Right-Wing Media Watch: the right in meltdown over Starmer’s defence spending pledge

The right-wing press has never been known for understatement, but the Daily Express outdid itself with one of those irresistible “look twice” headlines this week:

‘Keir Starmer just let slip a spine-chilling secret – he’s invited Putin to attack us NOW.’

Naturally intrigued, readers who clicked through discovered that the supposed “secret” was Starmer’s long-delayed Defence Investment Plan, which commits an additional £15 billion to military spending. Under the plans, defence expenditure is set to rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029, while £64 billion will be spent on Britain’s nuclear weapons programme over the next four years.

Far from criticising Starmer for spending too much on defence, the Express argued he wasn’t spending nearly enough.

Writing in what was effectively an opinion piece, the newspaper’s personal finance editor Harvey Jones suggested Starmer had never been fit to lead the country, sarcastically referring to his previous career as a human rights lawyer representing people trying to “fiddle the asylum system.” Jones argued that the new investment still left Britain’s armed forces dangerously under-equipped.

“Under the Defence Investment Plan, troops just aren’t getting the weapons they need to defend the UK and take the fight to our enemies. The £15billion of funding falls embarrassingly short of what’s required. Their families aren’t being supported either,” he wrote.

Then came the ubiquitous swipe at asylum seekers.

 “Urgent repairs to military housing, worth £9billion, are being delayed, leaving our heroes’ partners and children living in unhealthy, mouldy homes while Britain hands shiny new builds to asylum seekers.”

Jones also complained that Britain’s proposed “Israeli-style Iron Dome system” would have a headquarters but “no actual interceptor missiles.”

But the real crescendo came when he claimed Starmer had revealed a supposedly catastrophic weakness.

“Starmer just let slip a spine-chilling secret – our nation is defenceless. Basically, he’s invited Putin to attack us. NOW. Before we are ready. Which is usually the best time.”

It’s difficult to take such a comment seriously. The suggestion that Vladimir Putin is poised to launch an imminent attack on the UK bears little resemblance to the assessments of defence analysts. As Justin Crump of intelligence consultancy Sibylline told the BBC: “A pure UK-Russia conflict is not likely and can be disregarded, practically.”

The Express also glossed over one awkward question, how such an enormous expansion in defence spending would actually be funded. While demanding ever greater military investment, the paper offered no explanation of where the additional money should come from, a challenge that will confront any future government. If Andy Burnham succeeds Starmer as prime minister, he will face the challenge in his first budget of finding billions of pounds to finance the increases in defence spending.

Missing too was any serious engagement with critics of the government’s militarisation agenda.

Chris Nineham of the Stop the War Coalition described the announcement as “a telling and desperate bid to leave a legacy,” arguing that Starmer had prioritised unveiling the Defence Investment Plan before leaving office and ahead of the NATO summit.

“Never mind the cost-of-living crisis or the collapsing0 services he leaves behind, Starmer wants to be remembered as the man who ramped up spending on weapons to record levels,” said Nineham.

Sophie Bolt, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, similarly warned that escalating military spending and expanding Britain’s nuclear arsenal risked bringing the world closer to nuclear confrontation rather than making it safer. She argued that genuine security requires tackling the underlying causes of conflict instead of preparing for ever larger wars.

Even the Guardian, not normally unsympathetic to defence spending, questioned the current rush to spend more, with veteran journalist, Simon Jenkins beginning his column by writing ‘Britain should spend less on defence. It is a waste of money’.

Predictably though, the Daily Mail struck much the same note as the Express. “Starmer’s defence plan is woefully inadequate and the price we could all pay is unthinkable,” declared former chief of the general staff general Lord Dannatt.

Nor is Dannatt reassured by the prospect of an Andy Burnham premiership. Writing after Burnham’s leadership “coronation” speech in Manchester, he complained that the incoming Labour leader barely mentioned defence, making only the briefest reference to national security.

The headlines scream that Britain is “defenceless” and that Starmer has “invited” Putin to attack. The reality is rather less dramatic. Missing from the outrage is any serious discussion of how ever-rising defence budgets would be paid for, what they would mean for other public services, or whether more military spending automatically makes Britain safer.