Starmer's directionless national security strategy fools no one
Yesterday saw the publication of the UK's national security strategy (NSS) 2025, Security for the British people in a dangerous world. It had been announced in February and promised before this week's Nato summit (in fact, it was released on the summit's first day). The Prime Minister argued it would pull together a number of extant reviews: the Strategic Defence Review, the AUKUS review, the Defence Industrial Strategy, the China audit, the FCDO's three internal reviews and the strategy for countering state threats, among others.
The danger is that if everything is 'national security', then nothing is
It was obvious at the time that this sequencing was nonsensical. The UK's first national security strategy, Security in an interdependent world, was a product of Gordon Brown's government, issued in 2008, and it was genuinely innovative. It was meant to conceptualise 'national security' in a new and broad way, taking in not just traditional elements like military operations, diplomacy, intelligence and counter-terrorism, but 'threats to individual citizens and to our way of life, as well as to the integrity and interests of the state'.
Brown billed it as 'a single, overarching strategy bringing together the objectives and plans of all departments, agencies and forces involved in protecting our national security' From it flowed a number of discrete tasks and policies. The approach was not complicated: determine the big picture, then decide how to support it in practical terms.
Starmer's national security strategy has done almost the opposite (though that ascribes to it too much coherence). We have seen the Strategic Defence Review setting out the future shape and tasks of the armed forces, three internal FCDO reviews have reported to the Foreign Secretary (but not released) and as much of the China audit as we will see is in the National Security Strategy.
Meanwhile the Defence Industrial Strategy is a work in progress, and the AUKUS review risks being made irrelevant by the Trump administration's own re-examination. So it is neither top-down, nor bottom-up, but rather lacking any direction at all. I wouldn't have started from here.
One important element of the NSS is an announcement on expenditure. The Nato summit is expected to agree a spending target of 5 per cent of GDP, made up of 3.5 per cent on core defence capabilities and 1.5 per cent on 'resilience and security'. The NSS contains an 'historic commitment to spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security', which is encouraging, but the detail is teeming with devils.
First, the date by which the UK is expected to meet this level of spending is 2035. That is at least two general elections away; Vladimir Putin will turn 83 and Donald Trump will be 89, if either is spared. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy's Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines will be coming out of service. It is a long time away, and it remains a target without any practical steps to reach it.
The NSS also widens the scope of 'national security' further than ever before. Including energy policy may seem defensible, but attaching the label to 'green growth', 'inequality' or 'stripping out red tape' starts to stretch credibility. The interdepartmental nature of the 'national security' umbrella is vital – but the danger is that if everything is 'national security', then nothing is.
This matters because if the government simply moves spending from one column on its mother of all spreadsheets to another, it does not acquire a new capability. Equally, there is no deterrent effect on Russia or China, or 'Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm' – as Elizabeth I once so neatly put it. If the Prime Minister designates Border Security Command as a 'national security' asset, that is £150 million he had already earmarked, not new investment.
The 2008 national security strategy was a serious and systematic attempt, supervised and delivered by Robert Hannigan and Patrick Turner, to design an overarching framework for the defence of the UK and its interests, then develop policies to support that framework. Its 2025 successor does not –by its nature and timing cannot – achieve that same goal.
The national security strategy is not all bad; it comes in large part from the pen of the formidable Professor John Bew, who spent five years in Downing Street as foreign policy adviser to four successive prime ministers. But he has been asked to change the tyres on a moving car, creating a strategy around half a dozen other reviews in various stages of progress. There must be very serious concerns now that it is little more than a centripetal instrument for pulling in enough government expenditure nominally to meet our Nato obligations. Our allies are unlikely to be fooled, and our enemies will certainly not be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Ukraine stages major strikes as Trump moves nuclear submarines 'closer to Russia'
Ukraine launched several huge strikes on Vladimir Putin's key war sites - this comes after Donald Trump ordered UK nuclear subs to move closer to Russia Evil Vladimir Putin suffered a huge blow after Ukraine launched dramatic strikes on the dictator's oil refineries, defence plants, a military airfield, and radar facilities. These huge hits came after Donald Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to move closer to Russia after "provocative" threats of war with the US came from Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev. In a dramatic dawn strike, a huge fireball explosion hit military-linked Novokuybyshevsk oil refinery in Samara region with mushroom-shaped flames rising into the sky. The plant supplies aviation fuel for Russian combat aircraft which have been used to strike civilians in Ukraine. It comes after NATO scrambled warplanes as Russia shoots down West's F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine onslaught. Another key oil refinery in Ryazan - crucial for supplies to capital city Moscow - was also in flames. Fires were reported to have been raging close to a military airfield at Primorsko-Akhtarsk, in Krasnodar region, used for Putin drone strikes on Ukraine. A 'major hit' was reported on a Russian air defence radar company near Feodosia in Putin-occupied Crimea - military unit 66571. There were giant 'balls' covering radio-technical stations - one the size of a nine storey building. Fires were recorded at the facility in the Tepe-Oba mountain range. One woman died in drone strikes on the Electropribor plant in Penza city, making special-purpose telecommunication and cryptographic equipment for Putin's war machine. Eight giant explosions were heard over the city followed by flames at the plant which was struck by long range Ukrainian drones. A defence-related radar plant in the city was also hit for the second time in three days, according to reports. Ukraine also hit targets in Rostov region leading to one death, according to reports. The Ukrainian strikes on military-linked targets were in stark contrast to Putin's assault on Kyiv on Thursday - one of the worst of the war. A total of 31 people were killed including five children after Russia slammed a £2 million Iskander missile into a residential tower block in Kyiv. Yet more strikes at civilian homes came overnight with a strike on Balakliia, in Kharkiv region, hitting residential buildings. Russia also struck a hotel in Sloviansk, Donetsk region, nearby high-rise buildings and a dormitory. One injury was reported. Three people were injured by Russian shelling in Dnipropetrovsk region as civilian infrastructure facilities were destroyed and damaged. Trump said Putin was a 'tough cookie' as he hit out at the Russian dictator's failure to engage in a peace process, and to go on killing. He vowed to impose tough sanctions on Russia and countries purchasing oil from Moscow if there are no moves to a ceasefire before 8 August, but said there would be meetings before this. 'We'll see what happens. We're going to have some meetings,' he said. On Friday, Trump sent two nuclear submarines 'closer to Russia' in response to 'highly provocative' statements from ex-president Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Kremlin's security council. "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump said on Truth Social. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Medvedev had accused Trump of bringing war closer between Russia and the US. 'Every new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country,' said Medvedev.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Ex-Labour whip admits ‘sleepless nights' over welfare cuts resignation
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to listen more closely to his MPs, who she says reflect the worries of their constituents. Ms Foxcroft resigned as a government whip in June over concerns about proposed welfare cuts, specifically to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for disabled people. She said she could not support or whip for the proposals, which were later abandoned after a significant rebellion within the party. Ms Foxcroft described her decision to resign as difficult, causing "sleepless nights", and occurring during a challenging personal period that included the death of her father. Sir Keir's support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published in July.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Wes Streeting said to be eyeing up No 10 – but how will doctors' strikes affect his chances?
