Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has unveiled plans to raise the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027, a move coming as peace negotiations over the war in Ukraine gain traction. To finance the increase, Starmer announced cuts to the UK’s international aid budget, currently set at 0.5% of gross national income, reducing it to 0.3% in the same period.

 

'Biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War' – Starmer announces 2.5 per cent of GDP for defence spending by 2027.

'Biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War' – Starmer announces 2.5 per cent of GDP for defence spending by 2027.

He also cut spending on development assistance, reducing it from 0.5 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) to 0.3 percent in… pic.twitter.com/IphZrtDIeS

— Viory Video (@vioryvideo) February 25, 2025

 

The decision has sparked a mix of reactions. While opposition parties welcomed the bolstering of defence expenditure, charities condemned the aid cuts as "a betrayal." The announcement precedes a critical meeting between Sir Keir and US President Donald Trump at the White House, where global defence commitments and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine are expected to dominate discussions.

 

President Trump has repeatedly urged European nations to allocate more resources to defence, a call echoed by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who described the UK’s move as "a strong step from an enduring partner." Starmer detailed the financial implications of the plan, stating in the Commons that it would result in an additional £13.4bn being spent annually on defence from 2027.

 

In 2023, the UK’s defence budget stood at £53.9bn. The prime minister further revealed that with contributions from intelligence services included, overall defence spending would amount to 2.6% of GDP by 2027. He also urged European allies to enhance their commitments and outlined an ambition to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP beyond the next general election.

 

During a news conference, Starmer justified the acceleration of his election pledge, citing "the grave threats that we face" and emphasizing the nation’s entry into "a dangerous new era." When asked whether Trump’s influence had expedited his decision, Starmer maintained that "it was very much my decision, based on my assessment of the circumstances that we face as a country," though he admitted "the last few weeks have accelerated my thinking."

 

"I think in our heart of hearts we've all known that this decision has been coming for three years, since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine," he added.

 

Despite Labour’s election manifesto promising to restore development spending to 0.6% of gross national income "as soon as fiscal circumstances allow," the reduction has drawn criticism. Save the Children decried the cuts, stating they represent "a betrayal of the world's most vulnerable children and the UK's national interest."

 

"There is nothing respectful about slashing lifelines for families in the most dangerous places," said the charity’s chief executive, Moazzam Malik.

Labour MP Sarah Champion, chair of the Commons International Development Committee, urged the government to reconsider. "Cutting the aid budget to fund defence spending is a false economy that will only make the world less safe," she asserted.

 

Defending his decision, Starmer acknowledged, "It is not a decision I wanted to make," but argued that "there is no driver of migration and poverty like conflict." The increased defence expenditure aims to support the UK’s armed forces, which have experienced significant cutbacks since the Cold War. However, experts note that it will not entirely reverse the decline in military capability.

 

According to the National Audit Office, the Ministry of Defence faces a £17bn shortfall in its equipment budget over the next decade. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, indicated that much of the additional funding will go towards addressing these gaps and replenishing depleted munitions. He also suggested that reaching 3% of GDP by the mid-2030s "could lead to a transformation in how our military fights," enabling long-term planning and fostering innovation.

 

Dr. Simon Anglim, a fellow at the Department of War Studies at King's College London, emphasized the necessity of reaching at least 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, stating that anything less is "the barest minimum" required to deter Russia. He warned that if the US were to reduce its military support, "we may have to start talking about more than that."

 

Press Questions: Eight months later Starmer does exactly what Farage had suggested; Increasing defence spending to 2.5% and paying for it with £6billion from overseas aid. Do wake up at No.10.

Eight months later Starmer does exactly what Farage had suggested; Increasing defence spending to 2.5% and paying for it with £6billion from overseas aid. Do wake up at No.10. pic.twitter.com/ItBd6yp8Wk

— Kelvin MacKenzie (@kelvmackenzie) February 25, 2025

 

Previously, Starmer had indicated that the government would map out a pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by the next general election, contingent on a review of national security needs. However, rapid diplomatic developments—driven in part by Trump’s push to end the Ukraine war—have brought a sense of urgency to the decision-making process.

