www.silverguide.site –

Andy Burnham will have to find an extra £4.7bn for defence in his first budget, after Keir Starmer announced a £298bn defence investment plan (Dip) without having fully identified how it will be funded.

Sources close to the Makerfield MP said he would not try to renegotiate the Dip after the outgoing prime minister announced its details at a press conference on Tuesday.

Those close to the likely next prime minister acknowledged he would have to find nearly £5bn more than expected to fund the plans over the next four years, which one Burnham ally likened to an “unexploded bomb”. The Guardian understands the Makerfield MP was not told about the funding gap when he was briefed on the plan.

A defence insider said it was “madness after all that wrangling to have left a £4.7bn black hole for someone else to fix”, while the Conservatives described the plan as a “delayed-action poison pill” for Burnham.

Starmer said on Tuesday the long-delayed Dip would make Britain safer by “driving a generational transformation of our armed forces”.

Overall defence spending will rise marginally from 2.6% of GDP in 2027 to 2.7%, or nearly £80bn, by 2030. Starmer said that would put the UK “on a trajectory” to hit 3% in the next parliament, although it remains well below a Nato target of 3.5% by 2035.

It counts as a £1.5bn improvement obtained by the new defence secretary, Dan Jarvis, who is fighting to keep his job after Starmer leaves, compared with the £13.5bn offered to John Healey, who resigned in protest at the money he had been offered.

Starmer told a press conference at a drone manufacturer in Berkshire: “It focuses our resources squarely on the readiness of our armed forces, reversing the cuts of recent years, prioritising the availability of our forces and assets, rebuilding ammunition stockpiles, ensuring we are ready to fight and defend our nation and better prepared to win.”

The plan, which was due to be published nearly a year ago, puts drones, fighter jets and nuclear weapons at the heart of the country’s military capability.

The overall package will cost £298bn over the next four years, £15bn of which was newly announced on Tuesday. It includes:

• £47bn on new nuclear submarines, including the Dreadnought replacement for the Trident submarines and the new Aukus attack submarine project, being developed with Australia and the US.

• £13bn on a new nuclear warhead and £1.7bn on nuclear fuels. Another promise to pay £1bn for 12 Lockheed Martin F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear bombs will come after 2030.

• £8.6bn on the development of the Gcap next-generation fighter aircraft in a joint project with Italy and Japan, plus an extra £1.1bn to keep existing Typhoons in service until the 2040s.

• A total of £5bn more on drones, £1bn more than announced in last year’s strategic spending review, with investments in air, land, sea and underwater drones to operating alongside soldiers, warships and fighter jets.

It would be partly funded by £10.7bn of efficiency savings within the MoD, including cutting civil servants by 10% and spending on consultants by £1bn. A few military capabilities would be retired early, including 34 Wildcat helicopters used by the army, while the development of Storm Shadow missiles would be halted.

Of the additional £15bn, £4bn will come from cutting capital budgets across Whitehall by 1%, £1.1bn will come from selling government assets and £2.8bn will come from extra cuts to road and energy projects.

The cuts have prompted resistance from some within government. The Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer protested about the potential cancellation of a plan to widen the Newark bypass near his Lincoln constituency.

The prime minister said on Tuesday: “Some capital projects, for example, on roads and energy, which are important but not immediately vital, will no longer go ahead as planned.

“But this is about taking the necessary choices, the right choices to protect our nation.”

The energy department said it had not yet identified which projects would be squeezed to pay for £2bn in savings from its budget.

Nearly a third of the plan, however, remains unfunded, the Treasury saying £4.7bn would have to be allocated at the next budget, and £1.8bn of it in the next financial year.

A Treasury source said it was normal for a chancellor to make a spending announcement with some of the money left to be found at the next fiscal event, as happened when Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said she would scale back cuts to the winter fuel allowance.

They said that Burnham and his chancellor could borrow more to fund the gap given the government had nearly £24bn of “headroom” against its fiscal rules at the spring statement earlier this year.

Doing so, however, would risk driving up the cost of government borrowing, with some in the market already worried about the economic consequences of a Burnham government.

Some of those close to Burnham believe the prime minister’s allies deliberately omitted details of the missing £4.7bn when they briefed him.

Starmer said on Tuesday he expected his successor to back his plan and to find more money for defence at the next spending review – though warned against issuing new “defence bonds” to do so, as some of the prime minister’s own allies have urged.

“Defence bonds are just borrowing by another name,” he said. “We’ve looked at this very carefully, but the fact is doing this through borrowing will push interest rates higher at a time when £1 in every £10 already goes on paying their interest.”

But while the planned cuts and prospect of additional borrowing have caused unrest from some MPs, others said the spending commitments did not go far enough.

John Healey, who quit as defence secretary in protest at the plan, said on Tuesday: “Britain will still be spending just 2.7% of GDP in 2030, the date when Nato has warned we could face a Russian attack.”

He added that he believed a clear target date to hit 3% was necessary.

Tan Dhesi, the Labour chair of the Commons defence committee, said: “Good we now have a funded and scalable defence investment plan backed by Treasury.

“But it’s lacking in detail and doesn’t outline operational risks for areas being cut.”