|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume 56 Number 18, June 13, 2026 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBCENTRE | SUBSCRIBE |
On June 10, at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), an exchange took place between the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, on the unpublished 10 year "Defence Investment Plan (DIP)" [1]. Then on Thursday, June 11, Defence Secretary John Healey resigned over disagreements with Starmer over this unpublished DIP. These events regarding the DIP have further revealed the context of the crisis of the government and opposition, as well as the whole cartel party system in Westminster. They do not know which way to turn as they dangerously try to create a permanent war economy in Britain and put Britain on a war footing.
This is being attempted with an already militarised economy and a pro-war government that supports the escalation of their proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, as well as supporting the US/Israeli wars of aggression against Iran, Lebanon and Palestine. This government and official opposition, cartel parties representing the ruling elites, are facing the increasing opposition of the anti-war movement, and of the working class and people as a whole, to the destruction of the economy. Rather than having as a principle that the economy should meet the needs all, their well-being, peace and security, their right to modern public services and social programmes here in Britain, the cartel parties have been focused on further militarisation of the economy and its justification.
Protests against NATO's "Parliamentary
Assembly" at Dayton, Ohio, May 25 2025 - Photo: KaJeza
Hawkins
In the exchanges on the DIP, Badenoch criticised Starmer for delaying its publication. The DIP had been scheduled to be published this week even though originally it was to be published in 2025 alongside the Strategic Defence Review [2]. Kemi Badenoch launched into her attack, saying that the "Prime Minister says he has increased defence spending, but he has not". She said that it was reported that "the Chief of the Defence Staff told the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Defence needs an extra £28 billion. Will that requirement be met in full?" She also claimed that the Prime Minister "has only three options: cutting spending, more borrowing, or higher taxes". It seemed evident from the exchange that neither wanted to be perceived as an advocate of raising taxes to pay for further warfare and weaponry. So Badenoch attacked Starmer on what the state calls benefits or welfare, saying that he had got "things the wrong way round: he has a benefits plan until 2031, but no defence investment plan. Why not just cut welfare?"
Starmer in his replies, of course, did not defend the welfare system or benefits as meeting the necessary claims on society of the disadvantaged, claims as of right, but instead engaged in customary back and forth taunts with the Opposition leader. He derided the previous Conservative government as one that "neither reformed welfare nor spent on our armed forces". He boasted that it was his government that "have increased defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6% in 2027. That is a spending of £270 billion over this Parliament. We have carried out a strategic review of defence and we are committed to publishing the defence investment plan before the NATO summit." He outlined some details in the DIP on putting Britain's economy on a war footing over 10 years, claiming they had already procured "1,400 major defence contracts, and 94% of those are with British businesses. As the Defence Secretary said, that includes helicopters made in Yeovil, drones made in Swindon and armoured vehicle s made in Telford. We have also given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in over 20 years."
During the PMQs "debate", Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, commenting on a report that the government was to cut the hospital building programme to fund the DIP, asked whether Starmer would "rule out any cuts to the NHS budget to fund defence?" Starmer, of course, could only raise a diversion since cutting the funding for its hospital programme is indeed the government's intention.
In another act showing that the government has no way to turn, Defence Secretary John Healey resigned on June 11 over the disagreements regarding the unpublished DIP. Healey's decision to resign was lamented by the ADS Group (the UK's aerospace, defence, and security industry body), which praised him for understanding the importance of industry as a "strategic enabler". Healey has been deeply involved in military export deals and the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review.
John Healey's letter of resignation [3] praised the Labour government for its stand of urging on the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, and saying that the government had "stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine with the Coalition of the Willing and Ukraine Defence Contact Group, established Britain as a leading voice for Europe in NATO, raised defence investment to 2.5% of GDP three years earlier than anyone expected, launched the deepest defence reforms in 50 years, won the biggest UK defence export deals for decades..." However, the resignation letter went on to say that "your DIP financial settlement - which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week - falls well short of what is required". The letter pointed out that Starmer "had agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035 through the next Spending Review". But Healey said that the plan he was presented with on Monday moved too slowly, with defence spending rising "to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6% next year with the investment we are already making".
In his statement, Healey further revealed the quagmire of the government's stands on Britain's military interventions in Ukraine and the Middle East when he said that he was "forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations". In other words, he was talking about "personnel on operations" that are being deployed in Ukraine to support Britain's proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, escalating the war which Britain has no business being involved in. And presumably he was referring to "personnel on operations" which give their support to the US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East. The resignation letter concluded with a fraudulent assessment of the international situation, put forward to bolster his vision of putting Britain on a war footing, saying that "there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030". To put Britain on a war footing in an allegedly increasingly dangerous world situation clearly needs an enemy creating that threat, and according to Healey, and the whole of the ruling elite, Russia is that culprit.
In fact, the government continues to justify war preparations and make cuts to the NHS, to benefits, to the real income of doctors, nurses, government and council workers, which is why the government is facing huge opposition from the many strike and other struggles of the working class and people. The debate in the Commons and Healey's resignation further pointed to the arms companies waiting in the wings for long-term contracts that produce no socially useful value for the economy and fewer jobs. It is these and other pro-war interests that are behind the cartel party system of government that cannot reconcile their global ambitions without wrecking the economy and society. This is the crisis reflected in these exchanges in Parliament and the government delays in releasing the DIP.
The necessity for the alternative of an anti-war and pro-social government
As Workers' Weekly pointed out in reviewing the SDR [4], the DIP must also have no takers among the working class and people if there is to be peace and not more war. It is necessary to take heed of the aims of these war plans and to organise against them and what they stand for. Starmer and the government's attempts to further step up its militarisation and support for Israel's daily war crimes against the Palestinians and in Lebanon, its support for the US/Israeli aggression against Iran, are unacceptable and must continue to be opposed. The attempt of Starmer and the government to involve Britain further in NATO's proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is totally unacceptable and it too must continue to be opposed.
The call of the times is for the people to speak out in their own name for all that serves their own interests for peace and security. The context is the fight for a new direction for the economy and society that meets the needs of all and defends the rights of all. The aim for the working class and people must be always to prepare to establish an Anti-War Pro-Social Government in Britain that resolves conflicts in a just and peaceful way and fully recognises the rights and claims of the working class and people in society.
Notes
1. Hansard: UK Parliament Hansard Commons: 10 June 2026 Commons Chamber
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-06-10/debates/3219CC50-6B6A-4F88-8661-9E71FDEDF276/Engagements
2. Aligned with the 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the DIP is meant to
"translate" the SDR's strategic goals into "funded
programmes" to militarise the economy. The DIP was proposed as a 10-year
"line-by-line investment programme", intended to map all major
defence programmes, procurement, industrial capacity, and long-term
spending.
The DIP originally was due shortly after the 2025 SDR and then continually
delayed reportedly in disputes between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) with the MoD reportedly demanding an extra £28 billion and the
Treasury reducing it to £13 billion. However, the Prime Minister is now
saying that it will now appear "before the NATO summit" in July, but
has not released any draft, summary, or detailed programme list.
Major areas expected to be covered are inferred from the SDR and MoD programme
reporting. These include:
3. Defence Secretary John Healey's resignation letter in full
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgjx64yl7z9o
4. Strategic Defence Review: Starmer's Attempt to Put Britain on
"War-Fighting Readiness" Cannot Be Accepted
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-13/ww25-13-01.htm