Welsh Liberal Democrats Councillor for Cwmbwrla Ward, City and County of Swansea - Please buy my novels at Author Page
Pages
Monday, June 15, 2026
Have resignations led to a rethink?
The paper says that indications of a rethink came after cabinet minister Lisa Nandy suggested that more money would be allocated for defence, saying she did not believe Mr Healey’s replacement Dan Jarvis “would have taken the job were he not confident that we could meet the moment”:
No 10 sources suggested the defence investment plan has been reopened in the wake of Mr Jarvis’s appointment, telling The Independent: “You’d obviously expect him to have a chance to look at the Dip, and consider issues such as whether Healey had the right balance on how money [is] spent.”
Speaking to Sky News, Ms Nandy said government departments were already looking at further cutting their budgets to help fund defence, insisting the country’s safety remained ministers’ top priority.
While she sidestepped questions on whether more money would be offered to Mr Jarvis than to his predecessor, she said: “I don’t think he would have taken the job were he not confident that we could meet the moment.”
“There’s a clear picture emerging from this government that we have moved resources from other departments in order to fund defence; that includes mine, and it includes other departments as well, and we’re continuing to do that”, Ms Nandy said.
“So defence remains the highest priority, and I don’t agree that we’re not committing the resources that we need. But when the threat level changes, when the global situation changes, we have to change our approach as well.”
However, the culture secretary disagreed with Mr Healey’s claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to commit the resources the country needs to defend itself at a time of rising threats.
“I don’t agree with him on that point, because these are discussions that are currently being had,” she said.
It comes after Mr Jarvis – himself a former soldier – vowed to get the armed forces the funding they need after his predecessor quit over the issue, saying he had a “big responsibility” towards troops who risk their lives for the country.
So it seems that there might have been more money after all, it just took a high profile resignation to leverage it.
1 comment:
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.

I would say we need no more aircraft carriers but funding for anti drone defence, escort ships and ways to protect our troops from drone attacks. Drones do look to be where war is going and, alas, we have not enough of them (8,000) or defence against them.THAT is where the money should go.
ReplyDelete