Keir Starmer’s plans for a army price range increase come too little too late, former defence chiefs warn

Keir Starmer‘s plans to raise military spending have come too little, too late, former defence chiefs warned last night.

The Prime Minister’s proposal to hike Britain’s defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 has been dismissed as a ‘pathetic sap’ to try to appease Donald Trump ahead of their meeting in Washington tomorrow.

Sir Keir was also urged to give assurances that none of the money would be linked to the deal with Mauritius to hand over the Chagos Islands, which would see one of the atolls leased for at least £9billion to accommodate a UK-US military airbase.

Former British Army intelligence officer Philip Ingram said: ‘It is too little, too late. He needed to say 2.5 [per cent] immediately with the current strategic defence review looking at 3 to 5 per cent if necessary and identifying a realistic time frame while working with other departments to identify where funding can be found.

‘Otherwise, it is a pathetic sap to try to placate Trump who will eat him alive on Thursday.’ 

Mark Francois, shadow armed forces minister, said: ‘As we have been pressing the Government for months to increase defence spending, we welcome today’s announcement.

‘However, we would like reassurance that none of this uplift is linked to payments for a Chagos deal, which, if it’s heavily front-loaded, could eat up a significant chunk of that, at least in the early years.’ 

Former Royal Navy commander and aircraft carrier captain Tom Sharpe added: ‘In the current fiscal climate it seems churlish to knock any increase.

Sir Keir Starmer’s (pictured) proposal to hike Britain’s defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 has been dismissed as a ‘pathetic sap’ to try to appease Donald Trump

‘Having said that, it’s not enough. It will continue to strain our existing forces (bad) while placing ever more emphasis on ensuring the money we do have is spent well (good). 

Declaring it two days before meeting your key ally who will certainly object to lack of ambition is interesting timing as well.’

Admiral Lord West, ex-head of the Royal Navy and former Labour security minister, said that the most pressing priority was to ‘sort out the ‘hollowing out’ of UK forces’, including ammunition stocks, missiles and artillery.

Tan Dhesi, chairman of the defence committee, said: ‘This is a dangerous moment for the UK’s defence and security – a moment where we must come together as a nation… Today’s commitment to increasing spending is an important, and very welcome, first step.

‘But this isn’t just a matter of how much we spend, but how well we spend it.’

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Mike Martin said: ‘Today’s announcement is a good start but we need to spend at least 3 per cent of GDP to deliver a credible defence of the Euro-Atlantic area with allies. 

‘Put simply, we need to deter Russia, and we are not doing so at the moment.

Former British Army intelligence officer Philip Ingram (pictured) said plans to raise military spending have come ‘too little, too late’

‘More broadly, the key thing that the Government needs to realise is that the Americans are not underwriting European security any more, and that requires us to spend a lot more on defence and take on the leadership role for defence and security on the continent. 

‘This is a national emergency and the LibDems are calling for cross-party talks on how we get to a 3 per cent spend on defence.

‘We must work together in the national interest – politicking is pro-Putin.’

Nato chief Mark Rutte has said members of the Western military alliance need to be spending ‘considerably more’ than 3 per cent of GDP, while President Trump has called for 5 per cent. 

Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, last week said the delays to increasing defence spending were ‘ludicrous’. 

The Prime Minister also faced pressure from his own MPs.

Melanie Ward, the member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, and Aylesbury MP Laura Kyrke-Smith earlier this month said Sir Keir needed to ‘move fast and be far more ambitious’ than the 2.5 per cent target.

In a joint article for website Politics Home, they wrote: ‘We risk being stuck in squabbles about basis percentage points of defence spending when the reality is: the stakes are far too high for that.

‘Planning to reach 2.5 per cent of GDP spending on defence at a distant future moment is no longer sufficient.’