John Healey Is Right to Control Defence Spending Within a Progressive Government's Broader Priorities
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/john-mcternan. "Defence spending is an insatiable beast. John Healey is right to tame it | John McTernan | The Guardian." August 31, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that the UK's Ministry of Defence has a history of wasting money while always claiming it needs more, so the new chancellor John Healey is right to keep defence spending in check as just one priority among many (like social care and housing) rather than letting it dominate the budget. He also praises the appointment of Wes Streeting as defence secretary because Streeting previously succeeded in controlling NHS overspending, suggesting he could do the same for defence.
Conclusion
John Healey (as chancellor) is right to constrain and discipline Ministry of Defence spending, treating defence as just one part of a progressive government's agenda rather than an unlimited priority.
Premises
- The Ministry of Defence has a documented record of overspending, confirmed by multiple National Audit Office reports
- Despite this overspending record, the MoD consistently claims underfunding, revealing a pattern of producer capture by defence industries (e.g., BAE Systems)
- New terminology like 'sovereign capability' and GDP percentage targets (3% then 3.5%) obscures the same underlying dynamic of an insatiable military-industrial demand for resources
- Wes Streeting's appointment as defence secretary is promising because he previously succeeded in taming NHS overspending, as evidenced by the IFS report showing no Treasury top-ups were needed last year
- A progressive government must balance defence spending against other pressing needs like social care, council housing, and devolution
- Deferring major spending decisions to next year's spending review while keeping the October budget low-key is a sound approach given these competing demands
- Defence should be positioned as neither an unlimited claim on resources nor a neglected area, but a normal component of governance that also serves as a political asset against opponents (Conservatives/Reform for Iran war eagerness, SNP/Greens for unrealistic defence positions)
Assumptions
- The NAO reports and historical patterns of MoD overspending are accurate and generalizable to current circumstances
- Wes Streeting's NHS spending record will translate effectively to controlling defence spending, despite these being different sectors with different pressures
- Increased defence spending (to meet NATO targets) is not inherently necessary at the levels currently demanded, and current claims of need are exaggerated by self-interested parties
- A progressive government can adequately balance geopolitical security needs with domestic social spending without one undermining the other
- The political framing of defence as a 'wedge issue' is compatible with also treating it as a serious policy area requiring adequate funding
- Reducing MoD budgetary control problems (waste, mismanagement) is equivalent to appropriately limiting defence spending levels overall