Sir Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch, leaders of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party respectively, engaged in a heated exchange during Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) over the government's defense spending plans, stirring considerable political discourse.
During the session, Starmer accused Badenoch of embarking on "a desperate search for relevance" after she challenged him on conflicting figures related to defense funding. The exchange highlighted apparent discrepancies between what Starmer claimed and statements made by Defence Secretary John Healey.
Starmer had asserted earlier this week his intention to increase the defense budget by £13.4 billion annually starting from 2027. This assertion began to falter during discussions when Healey clarified on television the actual increase, stating it would approximate only £6 billion once inflation was considered.
Badenoch did not hold back during her questioning, pressing Starmer: "I suggested to the prime minister he cut the aid budget... it’s the fastest response I’ve ever had from the prime minister. He announced £13.4 billion of additional defense spending yesterday, yet this morning, the defense secretary said the uplift is only £6 billion. Which is the correct figure?"
Sir Keir’s rebuttal was sharp as he dismissed Badenoch’s query, asserting her lack of influence over his decisions and stressing, "I was so busy over the weekend I didn’t even see her proposal." He continued to defend himself against her assertions, emphasizing the size of the proposed budget increase as the largest percentage jump since the Cold War.
The discussion intensified as Badenoch reiterated her concerns over the conflicting accounts. She stated, "How could the defense secretary say £6 billion and he says £13.4 billion? The Institute for Fiscal Studies said today the government is playing silly games with numbers. How does he find this difference in numbers?"
Starmer maintained his stance, reaffirming, "If you take the financial year this year and then you take the financial year for 2027/28, the difference between the two is £13.4 billion. That’s the same answer. Ask again, and I’ll give the same answer again.” This repeated insistence, it seems, reflected not only his confidence but also perhaps frustration with the questioning itself.
Badenoch was quick to counter, pointing out, "Someone needs to tell the prime minister being patronising is not a substitute for answering questions," which stirred murmurs within the Commons.
Regarding his plans for defense spending, Starmer is preparing to visit Washington, D.C. to meet with President Trump. She is hopeful this will bolster support for Europe and Ukraine as the situation continues to evolve with Russia’s involvement. Starmer emphasized during PMQs, "We certainly stand with Ukraine... Nato is the bedrock of our security and it is our most important alliance for many years and as important now as it’s ever been."
Meanwhile, Badenoch attempted to align herself with Starmer's support for Ukraine, declaring, "Both parties are united in our support for Ukraine," but the unity was quickly overshadowed by their contrasting approaches to defense discussions.
Starmer also faced heated scrutiny when questioned about the impact of the Chagos Islands deal on defense spending, imitating political tactics to navigate the controversy surrounding it. He repeatedly sidestepped demands to clarify how much the Chagos Islands deal would cost and whether it would divert funds from the defense budget increase. This lack of clarity appeared to provide ammunition for their opponents.
The clash is emblematic of the broader uncertainty and complexity surrounding UK defense spending and national security policy, particularly as every parliamentary session seems to raise new concerns over the country’s strategic direction. Both leaders are aware of the growing scrutiny on their respective parties as they navigate defense-related pressures with political stakes increasingly tied to global security matters.
Starmer's declaration, "National security must now become a whole-society effort," reflects a sentiment appearing increasingly necessary as discussions about defense spending intensify—not only within the corridors of Westminster but amid rising global tensions.