Politics latest: Defence secretary to discuss future of armed forces - amid pressure over spending (2025)

We've just been speaking with the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, and we started by discussing the situation in Ukraine and the prime minister's statement that he would be willing to send UK troops to be part of a peacekeeping force in the event of a peace deal.

She told Sky's Wilfred Frost that the PM has made clear that "the UK is willing to step up to the plate, along with our European allies and with the US, to find a way to bring about a lasting and enduring peace in Ukraine".

The cabinet minister went on to say that Sir Keir Starmer is also clear that "there has to be a US security guarantee".

"We can't also have a situation where there's a ceasefire, but there hasn't been a lasting peace negotiated," she said.

"And we can't have a situation where Putin is coming back in a couple of weeks or months time, more territorial incursions into a sovereign country, more Russian aggression."

Asked if she is personally in favour of UK having UK boots on the ground in Ukraine, Alexander replied: "I support the UK playing its role in creating an enduring and lasting peace.

"And I think that the prime minister is entirely right to say that we would consider all options."

She went on to say that we are "quite a long way away from any specific decisions being taken", noting that "there isn't a peace agreement at the moment".

We've just had some new data on the economy from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The rate of UKunemployment remained unchanged at 4.4% in the three months to December, it reveals.

AndUK average regular earnings growth rose to 5.9% in the three months to December and was 3.4% higher after taking Consumer Prices Index inflation into account.

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said in a statement: "Since July, wages have continued to grow at pace, putting vital money back in people's pockets as we work to make work pay and improve living standards for all.

"But these figures also show that too many people are being locked out of work and denied that chance, including those sick and disabled.

"Instead of writing people off and labelling them, we must step up our support."

By Andy Hayes, news reporter

A "US security guarantee" is the only path to peace in Ukraine, Sir Keir Starmer has said.

Speaking in Paris after an emergency summit with European leaders, the prime minister said a "US backstop" is the "only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again".

"It is an existential question for Europe as a whole, and therefore vital for Britain's national interests," he added.

"This is a once in a generation moment for the collective security of our continent."

It is a "new era", he said, in which nations cannot "cling hopelessly to the comforts of the past".

Any peace deal for Ukraine must "safeguard its sovereignty" and deter Russian leader Vladimir Putin from engaging in "further aggression in the future", Sir Keir added.

The prime minister joined the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and the European Union at the Elysee Palace in Paris, alongside NATO secretary general Mark Rutte.

The meeting was called by French President Emmanuel Macron after Donald Trump shocked continental leaders by arranging bilateral talks between the US and Russia - excluding Europe and Ukraine.

The talks are set to begin in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

Sir Keir however insisted that "Europe must play its role", adding: "I'm prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others if there is a lasting peace agreement.

"So I will go to Washington next week to meet President Trump and discuss what we see as the key elements of a lasting peace."

Defence Secretary John Healey will this morning speak at an "in conversation" event in London about his "priorities for reforming UK defence".

The event is taking place at the non-partisan Institute for Government, and he is expected to talk about how the Ministry of Defence will "ensure it stays ahead of the UK's adversaries and deliver maximum value for taxpayers".

It comes amid huge domestic and international pressure to increase spending on defence amid war in Europe and the US seeking to reduce its role in policing the continent.

Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure to quickly lift defence spending to 2.5% of GDP or face new military cuts this year - even as he considers deploying troops to Ukraine, Sky News understands.

Defence sources said such an increase - which would amount to about an extra £5bn annually - is still far short of what is required to rebuild and transform the armed forces, stressing that an ultimate hike to at least 3% of national income would be necessary.

But the sources told Sky's security and defence editor Deborah Haynes a rapid rise in investment to the government's promised target of 2.5% of GDP, from 2.3% at present, should prevent new swingeing reductions in capabilities - just asDonald Trump orders European militaries to be stronger.

The prime minister has pledged to set a path to investing 2.5% of GDP on defence but he has yet to say when this commitment will be announced, let alone by what date the target will be met.

Defence sources said they believe the Treasury wants to push the timeline out to the very end of this parliament - a delay that would leave the armed forces to "wither on the vine".

Read more below - and join us live here in the Politics Hub for coverage of the defence secretary's conversation from 9.30am.

Bonjour!

Welcome back to the Politics Hub on this Tuesday, 18 February.

Sir Keir Starmer has returned from his whirlwind trip to Paris for an emergency summit with European leaders following Donald Trump's shock arrangement of bilateral talks between the US and Russia - excluding Europe and Ukraine.

He declared that this is "a once in a generation moment for the collective security of our continent" and has argued that "Europe must play its role" - but there is still no more clarity on when and by how much the UK will increase spending on defence.

The defence secretary might be able to shed a bit more light on it - he's speaking at the Institute for Government this morning about "his priorities for reforming UK defence". We'll have live coverage here in the Politics Hub from 9.30am.

What the government wants to talk about today is the launch of a consultation onthe remit and design of Great British Railways - Labour's new body to run the railways that will "bring track and train together".

Elsewhere, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference is running into its second day, with Nigel Farage set to have a "fireside chat" with Jordan Peterson. Expect tough interrogation... (not really).

The bosses of the National Farmers Union are due to have a meeting in the Treasury about the changes to inheritance tax that they are so furious about. We expect to hear from them afterwards for details of the discussions.

And Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey will be out and about today, and we expect to hear from him towards lunchtime. We'll bring you his views right here in the Politics Hub.

Over in parliament...

...nothing is happening as MPs are in their constituencies / on the ski slopes / at Centre Parcs, or otherwise enjoying the half-term recess.

We'll be discussing all of that and more with...

