As global instability deepens and Ukraine continues its desperate fight against Russian aggression, Britain’s defence policy has taken centre stage in Westminster. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a major commitment to increasing defence spending, setting a target of 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and pledging to reach 3% by 2034. But while this signals a shift towards a more robust military posture, Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch has argued that these pledges do not go far enough.
So, does this mark a rare moment of unity between Labour and the Conservatives on defence? Or does Badenoch’s critique expose a fundamental fault line in how Britain should respond to the threats posed by Vladimir Putin and a shifting global order?
A Shared Recognition of the Threats Facing Britain
One thing is clear: both Starmer and Badenoch agree that the UK must bolster its defences in response to the growing threats from Russia and other authoritarian regimes. Starmer’s Commons statement was unequivocal:
“Instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores. Tyrants like Putin only respond to strength… We must stand by Ukraine.”
This sentiment is echoed in Badenoch’s first major foreign policy speech as Tory leader, in which she declared:
“The world has changed. And the UK is not ready. So, we must change too… Peace is only obtained through strength.”
Both leaders see military spending as a critical pillar of national security, and both recognise the need for Britain to show greater leadership in NATO. With US President Donald Trump putting renewed pressure on European allies to spend more on defence, both Labour and the Conservatives acknowledge that Britain must step up.
Where the Divide Emerges: How Far, How Fast, and at What Cost?
While there is broad agreement on the principle of increased defence spending, the details of implementation have exposed significant differences between the two parties. Starmer’s plan accelerates the timeline for reaching 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027, while maintaining a gradual increase to 3% by 2034. However, he has been clear that this comes at the expense of international aid, with the overseas development budget set to fall from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP.
This decision has sparked controversy, with critics accusing the government of “balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.” Aid organisations, including Save the Children UK, condemned the move as a “betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable.”
Badenoch, however, argues that Starmer’s plan is simply not ambitious enough. She insists that 2.5% by 2030 is no longer sufficient and that the UK should be aiming much higher. In her Westminster speech, she suggested that spending cuts in welfare and international development should be used to push defence spending towards 3% more quickly.
“The message should be simple: we must do what it takes to protect Britain.”
By advocating deeper cuts elsewhere, Badenoch is positioning the Conservative Party as the party of hard-nosed realism on defence. But her unwillingness to commit to an exact target beyond 2.5% has raised questions about how far she is truly prepared to go.
Trump, NATO, and the Future of European Security
Another key dividing line is how Britain should position itself within NATO and the wider transatlantic alliance. Starmer’s decision to boost defence spending is, at least in part, a strategic move ahead of his meeting with President Trump in Washington. With Trump demanding that NATO members contribute 5% of GDP to defence, Starmer is eager to show the UK’s commitment to burden-sharing.
Badenoch, on the other hand, takes a more sceptical approach to international institutions. In her speech, she warned against “naïve” faith in international agreements and suggested that Britain should be prepared to leave treaties that no longer serve the national interest. While she reaffirmed NATO’s importance, her rhetoric signals a more aggressive, sovereignty-first approach to foreign policy—one that aligns more closely with Trump’s worldview.
This divergence raises a critical question: should Britain seek to reassure its allies and strengthen multilateral institutions, as Starmer argues? Or should it adopt a more transactional, interest-driven approach, as Badenoch suggests?
Final Thought: A Moment of Unity or a Deepening Divide?
While both Starmer and Badenoch recognise the urgent need for increased defence spending, their approaches highlight key philosophical differences. Starmer’s strategy is measured, pragmatic, and geared towards reassuring European allies, while Badenoch pushes for a more radical approach that questions existing international commitments.
This announcement also comes at a critical geopolitical moment—just days before Starmer meets with Donald Trump in Washington. The US president has repeatedly criticised NATO members for not spending enough on defence, and Starmer’s move is a clear attempt to demonstrate that Britain is pulling its weight. But the meeting carries deeper tensions. Trump has expressed scepticism towards NATO, shown reluctance to criticise Putin, and even called Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” rather than the Russian leader himself. This raises the question of how far the UK can rely on the US as a security partner, and whether Europe must now take greater responsibility for its own defence.
Ultimately, while Starmer and Badenoch both frame their positions as necessary responses to an increasingly volatile world, their competing visions expose deeper ideological divides—on military spending, global alliances, and Britain’s role in shaping European security. Defence is no longer a secondary issue. It has become a battleground—both on the global stage and in Westminster.
For more of Curia’s analysis on UK foreign policy and defence, please click here.
