Defence: tick-box time

By Richard North - June 4, 2025

If there’s probably nothing quite so dead as yesterday’s news, the SDR rather proves the point. From pole position in all the dailies on Monday, defence has all but disappeared from the popular press, leaving only the vague memories about whatever it was we were supposed to be worried about – going to war with Russia or something like that.

Yet it really was only a couple of days ago that the prime minister of the United Kingdom stood in a Govan shipyard delivering a speech on what amounted to the future of the nation.

“The Strategic Defence Review that I am launching today”, he intoned, seeking no doubt to strike a Churchillian tone, “will bring that unity of purpose to the whole of the United Kingdom”.

The thing about Churchillian speeches, though, is that they were coherent, unlike Starmer’s efforts which dribble out in a flow of disjointed one-liners. “To mobilise the nation in a common cause…”, he drooled, “Recognising, in these dangerous times” – new line – “That when it comes to the defence of the realm” – new line – “And the defence of everything we hold dear – new line – “Nothing works unless we all work together”.

He doesn’t actually say so, but one gathers that he wants us all to work together for the defence of the country. “Every part of society…”, he says – new line – “Every citizen of this country…” – new line – “Has a role to play”, although we never get to hear what that role is.

There is no doubt, though, that the big, bad enemy is Russia: “Growing Russian aggression in our waters” – new line – “Menacing our skies” – new line – “their reckless actions driving up the cost of living here at home” – new line – “Creating economic pain” – new line… etc., etc.

You can see why people switch off so quickly from this type of drivel – no “blood, toil, sweat and tears” here, a phrase still being quoted more than 80 years after it was delivered. In Starmer-land, he gave his speech on Monday. Now it’s Wednesday and we’ve already forgotten what he said – those few who took in what he had to say, which is a vanishingly small number.

For the record, in closing his speech, Starmer says: “when it comes to security and renewal: Nothing works unless we all work together”, the day after this year’s record for the number of small boat invaders was broken, and nothing at all seems to work when it comes to keeping them out of the country.

Yet, in his foreword to the SDR proper, Starmer is at it again, telling us that “society” must “unite in pursuit of the security of the nation and the prosperity of its people”.

Fast forward to today’s Telegraph, though, and you will find an article headed: “White British people will be a minority in 40 years, report claims”, signalling that white British people will decline from their current position as 73 percent of the population to 57 percent by 2050 before slipping into a minority by 2063.

This is the nation that Starmer wants to unite in pursuit of security and prosperity, yet the starkness of this situation affirms in most [white] people’s minds that Russia isn’t the enemy and the single factor undermining the security of the nation – and even its very identity – is mass immigration, both legal and illegal.

Thus, we’re not in a 1909 situation when rumours that Germany’s Kaiser Wilhem II was secretly building a fleet of dreadnought battleships triggered a huge public cry for more ships, led by the opposition, centred around the slogan “We want eight and we won’t wait”.

Frankly, not a lot of people give a damn for Starmer’s warmongering, very few believe his rhetoric and, in the unlikely event that we do manage to build 12 submarines at a rate of one every 18 month, nobody much cares. At the rate at which these vessels are normally built, by the time the series is completed, if that ever happens, there won’t be a nation worth defending.

And that rather does it for Starmer’s much vaunted SDR. His choice of enemy isn’t really credible and the plans he has for dealing with the threats identified are not believed and, in any event, are the subject of widespread indifference.

Oddly enough, though, the SDR does list amongst its threats, “uneven global demographic change”, which it says, is altering global power balances and driving domestic and regional instability, including through migration, urbanisation, and new demands on governments for employment and social welfare support”.

That single reference seems largely to have been missed by the media and the reviewers, and there is nothing in the rest of the text which suggests that the armed forces should prepare or equip for home-grown sectarian violence, on the lines of the Northern Ireland “Troubles”.

Looking at that tasking, one must recall that, over the period 1969 to 2007, Operation Banner drew in over 300,000 troops and that, at its peak in 1970, around 27,000 troops were deployed. And that was to support the policing of less than 2 million people. Dealing with getting on for 70 million is an entirely different proposition.

Taking a broader overview, if one goes back to the 2010 SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review), published at the start of Cameron’s coalition government, this was no more accurate in assessing Britain’s defence needs than this current effort will be.

But the main difference this time around is probably the complete detachment between Starmer’s vision of our defence needs and the priorities of the indigenous British population. While Starmer talks in grand terms of the Russian threat, ordinary people see the thousands of military-aged illegal immigrants as the greater threat.

Defence of the nation has come to mean very different things as between the political elites and the great unwashed, reflected in the unreal content of the SDR. Starmer may glory in his foreign adventures, but the majority of people would probably prefer a more inwards-looking perspective, with defence capabilities adjusted accordingly.

That said, for a different time and a different mood, this SDR could be thought of as a reasonable attempt at assessing defence needs. So far different are the views of ordinary people though, that it might as well have been written from another planet.

To my mind, therefore, having at least read the damn thing, I would argue that it is not worth the investment of a detail exploration. In any case the money isn’t there to see the main recommendations through, and – whatever the rhetoric- the Treasury is not set to relax the purse-strings soon.

However, as a tick-box exercise, it undoubtedly enables Starmer to claim that he has “done” defence, which buys him time to deal with other matters. The issue can be put back in its box, where it can remain the preoccupation of the specialists and the defence wonks, without intruding too much on the body politic.