The crisis at the top of government deepened on Thursday night as a second minister resigned from the Ministry of Defence over Keir Starmer’s “inadequate” military spending plans.
Al Carns, minister for the armed forces, followed John Healey, the defence secretary, out of the door. Late on Thursday former soldier Dan Jarvis was appointed Defence Secretary to replace Healey.
Carns said that the current Defence Investment Plan (DIP) “is not built for the threat we face” and that “it has become clear to me that the change I had pushed for is not going to come”.
Like Healey, Carns was brutal in his assessment of Starmer’s approach to defence spending. He wrote in his resignation letter: “A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.”
He also attacked the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill, saying “it risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect”.
Appearing to call for a change of leader Carns, a former Royal Marine who has been tipped as a potential successor to Starmer, said: “We need a new way of governing and we need it now.”
While Healey had asked other ministers at the MoD to stay in place despite his resignation, it seems to have started a deluge.
At least one parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Mod, Pam Nash, also resigned around the same time as Carns.
Healey’s resignation early this afternoon seemed to take the form of polite disagreement, with the former defence secretary telling Keir Starmer in a letter that he was stepping down “with great regret and reluctance”.
And yet, his resignation letter constitutes a quietly devastating attack on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, in which he accuses them of leaving the country unprepared for war and putting military personnel at risk because of funding allocations that are not generous enough.
He said that the DIP financial settlement, finalised on Monday, “falls way short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”.
Blaming Starmer and Rachel Reeves for the current predicament, he said: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats”.
Healey said he wanted a target of 3 per cent of GDP to be spent on defence by 2030, alongside European allies, but indicated that Starmer and Reeves were not willing to agree with him despite private appeals.
Remarkably, Healey claimed: “I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make our country less safe.”
Healey was one of the most experienced figures in the cabinet, having served in ministerial roles under the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
He was also highly respected by securocrats in his tenure at the Ministry of Defence as this private battle between Treasury funding allocations and urgent warnings of the need for more military spending has rumbled on since 2024. It has now finally come into the open.
The motivation for his decision is straightforward and clearly stated. But nevertheless, given the Prime Minister’s weak position and the impending prospect of a Labour Party leadership election, there will be speculation about Healey’s future ambitions. He has long been described as a “dark horse” contender for the premiership.
To learn more about the former defence secretary, there’s no better resource than this New Statesman profile by our political editor Ailbhe Rea.
[Further reading: How Britain lost control]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentYou have omitted the role of the Cabinet Ministers, notably Ed Miliband, who refused to contemplate cuts to their budgets to fund defence spending. What PM can continue in office if he cannot control his ministers?
It may be that Healey knows that Starmer is finished and that getting out is the simplest option. We will see if Andy Burnham wins Makerfield and successfully challenges Starmer.