On a cloudy morning in April, Sir Keir Starmer donned a high-vis jacket and hard hat to tour a facility no other Labour leader had visited in more than 30 years.
At the BAE Systems shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, Britain’s would-be next prime minister glad-handed workers as he watched the construction of a huge nuclear submarine.
Labour’s commitment to a continuous, at-sea nuclear deterrent was “unshakeable”, he told them, having remarked just hours earlier that defence was “the number one issue for any government”.
The visit was designed to show the difference between Starmer and his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.
The nuclear deterrent – which requires at least one Royal Navy submarine to be on patrol at all times – is designed to be the bedrock of Britain’s national security.
But under Corbyn, Labour’s commitment to the system was constantly in doubt. The long-time anti-nuclear campaigner refused to say whether he would be prepared to use it and had, on several previous occasions, even called for it to be scrapped.
His soft posture on Trident was held up repeatedly during the 2017 and 2019 election campaigns as one reason why voters couldn’t trust Labour to keep the country safe. Corbyn also refused to say whether he would honour Britain’s obligations to go to the aid of its Nato allies.
Since replacing Corbyn, Starmer has waged a four-year effort to restore Labour’s defence credentials and neutralise his party’s former vulnerabilities.
He has been successful: according to polling company YouGov, voter trust in Labour on security is now virtually level with the Conservatives.
But with an election now looming, big questions remain unanswered about what the party would actually do in power. Is Labour prepared to fund a bigger defence budget at a time when experts and politicians say the world is becoming more dangerous? And can Starmer count on the support of his own party to mobilise the military if needed?
Against a backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and concerns that China could invade Taiwan, such questions are more pressing than they have been in generations.
The range of threats that need to be addressed is dramatically different to when the party last won power during the “peace dividend” era of the 1990s.
Despite Starmer’s success convincing the public that Labour can be trusted on defence, the Tories clearly feel the opposition is vulnerable on the issue. Rishi Sunak made the claim that Britain will be less safe under Labour a key attack line in the early days of his campaign.
“The reality is Labour’s coalition is considerably more divided than the Conservatives’ on foreign policy, and its voters include larger groups of those with views diverging from the traditional contours of British policy,” says Sophia Gaston, head of foreign policy and UK resilience at the Policy Exchange think tank.
“Its voters are also more inclined to be against military interventionism and support pacificist positions.
“That is going to place a larger burden on the leadership.”
Corbyn’s legacy
Labour’s chaotic position on defence under Jeremy Corbyn was painfully exposed when MPs were asked by former prime minister Theresa May to support the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent at an estimated cost of £31bn.
“To disarm unilaterally would not make us safer,” she told the House of Commons. “In fact it would have the opposite effect, because it would remove the deterrent that for 60 years has helped to stop others from using nuclear weapons against us.”
Labour, riven by division over the issue, allowed its MPs to vote with their conscience, with Corbyn and 46 others opposing the renewal.
Worryingly, 13 current members of Starmer’s front bench team were among them, including shadow cabinet members Angela Rayner, Louise Haigh, David Lammy, Ian Murray, Jo Stevens and Lisa Nandy.
Another 10 who are now members of Starmer’s team cast no vote. (A further 140 Labour MPs defied Corbyn and backed the legislation.)
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), says there was “serious concern” during this era that Corbyn could create a defence “crisis” if he came to power.
“Corbyn’s position was very different from the long-held cross-party consensus on defence policy, which has really been in place since World War Two,” he says.
“It contributed to the perception he was unreliable on issues of national security.”
Corbyn’s position was not just a break with the mainstream but also his own party’s history.
Clement Attlee, the Labour prime minister who took over from Winston Churchill after the Second World War, is regarded as the father of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, having ensured that the country invested in its own capability.
It was also Attlee’s government that helped to found the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) in 1949.
For his part, Corbyn insisted he was not a pacifist and would “do everything necessary to protect the safety and security of our people and our country”.
But in a speech to Chatham House in 2016, he attacked what he described as the malign influence of the “military industrial complex”, adding: “‘The ‘bomb first, talk later’ approach to security has failed.
“I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary.
“But that is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have almost become routine in recent times.”
Labour’s perceived weakness on defence damaged the party ahead of the 2017 and 2019 elections, particularly among households with links to the Armed Forces.
A particular low point came when Admiral Lord West, a Labour peer ennobled by Gordon Brown, intervened in the 2019 campaign to warn voters not to trust his own party’s leader.
“When it comes to this nation’s security – its defence and the intelligence services – you don’t have to be a student of politics to realise that Corbyn’s stance is not just immature but profoundly dangerous to Britain’s safety,” he wrote in an article for the Daily Mail.