 

It remains uncertain whether this increase will satisfy Trump, who has been vocal in demanding that European NATO allies contribute closer to 5% of their GDP to defence. NATO guidelines currently call for a minimum of 2%, though the alliance’s newly appointed leader, Mark Rutte, recently suggested that members should aim for "north of 3%."

 

Based on a report by BBC | X  2025-02-26

 

 

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has unveiled plans to raise the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027, a move coming as peace negotiations over the war in Ukraine gain traction. To finance the increase, Starmer announced cuts to the UK’s international aid budget, currently set at 0.5% of gross national income, reducing it to 0.3% in the same period.

First sensible thing he's done since elected, though better if it was 5% for the military and 0.1% for "overseas aid".

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

First sensible thing he's done since elected, though better if it was 5% for the military and 0.1% for "overseas aid".

 

He's probably getting worried about the anger of the British people.

 

A stronger military might come in handy. 

 

The police are too busy investigating wrongthink.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14424959/Knock-knock-Thought-Police-thousands-criminals-uninvestigated-detectives-call-grandmother-crime-went-Facebook-criticise-Labour-councillors-centre-Hope-Die-WhatsApp-scandal-exposed-MoS.html

 

 

 

To the NGOs who are complaining: tell the government exactly what they should have cut instead then sit back and watch the fireworks  

He just got new 'interests' in the defence manufacturing sector

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

To the NGOs who are complaining: tell the government exactly what they should have cut instead then sit back and watch the fireworks  

Exactly. Also, if their programmes are so vital, surely it would be easy to raise funds from the public through charitable donations rather than relying on the government...

 

Amazing to see "The Trump Effect" working even on a squish like Starmer. The dread prospect of not relying on Uncle Sugar to keep him safe has motivated him nicely.

Cuts Overseas Aid

Does that mean our pensions won't get the index linked increase again?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

First sensible thing he's done since elected, though better if it was 5% for the military and 0.1% for "overseas aid".

Police force should go up by 1%

Army up by 0.5%

Aid cut to zero

 

This must have been painful for the globalist other peoples money spendthrift that he is.   Not going to look so virtuous in the next WEF meeting now is he?

 

Quite astonishing the affect that Trump and Reform are having on him, but then that just goes to show how weak a leader he is.  Zero principles.  The leftists will no doubt have a meltdown if overseas aid funded "diversity and inclusion training" in the Congo is cancelled so that is yet another group that will be experiencing voter regret right now.  

25 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Amazing to see "The Trump Effect" working even on a squish like Starmer. The dread prospect of not relying on Uncle Sugar to keep him safe has motivated him nicely.

The Great Disruptor - horrible though he is - having a positive effect on the Europeans, all of them slowly getting up off their large flabby backsides.

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

UK spending has been increasing over the years. 2020 spending was 3.12% increase from 2019, 2021 was a 15.72% increase from 2020 and 2022 was a 1.43% increase from 2021. Foreign aid have also been decreasing since 2020. Not as a result of bully Trump. 

Really? Who was President from 2017-2020 then? The budget for 2020 was settled in 2019, when Trump was President. The 2021 budget was decided in 2020, when Trump was President.  So we could see this as The Trump Effect 1.0 then. 

Looks like they'll be no more gender affirming surgery for the dancing boys of Afghanistan.

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

Press Questions: Eight months later Starmer does exactly what Farage had suggested; Increasing defence spending to 2.5% and paying for it with £6billion from overseas aid. Do wake up at No.10.

Hilarious, "are you Nigel Farage in disguise"

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Really? Who was President from 2017-2020 then? The budget for 2020 was settled in 2019, when Trump was President. The 2021 budget was decided in 2020, when Trump was President.  So we could see this as The Trump Effect 1.0 then. 

