Healey resignation torpedoes Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused by his own Defence Secretary of putting Britain in danger.

John Healey dramatically resigned on Thursday, claiming the Prime Minister was “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to spend the money needed to defend the country. As a result, he said, the Government’s defence investment plan (DIP) would “make the country less safe”.

Al Carns, the Armed Forces minister, followed him out the door on Thursday evening, accusing the Government of “failing” to defend the country properly. Pamela Nash and Rachel Hopkins also resigned as parliamentary private secretaries to Mr Healey.

In a stinging letter to Sir Keir, Mr Healey said there were “credible” ways to fund the military but added: “Your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.”

Mr Carns, who has been tipped to stand for the Labour leadership, said that he was quitting because No 10 “will not listen” to calls for more money for the military. The DIP was “neither transformative enough nor sufficiently funded”, he said.

He added: “A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.”

His letter continued: “We are asking our Armed Forces to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.”

The pair were backed by former military chiefs, who said the Government’s long-delayed plan would leave the country in danger.

Responding to Mr Healey’s letter, Sir Keir agreed the world was in a “dangerous and uncertain” time but insisted that the DIP would provide the “resources the military needs to keep us safe”.

Writing that the level of spending increases had to be “fair”, the Prime Minister suggested that “irresponsible borrowing” to pay for higher spending would put the public finances at risk.

The resignations sent shock waves through Westminster and plunged the Government into crisis.

The row leaves the Government’s defence plans in tatters ahead of the G7 summit next week and a Nato summit next month, at which Donald Trump is expected to call for Western governments to increase military spending to counter the threat of Russia.

Mr Healey’s resignation deprives Ukraine of a key ally on the world stage, although his stance is said to have hurt his standing in Washington.

He clashed with Pete Hegseth on a trip to the Pentagon in March when he pushed his American counterpart to support Kyiv militarily, according to a source.

“Healey worked hard to develop a good relationship with Hegseth but that’s a tall order,” the source said, citing the US defence secretary’s “rough edges”.

“Hegseth’s role in implementing Trump’s campaign promise to pull back funding for the Ukraine war made an already difficult personal interaction even more awkward.”

Mr Healey was viewed within the Pentagon as a “Johnny One Note on the issue of Ukraine”, the source added.

“There was really no other priority that he expressed at a macro level… that was just fundamentally at odds with President Trump’s new approach.”

Dan Jarvis, who has been the security minister since the election and previously served in the Parachute Regiment, was appointed as Mr Healey’s successor on Thursday night.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, told The Telegraph: “On Wednesday, I told Keir Starmer he was putting welfare over our national security, and placing our troops and our country in danger.

“The Defence Secretary resigned because he agreed with me. The Government is now in total free-fall, and the Prime Minister is a lame duck.”

Danny Kruger, the Reform MP, said Sir Keir was now a “zombie” prime minister.

Mr Healey revealed on Thursday that Sir Keir’s plan would have increased military spending by £13.5bn, just 0.08 per cent of GDP. Defence sources also claimed that Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, was pushing to break Labour’s promise to Nato to reach a target of 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035.

Mr Carns threatened to quit in an interview with Sky News broadcast less than two hours before his resignation.

In the interview, he also suggested he would back changes to the fiscal rules to fund higher defence spending and criticised Labour’s Troubles Bill, which threatens to open a Pandora’s Box of legal cases against Northern Ireland veterans.

Gen Sir Nick Carter, the former chief of the defence staff, said he thought Sir Keir’s plan would leave the country in danger.

“We now live in very dangerous times,” he told the BBC. “The threat is clear and present and that requires us, I am afraid, to spend more money than we have spent in the past.”

Nato allies rushed to Mr Healey’s defence, with his Belgian former counterpart describing his resignation as “a blow to our alliance” and the Italian defence minister saying he was “in agreement with almost everything” Mr Healey said about Sir Keir’s plan.

‘Starmer or Reeves should quit’

Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, demanded that either Sir Keir or Ms Reeves quit over the episode, arguing: “If the Prime Minister has asked for more money and the Chancellor has refused to give it to him, one of the two of them has got to resign.”

Lord West, the former head of the Navy, told The Telegraph: “The Treasury has won in their fight, and Britain is in more danger because of it.

“The situation is desperate, to be quite honest, because we know we need money for defence. It’s been delayed and delayed and delayed. That’s because of the defence investment plan. And the amount of money, £13bn, is not enough.”

The Prime Minister’s allies told The Telegraph on Thursday night that Ms Reeves was responsible for the debacle, with one government source claiming she “didn’t put in the work” to find enough money for defence in six months of talks.

A Treasury source insisted that Ms Reeves had prioritised defence in a “record” budget increase last year, and was willing to commit “billions” more in the latest investment plan.

But another Starmer ally described her position as “ridiculous”, arguing: “We are wasting so much money on welfare, which Rachel couldn’t cut, and digital ID, which could be stopped tomorrow. This is her fault.”

It is understood that the Chancellor rejected Mr Healey’s request for a new way to fund military spending with “war bonds” or a global defence bank. A No 10 source said: “This would just be more borrowing.”

Despite criticism from his own allies, Sir Keir looks unable to sack his Chancellor for fear of angering the bond markets and hastening his own exit from Downing Street, which dozens of Labour MPs have already demanded.

Labour MPs said the resignations would destabilise the Government before the Makerfield by-election, which could give Andy Burnham the chance to launch a leadership challenge if he were to win the seat.

Luke Charters, a former ministerial aide who quit to back Mr Burnham last month, said: “This is a crystal-clear case of the incrementalism and managerialism that has beset this Government. It is the reason I left the Government and the reason I am supporting Andy.”

Mr Burnham refused to be drawn on the row on Thursday, although an ally said he “gets” defence and it would be a “key plank” of his administration were he to win power.

Wes Streeting, another potential leadership contender, said “every word of warning” from Mr Healey should be “heeded”.

Graham Stringer, a veteran Labour backbencher, said: “Keir Starmer is a dead prime minister walking, and the position has been made worse by today’s resignation.

“He didn’t have a future before and he certainly hasn’t got one now. He will be remembered as an unpatriotic prime minister who did not take the decisions necessary to make this country’s military personnel safe.”

Another Labour MP said: “Starmer is a prisoner of a stale, old-fashioned Treasury orthodoxy which has led to a series of misjudgments which are bad for the country and devastating for his premiership.”

[Source: Daily Telegraph]