After a thumping defeat to Boris Johnson in 2019, Corbyn was replaced by Starmer.
In his first speech to Labour’s annual conference, the new party leader promised: “Never again will Labour go into an election not being trusted on national security.”
Labour’s new front
Starmer’s battle to repair Labour’s battered reputation on defence has been fought on multiple fronts, with efforts to convince not just the public but also the Armed Forces themselves and industry.
The seriousness of the mission was reflected by the appointment of John Healey as shadow defence secretary in 2020.
Healey is one of the few shadow ministers with significant government experience, having served in the administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in various junior roles from 2001 to 2010.
Starmer left Healey in no doubt of the mountain they needed to climb when he was given the defence brief, according to a source close to the shadow secretary.
“He was told that people had lost faith in us on security and that if we didn’t get it back, they were not going to listen to us on the NHS, on education, on everything else,” the source adds.
“Fundamentally, voters need to believe you will keep the country safe – that is the first duty of the Government.”
Turning the situation around has involved big interventions from Starmer but also, behind the scenes, a four-year charm offensive in defence circles by Healey and his team, including shadow defence procurement minister Maria Eagle and shadow defence minister Steve McCabe (who is stepping down at this election).
While Starmer made clear his “unshakeable” support for the Nato military alliance and Britain’s nuclear deterrent, Healey hammered home the points in a series of speeches to defence wonks and at industry events with companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock, Leonardo UK and MBDA UK.
In boardrooms, the strategy seems to have worked. One senior defence industry lobbyist says: “They really do seem to have changed. There’s been a huge amount of engagement and John Healey and his team seem to really understand the brief.”
Crucially, Labour is said to have given several big companies reassurances about the continuation of major programmes they are currently involved in, not least the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP, also known as Tempest) – which is expected to come up for final Treasury approval as early as this year – and the Aukus nuclear submarines pact with the US and Australia.
The party’s proposals to focus on “Made in Britain” defence programmes where possible has also, unsurprisingly, gone down well.
“We definitely think we can work with them,” another defence company source says.
At the annual dinner of industry lobbying group ADS earlier this year, Alastair Campbell, the former spin-doctor to Tony Blair turned podcaster, stood on stage and asked his audience how many of them thought Rishi Sunak would still be prime minister in a year’s time.
Most of the assembled defence executives sat unmoving. The handful of government ministers who were in attendance made up the majority putting up their hands.
Also in the room were eight members of Labour’s frontbench, a sign of just how seriously the party regarded the industry.
Kevin Craven, chief executive of ADS, is careful not to praise one party over another but says the return to a more mainstream position within Labour is welcome: “The ability to make sound, pragmatic, geopolitical, tough decisions around how we provide nuclear deterrence is absolutely vital for our society and our nation.
“And you know, I welcome politicians on both sides recognising the reality that it’s not a nice world right now and we need the tools to defend ourselves.”
Healey has been working closely with David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary. The pair often travel abroad together to deliver a joint message “making clear that diplomacy will be deeply integrated with security under a Labour government”, says Gaston at the Policy Exchange.
Having previously voted against renewing the UK’s nuclear deterrent in 2016, Lammy now seems to have undergone a striking conversion on the issue: An article he wrote for Foreign Affairs Magazine earlier this year heaped praise on Clement Attlee’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons and the Nato alliance.
He has championed a “pragmatic realism” approach to foreign and defence policy, which will see Britain primarily focused on European security but with growing partnerships in the Indo-Pacific – where China is rapidly bulking up its military presence.
At the same time, Labour has prioritised outreach to the Armed Forces themselves.
Under Healey, the membership group Labour Friends of the Forces has been revived and shadow ministers have pledged to renew the “moral contact” with service personnel who have put up with repeated pay freezes and crumbling accommodation buildings.
That, too, now seems to be paying off.
A Labour source says the number of party members who previously served in the Armed Forces has increased five-fold under Starmer – including at least 15 who will stand as parliamentary candidates for the party on July 4.
They include Colonel Alistair Carns, an ex-Marine standing in Birmingham Selly Oak, and Calvin Bailey CBE, a former commanding officer in the Royal Air Force standing in Leyton and Wanstead.
On concrete policy commitments, however, Healey and Starmer have been far more coy.
In speeches, Healey has promised to improve procurement. Aides point to fiascos such as the Army’s Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme, which originally aimed to produce 589 vehicles by 2017 for £3.5bn but has delivered just 44 so far at a cost of £4bn.
He also wants to put a new defence industrial strategy at the heart of the MoD’s work, forcing officials to think more about retaining important sovereign capabilities in the UK and buying more “Made in Britain” kit.
