Keir Starmer won’t fix military by throwing money at it — £13.4bn must go to three areas

deserves credit for his decision to earlier than expected. That sentence might make some question if they are reading the Daily Express or whether they have made some error and accidentally clicked on a link to the Guardian but credit where credit is due.

Our nation faces threats like none we have seen since the rise of Nazi Germany and an increase to defence spending, despite being woefully short of the amount needed to build a credible military force should be welcomed.

But that is where the praise for Starmer stops, reserved for another day when grand promises and sweeping statements materialise in the form of adequate kit, equipment and force design worthy of it.

Because whilst an increase of £13.4bn a year is a welcome boost it comes with some caveats. Firstly, some of that amount would have gone to the regardless of his announcement and secondly, was less than convincing when asked if the sum included expected payments to lease back meaning the additional money could be significantly less than promised.

But most importantly, extra money means nothing unless the MOD weans itself off of its addiction to wasting taxpayer money on big ideas with little utility. So in the face of global tensions, historically low personnel levels and millions of pounds of kit donated to , how best should the military allocate its increased budget?

New Tech

I recommend new tech with caution, because the military has a poor track record in identifying suitable new tech and appropriate, cost-effective ways in which to use it.

In the recent past, millions have been wasted on ideas of 3D printing, IT portals and autonomous vehicles, with too many military headquarters stuffed with over-zealous colonels pursuing MBEs over value for money or capability enhancement.

But the war in shows that the adoption of new tech is not only a battle winning asset but a cost effective alternative to expensive capabilities of the past.

Drones have at times levelled the playing field, cyber has been capitalised on by our enemies and unmanned vehicles allow us to view and affect the battlespace in new ways. Whilst tanks, bullets and bombs still dominate warfare, the way in which we and our adversaries fight is adapting and money must be spent to ensure we are at the forefront of that change.

Ammunition

Speaking as he stepped down from his role as the Army Chief, said that the state of the left him with sleepless nights and having worked in Army HQ during Putin’s invasion of , I share his concerns.

Since his comments in early 2024, things have not gotten any better. Despite efforts to replenish stores inadequate for war with a peer adversary, the increasing yet justified demands of to defend its territory has left the military’s reserves depleted.

Storm Shadow missiles, artillery shells, rifle rounds and tank armaments given to Zelensky leave Britain woefully short and unprepared, with bureaucracy delaying stocks being replenished.

Britain must get itself into a state where it can deploy, win the first battle and sustain its force. It goes without saying therefore that money needs to be spent on buying more of the things that go bang.

Recruitment

It is no secret that military recruitment in the last decade has been nothing short of pathetic, and there are a wealth of .

Recruit efforts have been negligent but the fundamental issue lies in the lack of enthusiasm amongst young people for joining the military. The military can spend all the money in the world on the best kit but without brave young men and women to operate it, it becomes redundant.

The case of and the subsequent outpouring of abuse testimonies by serving and former service personnel highlight a cultural issue that needs addressing immediately to give any other recruitment efforts a chance of success.

Defining what a life in service means, developing a successful recruitment strategy and investing properly in the things that retain highly trained and capable people is the bedrock for the success of additional investment in the armed forces.