John Healy has resigned as Defence Secretary

It's unusual isn't it for a SoS to do that? Perhaps not unheard of but unusual. I don't think it will change anything - I'm sure there would have been long discussions between him and the PM and Treasury before he took the step of resigning. I don't think he's a showman type of politician.

No Tuliptree John Healey is not a showman but he hasn't held back on the wording of his resignation letter. This will be damaging Sir Keir Starmer's position even more. He assured everyone at PMQT yesterday that defence spending was increasing with Rachel Reeves sat just behind him, nodding away. John Healey's letter says something very different.

Seems a shame. He appeared to be very good at his job, not seeking publicity all the time. Hard act to follow maybe.

Not sure if I were clear - but when I said he wasn't a showman, it was a compliment and that he wouldn't have taken this decision lightly.

Tuliptree

Not sure if I were clear - but when I said he wasn't a showman, it was a compliment and that he wouldn't have taken this decision lightly.

I'm sure he didn't. He has been in politics for I think, over 30 years and is held in high regard by people from all parties. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Perhaps this is one of those times.

Silvershadow

Seems a shame. He appeared to be very good at his job, not seeking publicity all the time. Hard act to follow maybe.

I agree, I liked him and thought he was right for the job.

It's the Treasury collective brain. Wedded to the idea that a national budget has the same constraints as a household budget and that it can't increase infrastructure investment without the permission of the bond market.

Oblivious to the fact that state spending contributes to growth. 😡

It's all very depressing isn't it?

A man of integrity and this government has few to spare.

Plenty of money for foreign aid, Ukraine, benefits, the so called green agenda, but not for the defence of all in the UK.

All other departments are asked to make efficiences, why not defence. Throwing money at a problem is not always the answer. Or at least that is what is said if other depts want an increase.

Miliband defies Starmer on spending cuts: the Energy Secretary was (said to be) pushing back against demands to find savings of at least one per cent within his department
A Whitehall source suggested Mr. Miliband would undermine the defence investment effort if he refused to cut net zero. (DT 11/6/26.)

Why are Ministers allowed to thwart the Prime Minister's intentions?

"Was said to be " and " a Whitehall source suggested" are doing some heavy lifting there.

I remember when Milliband was party leader. He was useless then and it appears not much has changed. Starmer should over rule him or sack him.

I’m not defending the government in this partly because I’m still avoiding the news as much as possible so don’t know the ins and outs of it all. But it’s knock on effect from the Trump administration that is now not helping to defend the western world.

Silvershadow

I remember when Milliband was party leader. He was useless then and it appears not much has changed. Starmer should over rule him or sack him.

Absolutely!

There is absolutely no reason, apart from clinging to an obsolete understanding of macroeconomics, why both defence and the green agenda can't be adequately financed.

Mind you, I have seen critiques of the defence spending proposals which suggest that it is being focussed on the wrong areas. But as I know very little about defence I've no idea if they're right or not.