This new defence plan is not what Britain needs

The government’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP) was published in June while Keir Starmer was seeing out his time before being replaced as prime minister. His successor appeared to endorse it, even though he doesn’t know how to pay for it.

There was quite a build-up to publication, the general tenor being that we don’t spend nearly as much as we need to on defence (more accurately titled “military expenditure”).

But according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Britain’s expenditure on defence in 2025 was the sixth highest in the world – being the world’s fifth largest economy, measured by nominal GDP. That doesn’t mean that all this is spent wisely – or in the interests of the British people. But shows that the expenditure is in proportion to our wealth as a country. 

The DIP states that £298 billion will be invested in defence over the next four years to provide British armed forces with “war readiness” and to “increase lethality…in a period of all-domain warfare”. It is a War Investment Plan and not a plan for the defence of Britain. It is planning, at great expense, for the wars that NATO and other warmongers hope for.

Surrendered

In truth Britain has not had an independent defence plan or foreign policy since 1945. Every government has surrendered our sovereignty on defence since then. The new plan heightens that betrayal.

It declares that the government’s commitment to NATO is absolute and that the UK will contribute two divisions and a corps HQ to NATO’s strategic reserve corps. These forces will be held at readiness to be deployed anywhere, when required, by NATO’s military commander, always a US officer.

The plan also states that Britain will join NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft nuclear mission – and as a result must buy at least 12 US nuclear-capable F-35A planes to be deployed under NATO’s command. They carry either conventional weapons or US-owned nuclear bombs, currently stored in NATO bases across Europe including RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk.

The risk is that the warplanes will be flown by the RAF during a NATO-controlled nuclear strike. This is not news. The government announced these plans in June 2025 claiming it would deliver greater security for working people and support 20,000 jobs across Britain, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F35 programme. But it kept quiet on the fact that the planes would be bought from US company Lockheed Martin.

In total the DIP commits Britain to spending £64 billion over the next four years on nuclear weapons, over which we will have no control. This equates to a fifth of the total DIP expenditure (not including the cost of the F-35 planes or a possible 138 non-nuclear capable F-35B planes also to be bought from Lockheed Martin.)

According to a report from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, out of the nine nuclear weapon owning states, Britain was the third-highest spender in 2025 at $12.6 billion. China was second at $13.5 billion . And the USA spent the most by far ($69 billion), more than the total spent by the other eight countries together.

Not surprisingly, trade unions such as Unite and GMB representing defence industry workers want to see how the spending of £298 billion across four years will translate into jobs in Britain and support for industry here.

The DIP talks about “Backing British” and boosting British industry. But it’s far from credible that the proposed defence spending will prioritise British jobs and skills. For years politicians of all hues have trashed British industry, in particular acquiescing in the sale of British defence companies to foreign owners, mainly in the USA. The result is that Britain lacks the industrial capacity to fulfil this plan.

On 22 June the UK government gained EU approval to participate in its loan framework for selling arms to Ukraine. This means that British defence companies will join the EU’s procurement framework as a third country participant.

The UK government will underwrite the borrowing costs of the loans of the contracts that British companies win. It has agreed that we will pay to join the EU scheme, when British companies could have traded with Ukraine directly.

Compared with other industries, defence receives significant state investment including in research and development, exports support and public procurement. That reduces risk for owners and makes it particularly attractive to multinational asset management and private investment companies.

US investment

A Common Wealth report from 2023 found that the top investors in apparently British defence companies were the US investment companies BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. Their wealthy international clients, not the British public, benefit from the public investment in defence. And there’s always a risk that the work is shifted overseas.

The DIP places great emphasis on transforming British forces, endorsing the adoption of “recce-strike” (being able to find, target and strike enemy forces with precision and speed), autonomous vessels and vehicles, uncrewed sub-surface vessels, a hybrid navy, and drones. It claims (without any data) that the lethality of the army alone will increase by ten times as a result. 

But is all this going to make Britain safer? Will it defend us, or will it make us less safe?

‘Is all this going to make Britain safer? Will it defend us, or will it make us less safe?’

The government recently allowed the USA to use RAF Fairford to launch its bombing of Iran. Iran subsequently declared that “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces”. Iran specifically identified RAF Fairford as one such base, making it clear that it did not rule out mounting a direct retaliatory attack, which is possibly within range of its ballistic missiles.

In response, a government statement said, “Our armed forces are ready to keep ⁠the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil ⁠or from abroad.” Another view comes from political commentator and blogger Richard North, who argues forcefully that the UK simply does not have the ability to prevent such missiles reaching their UK targets.

And the DIP blithely says that £790 million will be spent over the next four years “to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats.” £790 million is less than 0.3 per cent of the planned expenditure and since it will cover overseas bases, the land to air defence of Britain will be a fraction of that.

But Iran, or any other country attacked by bombs launched from an air base in Britain, may not have to launch an expensive missile should it decide to retaliate. It could be using very different methods. As the government-appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has said, “If you look at state threats and people who have been willing to act as proxies or carry out attacks on behalf of Iran... I’m interested in the question of whether or not foreign nationality, particularly recent migrants, is becoming more relevant to the overall national security picture.”

The DIP is based on Britain’s continued membership of NATO, an aggressive, US-dominated alliance for war. It is not about defence. Workers should demand that our money is not spent on supporting US military aims and US corporations, but is invested in Britain to advance our national interests and to meet our genuine defence needs.