www.silverguide.site –

John Healey’s sudden resignation as defence secretary was set out in a letter to Keir Starmer. Here is what it said – but also, the unspoken meanings within the text.

‘I am proud of what we have done in less than two years as a Labour government. We’ve stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine with the coalition of the willing.’

It is traditional for ministerial resignation letters to begin with a roll call of achievements in the job but Healey’s section carried another message – a way to repeatedly stress the many and varied threats facing the UK, and thus why the defence budget must be increased significantly.

As well as Ukraine, later in the letter Healey talks about the further demands on UK forces, including with Iran and the strait of Hormuz, the Russian threat in the Arctic, and the UK commitment to help in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.

The world is an increasingly dangerous place, Starmer is being told, and now is not the time for delay or half-measures.

‘You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.’

A mere 250 words in, and we get to the crux. Starmer, Healey notes, recognised both the scale of the threat and the need for more funding, based around the defence investment plan (DIP), which had been due this week but is now delayed.

Healey then spells out what many in Westminster assumed – that the delay was due to wrangling with the Treasury, and that Rachel Reeves’s department was blocking the sorts of sums Healey wanted.

Notably more wounding is the notion that Starmer was “unable” to stop this. Healey, it should be remembered, was among four cabinet ministers who spoke to the prime minister shortly after May’s local elections, asking him to consider his future given the heavy Labour losses. Here, Healey does not sound convinced that Starmer has since got a grip on things.

‘You agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035 through the next spending review … I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support.’

We are now into the specifics. Starmer has committed to increase defence spending from its current 2.4%-ish of GDP to 3.5% by 2035. The question is how quickly.

To reach that, Healey says, the proportion must rise to 3% by 2030. This involves more than a future, post-election commitment – it means setting out specific plans, including where the money would come from, and what other spending would be cut, or taxes raised, to fund it.

All governments have a habit of putting off such tricky decisions, leaving the bulk of the fiscal work to the latter years of such a date-specific plan. But with the rapid growth in strategic threats, Healey is saying, this time it won’t work.

‘Your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.’

Here Healey spells out his dissatisfaction with a “backloaded” settlement, which would mean defence spending reaching 2.68% of GDP in 2030, barely above the 2.6% he says will be achieved next year.

Quoting Starmer’s own words to him, Healey says the UK could face a Russian attack on Nato members as early as 2030. Without an investment plan that meets the level of threat, as defence secretary he would be forced to make decisions that “could make the country less safe”.

Given that, he says, “I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your defence secretary”.

‘I wish you all continuing strength in the exceptional challenges you face as prime minister.’

This is a penultimate sentence that is both seemingly supportive but also somewhat menacing, given that the “exceptional challenges” faced by Starmer are not just from overseas threats, but domestic political enemies and sceptics, with Healey very much in the latter camp.

Is Healey’s reason for his resignation genuine? Almost certainly. He was viewed as a deeply committed defence secretary, one who took the brief with great seriousness.

But at the same time, does he believe the Starmer ship is listing heavily, and that in stepping away early on a point of principle he could be burnishing his own ambitions, whether for a senior role under someone else or even, very possibly, the top job itself?

Also yes. More than one thing can be true at the same time.