Labour rebels vow 'strongest fight possible' against welfare cuts to fund rearmament as Defence Secretary quits in spending row
John Healey’s resignation deepens Labour divide over how Britain should pay for armed forces
Labour MPs who helped force the Government to abandon planned welfare cuts last year have vowed to put up the “strongest fight possible” against any fresh attempt to fund rearmament through cuts to welfare or public services.
Listen to this article
The warning comes after the Defence Secretary John Healey resigned, accusing Sir Keir Starmer and the Treasury of failing to provide the resources needed to defend Britain at a time of rising national security threats.
The Government had been expected to announce a funding increase of around £13 billion, alongside the long-delayed Defence Investment Plan on Thursday, but instead it faced a crisis as Mr Healey stood down over the offer.
In a resignation letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Healey warned the Government’s proposed plan “falls well short of what is required” and said he was being forced to make decisions that could leave Britain less safe.
His departure has intensified pressure on the Prime Minister to explain how he intends to fund Britain’s armed forces, without triggering another damaging row with Labour MPs, who have vowed to fight attempts to cut spending on other departments.
Read more: These are the end times for Keir Starmer, writes Andrew Marr
LBC has spoken to some of backbenchers who led last year’s rebellion against welfare reforms, which forced ministers to abandon planned cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
Several told LBC they are already preparing for another confrontation if welfare or public services are targeted to fund higher defence spending.
Rachael Maskell, who temporarily lost the whip after helping organise opposition to the welfare reforms, said MPs were already discussing the implications of growing pressure on defence spending.
“As Labour MPs, we’re not going to tolerate (welfare cuts) if it comes to it,” she said.
“We were very clear before and we’ll be very clear again.
“I think we will put up the strongest fight possible on behalf of people in our communities.”
Ms Maskell argued that cutting support for vulnerable people to fund defence would be politically self-defeating.
“We’re talking about national security, but if we don’t support disabled people and protect our communities, we’ll be losing political security,” she said.
Responding to Mr Healey’s resignation, she added: “While the Defence Investment Plan must ensure national security, Labour must commit to providing people financial security.
“The timing of John Healey’s resignation ahead of the MOD’s publication proves again that Treasury-led decisions are failing to achieve either.”
Brian Leishman, who also lost the whip after opposing the welfare reforms, was equally blunt.
“Welfare 2.0 is coming down the line,” he told LBC.
“If last year’s debacle is anything to go by, then my position will never change.
“I’m not an MP to make the most disabled and vulnerable people in the country worse off.”
The comments expose a growing divide inside Labour over how Britain should pay for rearmament.
While some MPs are warning against any return to cuts or austerity-style politics, others argue the Government must confront difficult questions about how defence is funded.
Graeme Downie, who chairs a group of Labour backbench MPs focused on defence, told LBC the country needed a “long-term sustainable budget” for rearmament rather than simply moving money around Whitehall.
He suggested ministers may eventually need to “look at all of the budget - including welfare and the triple lock”.
“We need a much bigger conversation about how important defence is, and about constructive long-term ways to fund it,” he said.
The seriousness of the dispute was also underlined by Labour MP Tan Dhesi, the chair of the influential Defence Select Committee.
“That a defence secretary of his integrity and commitment has felt compelled to resign in response to the inadequacy of the proposed defence settlement is a grave moment,” he said.
“The government must take that warning with the utmost seriousness.”
The Government has yet to set a date for the Defence Investment Plan, despite promising to deliver it before the NATO summit on July 7.
When asked by LBC, Downing Street declined to rule out cuts to the benefits bill or wider public services to help fund it.
And in a statement on Thursday, reacting to John Healey’s resignation, the Prime Minister said increases in spending in the defence investment plan will mean "significant reallocations of funding from across government departments.
He said the plan will "allow our armed forces to transform and modernise and back them with the tools they need to change the way we fight - and deter our enemies."