‘Bizarre’ lack of urgency in putting UK on war footing, says defence review co-author

Lead

A co-author of Britain's strategic defence review has publicly criticised the government's approach to military preparedness, accusing it of a "corrosive complacency" and a "bizarre" lack of urgency. Lord George Robertson, a former defence secretary and Nato secretary general, is expected to elaborate on his concerns in a speech on Tuesday evening, warning that "we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget."

His remarks, reported by multiple outlets including The Guardian and the Financial Times, come amid growing frustration over the government's failure to publish a long-awaited 10-year defence investment plan.

Coverage Comparison

The story has been covered primarily by The Guardian, with additional reporting from Russia's state news agency TASS and the Financial Times. The Guardian's reporting centres on Robertson's and his review co-author Fiona Hill's criticism of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's leadership on defence policy. TASS, meanwhile, focused on Robertson's call to prioritise defence spending over welfare, framing it as a straightforward policy recommendation.

While the outlets agree on the core facts — Robertson's criticism, the delayed investment plan, and the defence budget figures — differences emerge in emphasis. The Guardian's coverage highlights the political reaction, including a rebuttal from Labour MP Diane Abbott, who accused Robertson of putting "guns before butter." TASS, by contrast, sticks largely to Robertson's own statements without reporting those responses.

Key Claims

• 'Corrosive complacency': Lord Robertson, writing as an author of the strategic defence review, called the government's attitude "corrosive complacency," accusing the prime minister of being unwilling to make necessary defence investments. This criticism was reported by multiple sources, including The Guardian.

• Lack of urgency: Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia and co-author of the review, described the government's approach as "bizarre." Speaking to The Guardian, she said: "What George is saying, very bluntly, is there is basically a lack of resolute leadership on this. Because everybody's worried about votes and reactions."

• Defence versus welfare: Robertson, in comments reported by TASS from a parliamentary committee meeting, argued that "there would be no butter if there are no guns." He said the UK's welfare budget is five times larger than defence spending, and questioned if this was the right priority.

• A 10-year plan delayed: The government has yet to publish its defence investment plan (DIP), despite initially planning to release it last autumn. According to The Guardian, the DIP has been repeatedly delayed, with the prime minister saying it would come out "when it's ready."

• Budget figures: The Guardian and TASS report that Britain's defence budget for 2024-25 stands at approximately £60.2 billion, with plans to increase it to £73.5 billion by 2028-29.

• Ministry of Defence failures: Beyond government inaction, the MoD has faced scrutiny from the National Audit Office and the Commons public accounts committee over accounting procedures and procurement contracts. The Guardian's editorialised commentary tagged in a broader context the lack of service readiness in that branch.

Perspectives

Government's view: Neither the prime minister nor the defence ministry have directly responded to Robertson and Hill's latest criticisms. The government has previously stated it is committed to raising the defence budget to 3% of GDP by 2029-30 and has described such spending increases as essential. The delay of the investment plan has been attributed to the government having yet to finalise other spending decisions.

Criticism from the left: Labour MP Diane Abbott has pushed back against Robertson's implying that welfare cuts may fund defence. "We have already slashed foreign aid, and to cut welfare to spend on armaments is appalling," she told The Guardian. "People are going to start to wonder why they are voting Labour in the first place."

Academics and former military officials: While the reviewed co-authors are highly critical, a broader group of former senior military figures has more muted responses. Some have expressed support for increased defence spending but have also called for reforms of the Ministry of Defence and tackle inefficiencies first. The Guardian's editorial context suggests that defence mandarins and top brass have their own vested interests that hamper reform.

Background

The strategic defence review, published last summer, was co-authored by Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill, and General Sir Richard Barrons. It outlined major threats and recommendations for improving the armed forces' readiness. Robertson has been increasingly vocal over recent weeks, already stating that the UK leadership is "not paying enough attention to defence issues."

The inability to easily come with a 10-year plan has frustrated critics because it was one of the key promises from the review. The government has committed to raising defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the next parliament and to 5% for national security overall by 2035. Yet, the detail of how this will be achieved remains unresolved.

The delay of the defence investment plan also comes amid real-and-serious security challenges, including the ongoing war in Ukraine and heightened tensions in the Middle East. Critics argue that the armed forces are poorly equipped to face these threats, with recent examples of only one naval destroyer being available for a major deployment off the United Kingdom.