John Healey's resignation bombshell leaves questions to be answered on notoriously wasteful defence spending
Why commit to percentages plucked out of the air rather than talk about what is required to meet the perceived threat?
John Healey's resignation as Defence Secretary, claiming the Government’s latest plans for defence spending could make the country less safe, came as a bombshell.
This diligent minister and loyal member of the Cabinet was the last person anyone expected to quit at a time when Keir Starmer's position is under serious threat.
In his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Healey said: "You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats."
His comments come two months after former Defence Secretary and Nato Secretary General Lord George Robertson, who co-authored last year's Strategic Defence Review, accused the Government of "corrosive complacency" on defence and warned that "Britain's national security and safety is in peril".
There appears to be a political consensus that defence spending needs to increase dramatically in response to an increased threat from Russia and less reliable support from the United States.
The UK, along with other Nato members, apart from Spain, have agreed to increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2030.
But why commit to percentages plucked out of the air rather than talk about what is required to meet the perceived threat? Changes in warfare mean drones and cyber security are arguably now more important than some more traditional weapons.
And it seems irresponsible to promise large swathes of the nation’s budget for rearmaments without taking action to tackle the notorious record of wasteful spending on military procurement which sees projects running billions of pounds over budget and years behind schedule.
A £6 billion order for almost 600 new Ajax armoured vehicles, which is eight years behind schedule and has been criticised by the National Audit Office for failing to demonstrate value for money, is just the latest example.
Most government departments have important unmet spending priorities, many of which could make a real difference to people's lives.
But no other department would be given an increased share of overall spending or vast sums of money without being expected to show exactly what it was needed for and that it would be spent efficiently.