There was always a risk that the external reviewers who led last year’s Strategic Defence Review would turn on the government. George Robertson’s intervention last week – saying that the government was not doing enough to improve Britain’s defence, saying a ‘corrosive complacency’ had set in – was born of deep frustration about the large gap between Labour’s lofty rhetoric on defence, and reality.

Andrew Lloyd Webber and the dangerous truth about alcohol

How the Mandelson scandal could prove fatal for Keir Starmer

Why doesn’t the Royal Academy of Music like private school kids?

Robertson’s threat analysis was overly pessimistic. Russia is not about to launch a military offensive on a Nato member. Britain does not face Russia alone. He was right, however, to criticise ‘lethargic thinking’, and the lack of urgency to rebuild our brittle armed forces.

Although Robertson focused his ire on the ‘non-military experts in the Treasury’, in truth the latest imbroglio is a result of the failure of the First Lord of the Treasury – the Prime Minister – to lead, to adapt to changed strategic circumstances, to honour promises made to our allies, and to be open with the public. We should not expect a change in course while he remains in office.

The Labour manifesto signalled continuity from the previous government’s approach. The party promised to sustain the trilateral Aukus security partnership with Australia and the United States, support Ukraine, while stating an ‘unshakeable commitment to Nato and our nuclear deterrent’. It also promised to rebuild the armed forces.

But defence was not one of........

© The Spectator