From Jeremy Hunt and Alan Johnson to Andy Burnham and Ken Clarke, politics is littered with ambitious former health secretaries who did not make it into No 10. The aspirational current health secretary, Wes Streeting, is believed by colleagues to have his sights on bucking that trend, and one day replacing Keir Starmer in Downing Street. However, the resident doctors' strike represents a moment of danger for the health secretary, with the medics pitching themselves against the government by demanding a return to the real-terms pay levels of 2008. It would be 25% salary increase on top of a 29% rise over the past three years, with the government outright refusing to open pay discussions and restricting any talks to negotiating on other benefits such as pensions. Streeting has personally taken a robust approach to the doctors – telling them 'if you go to war with us, you'll lose' – which on some levels appears in tune with the public mood. Polling from More in Common shows that overall, people do not back the doctors' strikes, and feeling has turned further against increasing the pay of medics over the past two weeks. Support for them dropped from -10% to -15% while the industrial action was going on. Luke Tryl, the director of More In Common, said: 'The biggest shift between the two weeks is people are now more likely to say the government should not do whatever it takes to end the strikes. My previous view was that it didn't really matter if the public were on side with Streeting against the doctors because the doctors could just bring the NHS to a halt, people would just rather it worked. Even two weeks ago people thought that, but the fact that it has now flipped is interesting and people are more likely to say 'dig in'. 'I do think it's because Wes Streeting has been out there making the arguments. In focus groups, it seems like his message has landed. People are slightly, for the first time, more likely to say resident doctors are paid too much rather than too little.' However, there are two difficult caveats in the data for Streeting. The first is that most of the public blame the government for the strikes in the first place, with 39% saying it is ministers' fault, 31% pointing the figure at resident doctors and 11% at hospital management. The second is that Labour voters are now the only political grouping who back the striking doctors, with a net 3% in favour of the strikes, down from a net 12% in favour before they started. Labour members tend to be even more sympathetic to strike action than Labour voters, so this group of people who choose the next party leader are not on board with the government's arguments. And while there are no public rumblings of discontent about Streeting's approach, some Labour MPs question the wisdom of pitching the industrial dispute as a battle – rather than taking a more emollient tone. 'Jeremy Hunt never really recovered from his bruising encounter with the doctors,' says one Labour MP. 'It never looks good to be talking about 'war' with public servants in a caring profession.' However, Labour sources say there is a huge difference between now and the strikes that Hunt was opposing in 2016 – then the first industrial action taken in more than 40 years, which centred more around shift patterns and contract changes. 'The fact that public opinion has shifted so far against resident doctor strikes shows how different the landscape is,' the senior source said. 'The truth is that, slowly but surely, people are noticing some of their family and friends are being seen quicker by the NHS. They don't want to go backwards. 'The Tories drove the NHS into the ground. In a large part, the malaise felt by resident doctors is that they're just sick and tired of how poor working conditions have become over the 15 years of Tory government. 'But the BMA's leadership should recognise how they now have a government that is far different to deal with. Two above-inflation pay rises, the biggest hike in the public sector, work already under way on improving working conditions and so much more we can do if they chose to actually just work with government.' Ultimately, though, the wider mood about the strikes and Streeting's leadership through the turmoil is likely to depend on how the NHS manages to hold up operationally. NHS sources said the first five-day strike had led to some services being cancelled but many fewer than on previous occasions, with trust leaders suggesting appointments and operations were at about 90-95% of usual activity. Figures for how many doctors turned out on strike were not yet available but sources suggested it had been patchy, and that trusts were 'better at managing' the situation as they had practice now from prior strikes. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union behind the strikes, has said hospitals were opting for unsafe cover rather than cancellation of operations, in a 'reckless' approach to the strikes. But if Streeting can oversee minimal disruption in the NHS while doctors are on strike or reach a deal on other financial conditions, then the government could emerge strengthened. And while Labour voters support the doctors' aims, they also like to see a government demonstrating operational competence and avoiding crisis. Tryl says: 'If Labour fails on their mission of reducing waiting lists, that's what will cut through and would damage Wes. But equally, if he holds firm and wins, it could help the government. 'There is a sense that government isn't in control any more is such a big driver of the 'broken Britain' mood, it kind of goes beyond individual services. If Wes can show the government is in control on this, that could end up helping.'
