Former Army chiefs criticise Starmer’s aid cut to boost defence

Former Army chiefs have criticised Sir Keir Starmer for cutting foreign aid in order to boost defence spending.

On the eve of last month’s successful visit to the White House, the Prime Minister announced the biggest rise in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, with a pledge to reach 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027.

This came at a cost to the aid budget, which the Labour leader said would be slashed from 0.5 per cent of national income to 0.3 per cent over the same period.

General Lord Richards, the former Chief of Defence Staff, said that while it was “necessary” to increase defence spending, he did not agree with taking it from the aid budget, which presented other problems.

Writing in The Telegraph, Lord Richards said: “Defence and aid are not competing priorities – they are complementary pillars of a coherent security strategy.

“The notion that we must weaken one to strengthen the other is not just misleading but dangerous. A lack of investment in aid and development will only fuel greater instability, increase security threats, and place a heavier burden on our Armed Forces.”

Sir Keir’s move followed pressure to boost defence spending as Donald Trump launched efforts to impose peace in Ukraine, and the US president’s criticism of European nations’ military spending.

However, he has faced a backlash from figures within his own party, with international development minister Anneliese Dodds quitting over the policy, as well as from leading military figures.

The Telegraph previously reported that David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, was likely bounced into supporting the decision.

Mr Lammy has stood by the Prime Minister’s decision to raid his department’s budget, despite giving an interview weeks before the announcement in which he said it would be a “big strategic mistake” for the US to cut international aid, which he said remained a “very important soft power tool”.

A senior defence source told The Telegraph that they agreed with Lord Richards, but claimed that “aid hasn’t always been wisely spent”.

He also claimed that the Department for International Development “pursued an ideological approach based on poverty reduction” and that it was “not really aligned to the military’s national security and stabilisation goals”, adding that Afghanistan was an “exception” when working with the military in the conflict zone.

Lord Dannatt, the former Army head, has also criticised the Government’s decision.

He told The Guardian: “If we are serious about security, we must recognise that diplomacy, development and defence are not competing priorities – they are complementary. A well-funded aid programme, alongside increased defence investment, will ensure that Britain remains a global leader – both in strength and in moral authority. We cannot afford to get this wrong.”

Lord Dannatt, who backed an increase in defence spending to 3 per cent, said the way to achieve this was by either raising taxes or increased borrowing.

Later this month, Rachel Reeves will deliver her spring statement, in which she is expected to cut billions from the welfare budget.

The Chancellor has hinted that instead of tax rises, ministers will prioritise making efficiencies to increase defence spending.

Lord Richards stressed that security was more than “demonstrating military might” and backed an approach of diplomacy, development and defence.

‘A crucial tool in Britain’s arsenal’

He said: “Sufficient force and political will are the foundation of any successful intervention. Without both, failure is inevitable, and it would be better not to intervene at all. But beyond direct military action, a well-funded development and diplomatic strategy is essential to prevent conflict in the first place.

“This is why the recent cuts to the UK’s aid budget are so deeply misguided – not only from a moral standpoint but from a hard-headed security perspective.”

Lord Richards said it was “inexplicable” that the Government was choosing not to invest more in stabilisation efforts.

He said: “Aid is not just charity – it is a crucial tool in Britain’s strategic arsenal. By helping to stabilise fragile states, reduce the drivers of extremism, and support economic development, aid directly enhances our national security.

“Cutting it now is not just shortsighted; it actively increases the likelihood that Britain will be drawn into future conflicts at far greater human and financial cost.”