“We see our steel sector, shipyards, aerospace and materials industries as national assets – and will ensure as much of our equipment as possible is designed and built here in the UK,” an internal party document seen by The Telegraph says.
At the same time, Healey wants to improve the MoD’s relationship with the Treasury through a new joint unit that will also look at how to turbocharge economic growth through defence spending.
A party source points out the vast majority of the defence industry is outside London, so this will also pump investment into the regions.
Policy Exchange’s Gaston predicts a Starmer government could “forge a distinctly Labour approach to defence, by embracing a national security-led industrial policy, and setting up new funding models” leveraging cash from pension funds and venture capitalists.
However, whoever wins power in July will be stuck in a financial straitjacket. Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that the next government will be forced to raise taxes or slash spending to meet its fiscal targets.
Against that backdrop, the Ministry of Defence will still have to find money for existing big-ticket commitments.
The most expensive promise made by both Labour and the Conservatives is to renew Britain’s Trident nuclear arsenal, which will involve replacing both the existing submarines and eventually the warheads as well.
This alone will swallow up as much as 40pc of the defence budget over the next decade, according to RUSI’s Chalmers.
Another key commitment is the pledge to keep sending Ukraine £3bn a year “for as long as is necessary”. Other top priorities include plans to replenish UK munition stockpiles, build up the Navy’s surface fleet, develop a successor to the Typhoon fighter jet and tackle widespread recruitment problems across the three services.
“It means the competition for the rest of the defence budget is going to be a lot more intense,” Chalmers says.
Blowing the budget
After years of mending its image on defence, Labour feels confident on the topic. But the Tories believe the party is vulnerable.
Although Labour has matched a Conservative pledge to spend 2.5pc of GDP on defence, it has so far declined to commit to doing so over the same timescale, by 2030.
As a result, this is the key attack now being deployed by the Tories, who argue it will blow a major hole in the MoD’s books.
One Conservative campaign source points to a National Audit Office report from December, which forecast that the department was on course to overrun its budget from 2023 to 2033 by £16.9bn.
“After Rishi Sunak committed to 2.5pc spending, that plan is now fully funded,” the Tory source adds.
“So if Labour can’t do the same, the question that they have to answer is what capability are they going to get rid of?
“The dividing line here is whether you want our Armed Forces to be properly invested in.
“Labour can claim they have changed all they like, but if they don’t invest what is needed to keep the country safe and meet our Nato obligations then they may as well still be under Corbyn.”
Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, has gone as far as to accuse Labour of posing “a danger to this country”.
“You can’t wish your way to more defence spending,” he told Sky News last month. “The Labour position will send a signal to our adversaries that we are not serious about defence.”
Separately, he has pointed to the 47 Labour MPs who voted against Trident renewal and Starmer’s service in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet as proof that Labour cannot be trusted.
“Many of Starmer’s immediate team, the people who would form the Government and run our lives, do not support our nuclear deterrent,” he said in a video on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“How is it that just four years ago Keir Starmer was content to support Corbyn abandoning our national security, yet today he says he has changed his mind? Actions often speak louder than words.”
Labour sources argue that the Conservatives have not properly costed the 2.5pc pledge either.
When Sunak announced the uplift, he said it would be paid for by reducing the size of the civil service to pre-Brexit levels again – a position described by the IFS as a “shot in the dark”.
The Labour source adds: “We are totally committed to 2.5pc but in opposition we simply do not have access to the same information as the Government, so it would be bordering on irresponsible to make the big calls on timing now.
“The fact is that the budget shortfalls were created by the Tories and their sums on 2.5pc do not add up.
“They could have announced this spending uplift during the last Budget, when it would have been scrutinised by the Office for Budget Responsibility, but chose not to – which tells you everything.”
Healey has accused the Tories of overseeing “14 years of failure in defence that have seen our Armed Forces hollowed out and underfunded,” with the Army shrinking to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era (about 72,500 personnel).
Within some parts of the Armed Forces, however, Labour is struggling to make headway. Some are dismayed by the party’s response to a Tory proposal for a new form of national service.
Earlier this week, a senior Army source told The Telegraph: “I think Labour’s dismissive and belittling response is a mistake and unhelpful. It’s too important an issue to play politics with.” (The source made the caveat that “the Tories have also been shameless”.)
On Friday a Labour spokesman insisted Starmer “knows the first duty of any government is to keep the nation safe and protect its citizens”, adding: “Labour is proud of our deep roots in defending the country and the part we played in the creation of Nato and our nuclear deterrent.
“Our commitment to Nato is unshakeable and Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is total. We will always do what’s required and spend what’s required to keep this country safe.”
It’s the sentiment that Starmer and his team will seek to ram home in the coming weeks, as they try to reassure the country it is, in a very real sense, safe to vote Labour.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
