To many Conservatives it may appear self-evident that there’s little point or political gain in in their leader making a major speech calling for increased defence spending. Who would take any notice?
Responses to Russian aggression against Ukraine have become the habitat of leaders of the political parties across Europe. Starmer spends more time talking to Macron, Merz and Ursula von der Leyen about defence than to his voters. In this high-altitude chat group, there’s hardly much opportunity for the voice of a much-depleted political party languishing in the polls to ring out. Better to concentrate on domestic issues where Starmer stumbles, rather than a European stage where he’s sure-footed.
Such views, I believe, are profoundly wrong.
Conservative should give voice to unpalatable truths that Starmer has been unwilling to utter. Nor is he alone in failing to spell out the depths of the Russian threat. As Franz Stefan Gady wrote recently in the Financial Times: European leaders have done a poor job communicating to their citizens what role Ukraine plays in upholding Europe’s security, why it matters and why Europe might need to risk direct military confrontation with Russia over it.
Talk of military confrontation between Europe, including the UK, and Russia, would not go down well in Number 10. It’s easy to see why. Rachel Reeves has a hole to fill in her next budget estimated as well over the £22 billion she claimed to inherit from the Tories. If Gady and a battalion of Kremlinologists, defence correspondents, historians, former generals and defence ministers are right about the real risk of a war with Russia if Ukraine is defeated, then Labour’s promise to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035 becomes almost ludicrously inadequate. Next year Estonia’s defence spending will rise to over 5% of GDP.
So where would the money come from to fund a much faster uptick in UK defence spending? Here’s one answer from a recent piece in the Sunday Times.
“It’s warfare versus welfare,” said General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander of joint forces command and one of three experts who conducted Britain’s recent strategic defence review…….But we are stuck on a debate on how you can increase defence spending without impinging on the generous welfare offer that we make. Unlike, say, Finland or Poland, however, the average UK citizen does not feel the fear. They don’t think their prospects and way of life are in jeopardy. Until UK civil society feels the fear, it’s really difficult for the government to make the argument.”
You, Kemi Badenoch, could – and I believe should – make that argument. I can’t promise that in the short term it would improve your poll ratings. You’ll be accused of scaremongering. The same people who told us it was unthinkable that Russia would invade Ukraine will point out that Russian tanks are unlikely to be trundling any time soon up the beaches at Dover. In the Sunday Times Barrons answers this point.
In the digital age, a battle of will need not have a single boot on the ground. It’s about cyber. It’s about undersea cables. It’s about satellites. The target is civil society. It’s power, water, internet, banking systems, supply chains to Tesco.
Far from addressing the most significant threat to our safety and security since the second world war, the Labour government is under pressure to increase welfare spending by scrapping the two-child benefit cap.
An Ipsos poll published in May showed 49% of UK citizens said immigration was their top concern and 34% named the NHS. Defence, foreign affairs and terrorism ranked fifth in the list of concerns with 18%. Many of us don’t pay much attention to generals, defence analysts or former defence secretaries such as Ben Wallace. Or read opinion pieces in publications such as the Sunday Times or the Financial Times.
A political space has opened for you, as leader of the opposition, to make a major speech about UK defence. It should not be framed as an attack on Labour. On the contrary, I suggest moderate praise for the role Starmer’s playing in European support for Ukraine. It should offer to back practical and sensible policies from the government to reduce other expenditure. A look at the costs of net zero policies as well as welfare might be timely.
Restoring our defence capabilities is clearly in the national interest. I believe you are a leader with the courage and moral clarity to start a national conversation on defence. It’s long overdue.
Best wishes and good luck
Brian Morris
Brian Morris runs a media training and communications company.