There were increases in 2023 and 2024 over previous years. Trump effect over rated. 

1 hour ago, bignbad said:

He just got new 'interests' in the defence manufacturing sector

Probably got shares in Bae Systems.

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

There were increases in 2023 and 2024 over previous years. Trump effect over rated. 

Since 2014......................

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrkkv4gd7o

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Since 2014......................

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrkkv4gd7o

Yes, but from 2012-16 it was flat, even lower. As it went much lower from 2008-2012. And who was President in those years....

 

Then in 2017 it started to creep back up...

I will have frozen enough pensioners to death by 2027 to raise it to 3% he will be thinking 🤔

 

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, but from 2012-16 it was flat, even lower. As it went much lower from 2008-2012. And who was President in those years....

 

Then in 2017 it started to creep back up...

Sure, I was just outlining to Eric Loh that UK spending has always been short of NATO requirements and only now has there been a firm commitment to increase due to the current situation and the US no longer providing for them like parents giving out pocket money

Wow, Nuclear armed/space programed Pakistan might have to start looking after its own people.

 

Just shows how much a failure UK aid to Pakistan is, with so many Pakistanis in the UK already and boatloads turning up by the day.

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, but from 2012-16 it was flat, even lower. As it went much lower from 2008-2012. And who was President in those years....

 

Then in 2017 it started to creep back up...

Creep up even more from 2021-2024. I don’t call that Biden Effect. 

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Creep up even more from 2021-2024. I don’t call that Biden Effect. 

Good, because it wasn't. Big scale budget items like defense spending are projected forward. So the defense budget this year was projected from 2-3 years ago.  Starmer is doing the same now, projecting forward, not for this year.

 

You can see the precipitous decline in military spending when Obama was President, but a reversal when Trump took office.

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Creep up even more from 2021-2024. I don’t call that Biden Effect. 

The Obama/Biden effect is Russia invading Ukraine. 

24 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

The Obama/Biden effect is Russia invading Ukraine. 

Not how Trump sees it. 

 

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

He's probably getting worried about the anger of the British people.

 

A stronger military might come in handy. 

 

The police are too busy investigating wrongthink.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14424959/Knock-knock-Thought-Police-thousands-criminals-uninvestigated-detectives-call-grandmother-crime-went-Facebook-criticise-Labour-councillors-centre-Hope-Die-WhatsApp-scandal-exposed-MoS.html

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, James105 said:

This must have been painful for the globalist other peoples money spendthrift that he is.   Not going to look so virtuous in the next WEF meeting now is he?

 

Quite astonishing the affect that Trump and Reform are having on him, but then that just goes to show how weak a leader he is.  Zero principles.  The leftists will no doubt have a meltdown if overseas aid funded "diversity and inclusion training" in the Congo is cancelled so that is yet another group that will be experiencing voter regret right now.  

 

Some people's bias apparently know no bounds.

 

Starmer could announce that he has found a cure for all cancers. Rather than see the good in that, you would both probably criticise him for not curing Alzheimers at the same time.

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Some people's bias apparently know no bounds.

 

Starmer could announce that he has found a cure for all cancers. Rather than see the good in that, you would both probably criticise him for not curing Alzheimers at the same time.

 

Your bias is showing through.   Starmer didn't want to do this as he is a weak, sniveling globalist who loves nothing more than giving taxpayers money away to corrupt foreign regimes as it makes him feel virtuous around the dinner tables at WEF and Islington.  

 

You will note that cutting overseas aid was not even a consideration as an alternative to removing the winter fuel payment for pensioners which would have caused almost no controversy and would have been applauded, even by me.   But it wasn't.  Ask yourself why that is.  What is the difference today when money needs to be found to spend on something that he doesn't really want to spend it on vs when Labour formed the government?   Answer: Trump and/or Reform polling high.   What do Trump and Reform want to do?  Cut overseas aid.

