Global wars, a depleted military and stubborn Labour MPs: Healey exposes Starmer’s perfect storm

Keir Starmer’s reputation on defence lies in tatters after John Healey’s resignation. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Reuters View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer’s reputation on defence lies in tatters after John Healey’s resignation. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Reuters Analysis Global wars, a depleted military and stubborn Labour MPs: Healey exposes Starmer’s perfect storm Jessica Elgot Deputy political editor There is no narrative to convince the British public that difficult economic decisions on defence will be worth it UK politics live – latest updates As Labour MPs set out the case for change in the tea rooms and bars of Westminster, there is usually one caveat. They believed the prime minister was an asset when it came to national security and had performed beyond expectations on the world stage. Now that reputation too lies in tatters, after the resignation of John Healey with one of the most quietly damning letters that many can remember. Not a departure over ambition – though Healey certainly has it – but on principle. It is a rare thing to see a loyalist cabinet minister accuse the prime minister and a chancellor of making the country “less safe”. All of Keir Starmer’s rhetoric has always suggested he understood the severity of the moment: just months ago in Munich, he pledged that Britain would “rise to this moment … spend more, deliver more, and coordinate more.” 11:09 Defence secretary quits with ‘blistering’ swipe at Starmer - The Latest But the row is the perfect encapsulation of the government’s problems. Some of it is not of its own making. This is the most dangerous world any government has faced in decades, with global conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, threats from China and Russia and buffeted by the whims of an increasingly irrational White House. The government inherits a hollowed-out armed forces and a withering industrial base. It has an opposition who for many years saw welfare increase and defence cut – and now loudly demand the government do the opposite. But it also has a chancellor who is boxed in by the party’s own pledges on tax. It has cabinet ministers who refuse to countenance cuts to schools, energy infrastructure and hospitals. It has Labour MPs who – with honourable exception – are far more interested in schools and hospitals than frigates. And at the centre, a prime minister who seems not to lead but prevaricates, who lacks the authority to force his cabinet to accept unpopular cuts and eventually attempts to bounce his defence secretary into a plan at the 11th hour. The most damning sentence of Healey’s resignation letter was where he described the chancellor as “unwilling” and the prime minister as “unable”. But where in reality can these billions be found? There is no plan for difficult welfare improvements that could command support from MPs. There is no narrative to convince the British public that those difficult economic decisions will be worth it to fund billions more into keeping the country safer but –