This Labour government is clogged by choice

The Prime Minister just yesterday complained to the Liaison Committee that the most frustrating thing about government is the sluggish pace of change, wishing for “a clear path through, at speed”. It was meant as a candid reflection on the reality of power. But it landed with a thud. Because the Starmer government is never more comfortable than when it is commissioning a review, setting up a quango (more than 20 so far), or pushing back on publishing a report – and on the very same day the PM made his latest comments there were yet two more incidences of this very same phenomenon.

The latest example came in the form of the defence investment plan, the document that is supposed to explain how ministers actually intend to spend defence cash. It was meant to arrive in the autumn. Then it was promised before Christmas. Yesterday, after Defence Secretary John Healey was asked a direct question by shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge on whether it will be published before Parliament rises for Christmas on Thursday, Healey couldn’t say – and there is growing suspicion it may now slip into next year after what one insider told Politico was a “horrific” battle with the Treasury over money. Programme chiefs have reportedly been summoned one by one to justify even modest spending lines.

This is not a minor Whitehall scheduling dispute. The defence investment plan is where rhetoric is meant to meet reality. But while ministers talk up Britain being on “war footing”, the money remains theoretical.

Britain has slipped behind Germany as Europe’s second-biggest military spender in NATO. Ministers boast about ambition – defence spending will supposedly rise to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035 – but have so far only explained how to reach around 2.6 per cent by 2027. Everything beyond that is aspiration, not yet backed up with policy.

This matters because the government’s own defence review recommendations depend on long-term funding certainty. You can’t build submarines, develop combat aircraft or expand munitions production on vibes and ambition. These programmes span years, but without clarity over funding, military chiefs, companies and even authors of the strategic defence review have aired concerns that the UK will need to scale back its ambitions.

Take the hybrid fleet Navy announcement from earlier this month, unveiled with the usual fanfare about innovation and future warfare. Scratch the surface and it turns out to be backed by just £4 million initially. Officials privately concede to Bloomberg that, in the absence of the long-promised defence investment plan, the Navy has no idea how much more it can put into the project beyond the next financial year. 

Or consider submarines. The government has committed to expand the nuclear-powered attack fleet to 12 under the Aukus programme. Yet the Ministry of Defence still cannot say how much each submarine will cost. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge has mocked Labour’s uncosted “fantasy fleet”, and again, it is hard to see what they could come back with right now.

As General Sir Richard Barrons pointed out at RUSI last month, finding billions more for defence is not “insurmountable”. It is a choice. Rachel Reeves found £16 billion to increase welfare spending in her budget. Attempts to find savings elsewhere in the benefits system were quickly abandoned. As Barrons put it, choosing welfare expansion at the expense of security and defence “might be seen historically as an act of self-harm”.

But John Healey’s response to criticism is to point backwards. The last government, he said, when questioned by Cartlidge in the Commons yesterday, promised strategies that were never published or funded. That in itself is not a defence. This government cannot even bring itself to publish the plan explaining how money would be spent.

That is about the only plan of Labour’s on offer: dither, delay and point backwards. The pattern is familiar now. The strategic defence review was late, the defence industrial strategy too, the investment plan is only the latest in a long line.

But we had two in one when it comes to delays yesterday, with The Sun revealing that Labour is set to miss another pledge to publish important documents this year, this time with schools’ trans guidance. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has been reviewing the Tories’ draft version for 17 months now, and in April promised to release her revised guidance “this year”. But it’s still not expected to come this side of Christmas. Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said it well: “She has no excuse for further delays, it’s not in the interest of children.”

Starmer is correct that government is slow and clogged with obstacles. His government especially so. On defence, the defining test is simple. Ministers cannot endlessly warn of Russian aggression while refusing to explain how Britain will pay to deter it. On schools, teachers and students have been waiting long enough for some answers. So why not come up with some clarity, rather than more clogs.