 

So yes, he does incur my criticism as he is so obviously weak and out of his depth.  It's probably good for the UK though as Trump and Reform have now seen how easily he blows in the wind and will be able to continue to force him into other positions which go against his natural instincts to make the UK poorer so will be better for the UK.  As an additional side benefit the left will hate him for taking right wing positions and nobody on the right will ever vote for such a moron anyway which should see the absolute decimation of Labour at the next election.  

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Your bias is showing through.   Starmer didn't want to do this as he is a weak, sniveling globalist who loves nothing more than giving taxpayers money away to corrupt foreign regimes as it makes him feel virtuous around the dinner tables at WEF and Islington.  

 

You will note that cutting overseas aid was not even a consideration as an alternative to removing the winter fuel payment for pensioners which would have caused almost no controversy and would have been applauded, even by me.   But it wasn't.  Ask yourself why that is.  What is the difference today when money needs to be found to spend on something that he doesn't really want to spend it on vs when Labour formed the government?   Answer: Trump and/or Reform polling high.   What do Trump and Reform want to do?  Cut overseas aid.

 

So yes, he does incur my criticism as he is so obviously weak and out of his depth.  It's probably good for the UK though as Trump and Reform have now seen how easily he blows in the wind and will be able to continue to force him into other positions which go against his natural instincts to make the UK poorer so will be better for the UK.  As an additional side benefit the left will hate him for taking right wing positions and nobody on the right will ever vote for such a moron anyway which should see the absolute decimation of Labour at the next election.  

 

I have my bias - we all do - but I don't see how you could deduce that from my previous post? It's also ironic that having accused me of bias, you prove my point regarding your own anti-Labour/ anti Starmer bias by openly displaying it so plainly in the very next sentence!

 

You clearly object to UK Overseas Aid: Given that, surely the only valid criticism which you could make of Starmer's announcement would be that the cuts don't go far enough?

 

Of course Starmer didn't want to do this  and I agree, his hand has been forced by Trump (Reform are irrelevant in this regard). The situation has changed and Starmer has adjusted his stance. To misquote Keynes and do so out of context, "If the facts change then I may change my position". Or as the blessed Nigel said very recently, "I'm allowed to change my mind". What is so wrong with that? 

 

I don't understand what is the relevance of the removal of the winter fuel allowance to this discussion? Labour (Starmer) made a policy decision to get rid of it. You think that it was the wrong decision. Fine.

 

It's valid to criticise Starmer's character/ attributes as being unsuitable for the role of PM, however, the idea that any UK PM - whatever their political persuasion - would possess "natural instincts to make the UK poorer" is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response.

 

As for the next election. 4.5 years is a long time in politics in normal circumstances. Given the pace with which events are moving, imo it would be foolish to predict what will happen next month let alone in 2029.

Economist Richard Murphy has some smart ideas on how to pay for defense spending.

 

Non involve cutting any spending.

 

 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

It's valid to criticise Starmer's character/ attributes as being unsuitable for the role of PM, however, the idea that any UK PM - whatever their political persuasion - would possess "natural instincts to make the UK poorer" is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response.

 

Every single decision made so far (apart from this one which he was forced into) has made the UK weaker or poorer.  From net zero insanity through to burdening businesses with ever higher taxes, to providing ever more incentives for the cultural enrichers to illegally enter the country, to demanding Apple provide a back door which forced them to lower security for the UK.  The list goes on and on.  

 

So yes, his natural inclination is to make the UK weaker and/or poorer.   This is either through stupidity or something more sinister.  The first reasonable action he has taken to cut overseas aid he would never have considered if not for Trump or the threat closer to home from Reform. 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Economist Richard Murphy has some smart ideas on how to pay for defense spending.

 

Non involve cutting any spending.

 

 

Well list them then