TL;DR
Get your next haul delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A commentary article by Alex Brummer argues that Chancellor John Healey should give national security greater priority in Wednesday’s Budget. It cites an Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate that meeting NATO’s 3.5% of national output defence-spending target by 2035 would require £36 billion more in today’s money, while warning about cyber, satellite and infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Alex Brummer has urged Chancellor John Healey to prioritise national security in the Budget scheduled for Wednesday, arguing that Britain needs higher defence spending and stronger protection for critical infrastructure. The commentary cites an Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate that reaching NATO’s 3.5% of national output target by 2035 would require an additional £36 billion in today’s money; the Budget’s eventual spending commitments are not yet known.
Brummer’s argument, published by This Is Money on October 24, centres on the gap between current UK defence spending and the NATO target. The article says spending stood at 2.3% of output in fiscal year 2024-25. It attributes the £36 billion estimate to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and says the increase would equate to about £500 per household. The government has postponed decisions on how to meet the target until 2027, according to the article.
The piece argues that national security involves more than military budgets. It points to risks to computer systems, undersea cables, pipelines and energy infrastructure, and calls for stronger digital defences and protection against drone attacks. It refers to an AI-driven discovery of a coding vulnerability in multiple systems, but does not identify the affected systems, explain who discovered it, or provide technical details.
Brummer also raises concerns about reliance on overseas satellite services. He says Britain’s lack of domestic satellite capability leaves it dependent on the United States and private providers, and criticises Vodafone’s plan to rent capacity from SpaceX to improve mobile coverage in poorly served areas. The article additionally says UK Typhoon jets have been committed to a defensive role assisting Saudi Arabia, while describing Britain’s own defences as limited. These points form the columnist’s assessment; the article does not provide official operational details or a government response.
The Budget’s Defence Spending Test
The argument matters because the Budget may shape how the government funds defence and resilience, while the cited NATO target sets a longer-term benchmark. If the IFS estimate is accurate, reaching 3.5% of national output by 2035 would require a substantial increase from the reported 2.3% level in 2024-25. The commentary says the choices about how to reach that target have been deferred until 2027, leaving the scale and timetable of near-term spending uncertain.
Brummer’s broader point is that security risks are not confined to conventional military threats. Disruptions to communications, energy infrastructure or digital systems could affect public services, businesses and households. Reliance on foreign satellite networks also raises questions about who controls access during a conflict or crisis. The article advances these as reasons for investment and domestic capability; it does not establish that a particular attack or service disruption has occurred.
The tension is also political and fiscal: the piece challenges the idea that defence and social security must be treated as competing priorities. The Budget will show whether Healey makes new commitments, but a single announcement would not itself establish that the UK is on track to meet its 2035 target.
home network firewall router with intrusion prevention
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Spending Targets to Security Risks
The article frames the coming Budget against a long-term NATO spending goal and a more immediate debate over Britain’s ability to protect itself. It says the government has delayed decisions on the route to the 3.5% target until 2027. That leaves open how much spending might rise in the meantime and whether the target will be met through new funding, changes to existing plans, or other measures.
Brummer uses recent examples to support his case, including a reported software vulnerability, the role of Starlink in the Russia-Ukraine war and UK aircraft operating in a defensive capacity in the Gulf. He argues that dependence on commercial satellite networks and overseas capabilities creates strategic exposure. Those examples are presented in an opinion column, not as a government assessment of the UK’s overall security posture.
The article also refers to Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s statement that national security “can’t come at the expense of social security.” Brummer criticises that position and argues that security should take precedence in wartime. The source supplies no fuller context for Burnham’s remark, so its scope and intended meaning cannot be established from the article alone.
“Britain needs a big uplift in outlays on national security.”
— Alex Brummer, in the This Is Money commentary
encrypted external hard drive for secure data backups
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Unanswered Questions on Funding and Threats
The Budget has not yet been delivered, so it is unclear whether Healey will announce additional defence or cyber-security funding, revise plans, or set out a timetable. The article does not provide a government response or confirm what measures, if any, are under consideration.
The source also gives limited detail on the security incidents and capabilities it discusses. It does not identify the software systems affected by the reported vulnerability, say whether the issue has been patched, or describe the scale of any exposure. It offers no independent assessment of Britain’s satellite capacity, the state of its air defences, or the operational consequences of the reported US bomber changes.
The £36 billion figure is attributed to the IFS, but the article does not reproduce the institute’s methodology or explain the assumptions behind the estimate. Its household figure is presented as an equivalent cost, not as a proposed tax or bill for individual households. It is also not clear how the government intends to reconcile higher security spending with other budget commitments.
battery backup UPS for home internet router and modem
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Budget Commitments and the 2035 Goal
The next immediate milestone is the Budget scheduled for Wednesday. Healey’s statement and the published fiscal plans should clarify whether the government is allocating more money to defence, cyber security or critical infrastructure, and whether it will set out any steps toward NATO’s 2035 spending target.
Further detail will be needed to judge the effect of any announcement: including how new spending would be funded, when it would take effect, and which capabilities it would support. The government’s postponed decisions on reaching the NATO target are expected in 2027, according to the article. Until then, the scale of the eventual increase and the specific measures for satellites, infrastructure and digital protection remain unsettled.
portable emergency radio with NOAA weather alerts and USB charging
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is Alex Brummer asking John Healey to do?
Brummer argues that the Chancellor should give national security greater priority in the Budget and increase spending on defence and resilience. This is the columnist’s position, not a confirmed government plan.
How much additional defence spending does the article cite?
The article attributes to the Institute for Fiscal Studies an estimate that the UK would need an extra £36 billion in today’s money to reach NATO’s 3.5% of national output target by 2035. It says defence spending was 2.3% of output in fiscal year 2024-25.
Has Healey announced new security spending?
Not in the source material. The article was published ahead of Wednesday’s Budget, and the Budget’s commitments are not yet known.
What security risks does the commentary raise?
It discusses cyber vulnerabilities, threats to undersea cables and energy infrastructure, drone warfare, and reliance on foreign satellite services. The article does not provide enough technical or official detail to independently establish the scale of those risks.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
