Chancellor Healey’s Defence Spending Plans Expose Deep Fiscal Contradictions
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Chancellor John Healey has called the aim of lifting the UK’s defence budget to 3% of GDP by 2030 merely a target, prompting doubts that Labour will actually deliver on its promises. He says the government will try to reach it, but offers no firm commitment, while critics warn that the plan relies on vague pledges and painful cuts elsewhere.
Chancellor John Healey has acknowledged that the goal of increasing the UK’s defence budget to 3% of GDP by 2030 is merely a target, which has intensified concerns about whether it will ever be achieved. In an interview, Healey said the government would 'look to' meet this target but stopped short of making any firm commitment. He stressed the need to respond to growing threats facing Britain and said a detailed plan would be set out in next year’s Spending Review.
Healey, who resigned as defence secretary over the previous government's failure to meet the 3% target, repeated his commitment to NATO’s 3.5% target by 2035. Yet critics, including shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge, say the government has already undermined confidence in its own ambitions, pointing to repeated failures across multiple policy areas. Cartlidge said Healey’s approach leaves a 'massive black hole in defence spending'.
A source close to Healey defended his position, arguing that he would not set a target he believed could not be met. Healey also confirmed plans to seek 2% cuts from other departments to help fund defence spending. On welfare, he refused to commit to reducing spending during the current parliament, even as the benefits bill is expected to rise. Healey said the benefits bill would fall under Labour, but did not say when, adding to concerns about the government’s vague and increasingly strained fiscal strategy.