John Healey’s resignation as Keir Starmer’s defense secretary is the latest blow to the prime minister’s ailing government. It can also be the most harmful.
In a letter to Starmer, which he published in X shortly after noon, Healey quit the government. His words contain a damning indictment not only for the prime minister, but also for the chancellor. Healey was given an early look at the long-awaited Defense Investment Plan (the blueprint for how the MoD will set its budget over the next decade) and found it woefully lacking. He described the Prime Minister as “incapable” and the Treasury as “unwilling” to commit “the resources the nation needs at this time of growing threat”.
Labor MPs are shocked by the news. But no one I spoke to was surprised by Healey’s departure. Shortly after his letter was published, a Labor source tweeted: “I mean he was already done. But this is massive.” Many MPs questioned how a defense secretary whose job it is to understand the weaknesses of the UK’s defense capabilities and the threats we face could be expected to thumb through such a small increase. One MP described Healey’s resignation as “a stand of principle”; another said he would be a “great loss to the government”. Luke Charters, MP for York Outer, described Healey as a “true Yorkshireman” but added that his decision to stand down spoke volumes for “growth and managerialism in Number 10”. Charters said it reflected what he saw as a “culture of timidity within government” and “a failure to rise to the occasion”.
Indications of this crisis have appeared for some time. In April, former Labor defense secretary George Robertson called out Starmer and Reeves’ “corrosive complacency” over defense spending – marking the most significant intervention on the subject since the Cold War. It seems he was ignored.
Starmer’s critics are already rushing to stick the knife in. One MP said shortly after Healey’s resignation: “This has reminded everyone that Starmer’s leadership is not sustainable.” Meanwhile, another Labor source pointed out that “the prime minister’s only remaining arguments were stability”, while the government as a whole “has started to base its identity around ‘security'”. Healey’s resignation pours cold water on these claims.
The search is now on for Healey’s replacement. Al Carns, the armed forces minister whose leadership ambitions have been the subject of much speculation in Westminster, appears to have ruled himself out. He described the Defense Investment Plan as “not fit for purpose” and called on Starmer to “sort it out” (although he did not follow Healey in resigning). According to a Labor source, Healey’s replacement is likely to be a “tragic loyalist”. (When asked if they thought it might be Carns, they added: “Al is ambitious and not stupid”). Another teased that Starmer could follow Churchill and “do the job himself”.
Regardless, Healey’s departure leaves a poisoned chalice. Whoever takes up the mantle of Defense Ministry will have to deliver on a program that his longtime predecessor warned “could make the country less safe.” And Starmer’s deliberate entry into the cabinet – a week after a by-election in which his biggest rival could make a long-awaited return to SW1 – seems deeply unfortunate. The most important hours of Starmer’s prime ministership now lie ahead.
(Further reading: John Healey’s resignation heralds the end of Keir Starmer)
