers and walked.

Dan Jarvis, a former soldier with service in Iraq and Afghanistan, has since been brought in as the new Defence Secretary. He's been handed the job of defending a plan the previous person in that job publicly condemned.

Who's Actually Paying for This

Here's the part that hits home. The funding comes partly from cutting investment budgets elsewhere. Roads and energy projects — Starmer confirmed some would "not go ahead as planned." That's infrastructure real people rely on. The NHS hasn't had a windfall. Housing hasn't had a windfall. The cost of living crisis hasn't eased.

The plan promises nearly 60,000 defence-sector jobs by 2030. That's real. But if the roads to get there aren't funded, and the energy grid holding everything together is delayed, those jobs exist in a country that's been quietly hollowed out to pay for them.

No Guarantee Any of It Survives

Andy Burnham is widely expected to be the next Prime Minister. He has said nothing about this plan. Nothing. He may want to revise it entirely when he takes over. Starmer's own party lost 35 councils and nearly 1,500 councillors at the local elections. He does not have a political base behind him anymore.

A plan this significant, announced by a PM this weakened, with no endorsement from his successor, is not a policy. It's a wish list with a price tag attached.

Barrons is right. The money on the table isn't enough. The people who were supposed to spend it resigned in protest. And the man who announced it is already packing up his office.

Someone's going to have to clean this up. We just don't know yet who — or what gets cut next time to pay for it.

---
Photo by [Mia's Photography](https://www.pexels.com/@mia-s-photography-2159360151) on [Pexels](https://www.pexels.com/photo/iconic-view-of-big-ben-and-london-skyline-37559001/)