One of the many reasons Healey’s resignation is so damaging for the PM is that the conflict is not the traditional battle between the Ministry of Defence and HM Treasury. The initiative to compel every minister to find departmental savings, to fund increased defence spending, was on this occasion led by the Prime Minister and his 10 Downing Street team, with support from HM Treasury.
So Healey’s primary disagreement is with the PM rather than with the Chancellor.
The fact that Starmer was unable to come up with adequate cuts in other departments, to finance the extra £18bn per annum that Healey sees as the minimum required by 2030, was foreshadowed in a conversation I had with a member of the cabinet a couple of days ago.
This minister made two points:
First, why would the prime minister want to be remembered by posterity for re-imposing austerity on most public services other than defence;
Second, why would any minister agree to cuts wanted by Starmer when there was so much uncertainty whether he would actually survive as PM, if Burnham becomes an MP in eight days?
Healey’s double whammy against Starmer - accusing him of not keeping the nation safe enough, implying he has inadequate authority over his cabinet - could barely be more serious for the PM.
The question now is how the rest of the cabinet respond. If they don’t show support for him, Healey’s double whammy will be a mortal blow.
Meanwhile this from Downing Street is a non-response response:
“This country is safer because of the decisions Keir Starmer has made and we will continue to act in our national interest.
“It is this Labour government and this Labour Prime Minister that is delivering the largest sustained boost to defence spending since the Cold War.
“We cut the international aid budget to make record investment in our armed forces, and now the PM is imposing cuts on other government departments to fund billions more.
“The Defence Investment Plan will deliver the capability our armed forces need.
“We will always do what is right, and needed, to keep the country safe.”
Healey’s resignation is arguably the worst crisis faced by the PM, and he has faced a few. Because he is saying that Keir Starmer - encouraged by Rachel Reeves and the Treasury - is jeopardising the security of the nation by refusing to fund any significant increase in defence spending between 2027 and 2030 (he says that on Monday the Defence Investment Plan was shared with him, and it would involve defence as a share of GDP rising from 2.6% to just 2.68% of GDP by 2020).
One implication is Starmer simply does not have the authority over his cabinet colleagues to compel them to make the kind of cuts to their budgets that could have released funding for defence. He will face the charge that, with Burnham campaigning in Makerfield to replace him, he is prime minister in name only