• Heidi Alexander, transport secretary, at 7.15am;
• James Cartlidge, shadow defence secretary, at 8.15am;
• Lord Kim Darroch, former UK ambassador to the US, at 8.30am.

Follow along for the very latest political news.

We're signing off after a pivotal day in which the future of Ukraine and European security has loomed large over British politics.

Sir Keir Starmer has been in Paris for crisis talks with fellow leaders, while the Americans and Russians have been holding peace negotiations without them - and the Ukrainians - in Saudi Arabia.

The PM has said he'd consider deploying British troops to help enforce any peace deal, and knows he needs to increase defence spending - but has demands of Donald Trump, too.

For a catch-up of the main things you need to know - and analysis from our experts - tap the key points above or scroll down.

You can watch tonight's Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge below, and we'll see you again tomorrow morning.

The inevitable Commons debate and vote on the decision to commit British forces on the ground in Ukraine will be another tricky encounter for the prime minister.

After Sir Keir Starmer revealed he would consider sending troops to enforce any peace deal, Downing Street said parliament would "absolutely be consulted and updated as appropriate" on any decision.

'Troops in harm's way'

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey was first off the mark with a call for a vote, though he said his party's 72 MPs would support sending troops.

The criticism will come, inevitably, from the Labour left.

Diane Abbott said she was concerned about the proposal to use British troops to keep the peace.

"If it is a durable, lasting peace then there will be no need for British troops on the ground," she said. "If not, and it could put this country at risk and troops in harm's way – then parliament should vote on it first."

Left-winger Clive Lewis, a former reserve infantry officer who served in Afghanistan, said: "This course of action could put UK troops in harm's way against a nuclear power, without US support.

"That demands deeper and broader debate. We need public buy-in for such a move, and parliament is essential in ensuring that."

That's not all...

And what of the Conservatives? Astonishingly, Kemi Badenoch, speaking at a conference about threats to Western civilisation, didn't even mention Ukraine in her address.

Tories will recall how in 2013, David Cameron was badly bruised by MPs voting 285-272 against military action in Syria, with 30 Conservative MPs and nine Lib Dems - then in coalition - rebelling.

At least a government defeat won't happen this time, given Labour's massive Commons majority and the all-party backing for the government on defending Ukraine's interests.

But the government will have to contend with calls from the opposition - and some Labour MPs - for a big hike in defence spending: another tricky issue for the prime minister.

Is Sir Keir Starmer following Tony Blair's policy of "liberal interventionism" by declaring he's ready to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to enforce a peace deal?

It won't have gone unnoticed that when he strode briskly from the Elysee Palace after Emmanuel Macron's crisis summit, alongside him was Jonathan Powell, who was Blair's chief of staff.

Powell is now Starmer's national security adviser and will have mixed memories of his old boss's interventions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and - notoriously - Iraq.

And he'll no doubt be alongside his current boss when the PM travels to Washington next week for what looks certain to be a tricky encounter with Donald Trump.

Will PM's demands fall flat in Washington?

Speaking at the British embassy in Paris after the Macron summit, Starmer said when he meets the president they would discuss "what we see as the key elements of a lasting peace".

He's pledged to "consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others if there's a lasting peace agreement" - and wants a US "security guarantee" to deter Russia.

But the Trump administration - and Moscow - have declared bringing peace to Ukraine is none of Europe's business.

That potentially puts Trump on collision course with Starmer, since the PM said emphatically in his remarks after the Paris summit: "Europe must play its role."

The stakes are high

The president wants a stitched-up deal with Vladimir Putin, no doubt so he can win a Nobel Peace Prize.

But at what price?

Starmer and other European leaders won't tolerate a sell-out of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and so will need the help of Powell, who used to be the UK's deputy ambassador in Washington, and the new ambassador, Peter Mandelson, when confronted by the president in the Oval Office.

The potential rift has now dramatically raised the stakes in the talks, which could now rival Harold Wilson-Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam, Margaret Thatcher-Ronald Reagan on the Falklands, and Tony Blair-George W Bush on Iraq in their significance.

There seems to be agreement across the political divide that Britain should spend more on defence.

But after decades of cuts, and reliance on the US, it won't be easy or cheap turning things around.

So how much does defence cost the UK right now? And how many soldiers could really be sent to Ukraine?

Sky's Matt Barbet talks you through the numbers:

Ukraine is the frontline of Britain, according to Keir Starmer.

He was speaking as European leaders gathered in Paris to discuss their response to Donald Trump opening up negotiations with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine.

Will the rhetoric match the reality?

It certainly sounds like this is a man gearing up to send British troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping effort if a deal is struck to end the war.

If Ukraine really is the frontline of Britain, then we're on the frontline with Russia, which means we could be in a position where British troops are fighting Russian troops, without the protection of NATO.

That feels unlikely - and there's another potential issue.

A peacekeeping force can't just be decided on by Ukraine - Russia would presumably need to have a say too.

Who might they insist on? China? North Korea?

For all the rhetoric about Ukraine being the frontline of Britain, and the UK playing its full part in any peacekeeping efforts, some kind of back-up military support sitting behind the actual frontline feels far more likely.

What will be sacrificed to boost defence?

This is just one of the many questions to be worked out by European leaders, alongside Ukraine, the US, and Russia.

But the one thing there does seem to be agreement on is the need for Europe to spend more on defence.

And it's one of those rare occasions when there's agreement across the political divide too, with Kemi Badenoch also calling for more spending.

So there's an awful lot of talk about the need to spend more, but an awful lot less about exactly what they want to spend these extra billions on - and what spending we're prepared to cut in order to do so.