Increasing military spending is the first step along the road to war, accompanied by investment in equipment and infrastructure.

By the last half of the 1990s, a global pattern of rising military spending was emerging, reflected in Britain’s military budgets under New Labour, the Coalition, and successive Tory governments. What distinguishes the government of Keir Starmer is not that the Ministry of Defence budget is rising, but the speed at which it is doing so and the political will of a Labour government, in difficult economic circumstances, to sacrifice other aspects of government spending – at the cost of Labour’s most deeply held values.

A few weeks after taking office, Starmer announced the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) to make recommendations on increased security. By the time the SDR reported on 2nd June, most of the spending decisions had already been taken.

Despite a continuing rise in inflation and the UK’s weak economic performance, in just a few months, the government had moved from Labour’s manifesto commitment to “set out the path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence” to announcing an increase to 2.6% starting in 2027. This includes extra funding for intelligence and security services, with a further increase to 3% in the next parliament, economic conditions permitting, and a commitment to 3.5% by the next government.

A few weeks later, at the NATO summit, Starmer announced Britain was buying 12 nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets, at a cost of $80m each, stationed at RAF Marham in Norfolk. These aircraft are capable of delivering the US nuclear bombs stationed at Lakenheath in Suffolk. Like Trident nuclear weapons and these bombs at Lakenheath, in the case of war in Europe, they will be at the service of NATO.

These are political choices

This increase is to be funded by a reduction to 0.3% in the international aid budget, which was ‘temporarily’ cut from 0.7% to 0.5% by the Tory government in 2022. It caused the resignation of one of Starmer’s ministers and brought howls of protest from the military, the Foreign Office, and NGOs. The Chancellor’s Spring Statement in March and the Comprehensive Spending Review in early June confirmed the impact on government resources, and filled in some details of what this meant for other government departments.

The Prime Minister is demonstrating, by word and deed, his eagerness to make these choices – and doing so without subjecting his decision to parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. There has been no honest discussion about if and how war might be avoided.

The decision of 2022 to site US nuclear weapons in Britain, for example, came to light when American nuclear scientists accessed federal budget documents. At the time of writing, there is considerable evidence to suggest US nuclear bombs have now arrived at RAF Lakenheath. Neither Tory nor Labour governments have acknowledged US nukes are coming to Britain, and attempts by MPs to ask questions have all been side-stepped.

A key part of European rearmament

Other recent and alarming developments reinforce the view that Britain is heading to war. French President Emmanuel Macron’s state visit in July resulted in the Northwood Declaration on UK-French nuclear cooperation. Starmer and the British press focused on immigration issues, but for Macron and the European media, it was nuclear co-operation that was top of the agenda. A week later, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz signed a bilateral agreement with Britain, identifying Russia as “the most significant and direct threat” to Europe, and including clauses on mutual assistance for national security, and on joint procurement and development of defence technologies.

Arms manufacturers are the sole beneficiaries of increased military spending. The interests of the peace and labour movements are not served by preparing for war. On the contrary, the decisions outlined above make Britain a military target, and potentially a nuclear one too, in any coming war.

A debate about the build-up to war is already overdue. It is in all our interests to push that debate up the agenda before it’s too late.