Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentJohn Ivison: Let Starmer’s defence-spending implosion be a warning to CarneyThe lesson is the welfare-vs-warfare debate is an irrelevancy and western societies need to be more resilient in an age of rising threats You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Britain's former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns departs from BBC Broadcasting House after being interviewed on the morning after he resigned from his position, on June 12, 2026 in London, England. Photo by Leon Neal /Getty ImagesAl Carns, the 24-year Royal Marine veteran turned British politician, posted a Facebook video over the weekend, two days after he resigned as the U.K.’s armed forces minister.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorCarns followed his boss, defence minister John Healey, out of the door, with both claiming that the Labour government’s defence funding plan was inadequate.Carns said it had become clear to him that the change he pushed for in defence spending was not going to come. “We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war, while our adversaries arm for the next one,” he said.The resignations (which also included two MPs resigning as defence parliamentary secretaries) are over the not-yet-released U.K. government’s Defence Investment Plan, which will fall short of the goal of three per cent of GDP defence spending by 2030. The plan is not transformative enough, or sufficiently funded, Carns and Healey said — particularly in light of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s own comments that intelligence assessments point to an attack on NATO by Russia as soon as the end of the decade.The National Post newsletter that doesn’t hold back, giving readers the unvarnished truth on media, politics and culture.By signing up, you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Right? will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againBut it was the broader points that Carns made in his video that has lessons for Canadian policy makers: that the welfare-versus-warfare argument is an irrelevancy and that western societies need to become more resilient in an age of rising threats.Carns referred to three, apparently unrelated news stories: the interception by the Royal Marines of a Russian tanker in the English Channel, “carrying the oil that pays for Russia’s war”; the announcement by Starmer of legislation intended to protect children on social media; and the U.S. government’s move to block its allies from accessing the world’s most powerful AI model (Anthropic’s Fable).“You might think these stories are unrelated — defence, safety, tech — but it’s actually one string,” Carns said.“Is this country resilient enough to look after its own people?”Questions about resiliency and a redefinition of what constitutes “defence” are highly relevant for the Canadian federal government.The federal Liberals have announced ambitious defence plans — the equivalent of a tripling in spending in under a decade — but have yet to provide details on what it really means for the country.The goal is to project an image of a more self-sufficient, sovereign power that wields influence and has leverage.There is a tacit recognition that a strong country needs not just capable armed forces but economic security, and robust energy and communications protections.But the dots have not been connected and citizens are still in the dark about what it is likely to mean for them.The government’s plan will see Ottawa spending more on defence than on all other direct programs by 2033/34 and close to what it spends on transfers to other levels of government.As a research paper by the C.D. Howe Institute points out, such a sea change puts at risk the government’s fiscal plan to reduce deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio over time.Ottawa’s defence industrial strategy anticipates that the surge in spending will have a significant multiplier impact on the broader economy: that 70 per cent of acquisitions will be domestic (up from 30 per cent), that defence industry revenue will increase by 240 per cent and that defence exports will rise by 50 per cent.These are pretty rosy projections. A paper released by the OECD earlier this month downplayed the fiscal and economic impact of higher defence spending, suggesting the multiplier impacts are modest and may draw labour and capital from more effective uses in the economy.For the Carney government’s defence spending to pay for itself, nominal GDP would have to grow at 6.3 per cent annually in the years leading up to 2035, far in excess of the forecasts in the last budget of 3.7 per cent over the next five years.The most politically palatable solution, the authors of the C.D. Howe report suggest, is to increase the GST by two points, which would raise revenues by around $25 billion a year, and to cut in half planned increases in funding for non-defence direct program spending and transfers to people. Those spending reductions would hit government operations, infrastructure maintenance, border services, environmental monitoring, national parks and old-age benefits, among other things.Those are not conversations any government wants to have with voters but, if it is going to follow through with its plan, Ottawa has to be more transparent about its implications.The starting point is to affirm that national resilience is about more than defence in the narrow sense.As Carns said, energy supply, social media regulation and AI are now all part of the same string.And as he also pointed out, the alternatives are even more grim.As he concluded in his resignation letter: “A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.”National Post Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.