How weak Starmer left Britain defenceless: Rebel armed forces minister reveals all | The Daily T

He's the man who resigned over Keir Starmer's refusal to spend more on defence.We're joined by renegade MP and ex -military man Al Khans.

It leaves the PM on a precipice, accused of failing to invest in the security of his country and now pushing a social media ban that critics call pointless.

I've met Securist Armour once in an official capacity to talk about the issues surrounding my portfolio once in two years.But my honest view is that he is a good, decent man trying his very best against significant headwinds.What I am saying, and I say this ever so gently, we need to be bold, courageous, and we need to run this like we've lost it.

Delighted today to be joined by Al Khan, Labour MP for Birmingham's Selly Oak, but originally from Aberdeen.and I'm sure very happy about Scotland.And Haiti.Delighted.

I'm looking forward to an England -Scotland World Cup final.

Who do you support?Yeah, who do you support?Because you're from Aberdeen, but you now represent Birmingham.

I support all of the countries of the United Kingdom, but I have a definite bias towards Scotland and the European Army.

You were, until last week, Armed Forces Minister.You resigned in the footsteps of John Healey, who resigned saying that the government's defence investment plan did not have sufficient funds for the threat that we face.You wrote that the armed forces are being asked to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.Let me get the timeline right here.On June 11th, you appeared on TV and said that you would have to see what was in the defence investment plan before deciding whether or not to resign from your job.Less than an hour later, you had resigned.

So what happened in that very short period to make you do that?

Well, there were two things, just a correction on that.I'd been brought into the defence investment plan about two weeks before.

Okay.

So this defense investment plan I've been building for some time, months and months, and I'd also like toon the detail of what was in it, what capability we were going to continue to provide for armed forces two weeks prior.So I was already a little bit miffed that I hadn't been involved or included in the decision making as to what our armed forces required to fight.

Is that normal?

So I've worked for three defense secretaries and in some cases it is, some cases it isn't.It's primarily who you want in this, around the table, discussing that capability, those capability decisions.So I hadn't been brought into the defense investment plan.And then I had to wait for the, we were trying to horse trade things in and out of that defense investment plan, you know, right up to the very end.And then when a financial settlement was sort of exposed to me, the two didn't match.I actually think there were three key reasons why I'd run out of road in government.

The first one was that the financial settlement, you know, 0 .08 increase, 2 .68 by 2030, was not going to deliver what we required, given the threats that we face and we see around us every day, and we can talk about that in a second.The second bit was the defence investment plan was no way, shape or form transformative enough, given the lessons of what we're seeing in Ukraine.And so it was buying kit, I thought, for the last war, not the next war.The funding profiles and the capability delivery tanks, whatever you want to deliver drones, needed to be delivered this side of 2030.not in 2033, 2034, because the rest of Europe is heading to a 2030 timeline.And then the final bit, which is intrinsically linked, was the moral component.

So, why are our forces fighting?They have a contract with us, they do a hard day's work, they work on the front line, and then we need to support them after their service.And I have been toe -to -toe on the Legacy Act, the Northern Ireland Legacy Act, about bringing veterans back to court and ensuring that we have a balanced program toward truth, reconciliation, and justice.I'd lost trust.in that ability to deliver so I couldn't ask veterans to have trust in it either Okay, but can you explain what precisely happened in that hour?Well, I gave that brief.

I went back.I went back to my office.There were lots of phone calls coming in.And I think people trying to, as always happens, sound you out as to where your trade space was.And I've been really clear with everybody who I talked to.And I'm not going to go into details of who I talked to.

There were three things I needed.I needed the financial settlement to be broader and, indeed, more innovative.So Defense Security Resilience Bank, MDM, a whole plethora of different mechanisms to find more money.defence investment plan to have some of those lessons from Ukraine rooted in from the very start and built around that, not shoehorned in at the end, and I needed movement on the Legacy Act in particular.

Okay, because cynics within Westminster are speculating that what happened in that hour is you were told you would not be replacing John Healey.

And I think that's a very good line to spin to make it look like me and not the system.And I absolutely understand why the system would want to do that.I'll be really clear.I've sat in government for the last two years trying to take 24 years of military experience, some working for Secretary of State, three defense secretaries, and trying to get the military back into a space where it has the capability and capacity to fight the next war.I had run out of road trying to achieve that.

You wouldn't have stayed had you been offered the job of Defence Secretary.

I think it's a poison chalice.Unless they were going to give you more money, allow you to renegotiate the dip, what's in that dip, which bits of drones, ships, planes that we're buying.and move on the Legacy Act.

Okay, in which case it's hard not to infer a comment upon Dan Jarvis, because he has taken that poison chalice.Why do you think he's done that?

So, first of all, I want to be really clear, Dan Jarvis is a good friend of mine, I think he's top quality, he's gotgood military pedigree, he's an ex -paratrooper, and he's a very steady hand at this type of business.And remember, someone's got to steady the ship.We have a 30 % increase in Russian activity in surface and subsurface activity in the high north.We have 15 billion pounds worth of cyber attacks as a whole.We're in the Middle East now, a peace deal, which we're going to have to play a part in.

We've got war in Ukraine taking place.So someone's going to need to hold it.And I think Dan Jarvis is a good man to hold it steady.He's going to have a difficult fight.I thought there was some movement two days ago when we saw a bit of movement around funding.It seems to have closed off.

It'll be interesting to see where that goes.And I'd also like to see that defense investment plan.I wouldn't say, it doesn't need to be torn up, but it really needs to have some of these capabilities injected in and delivered this side of 2030.

But would you advise a man of character to resign if he can't improve upon the plan?

Well, all I'll say is John Healey resigned on principle, I resigned on principle, and it's down to others to decide what they need to do.And I think we've got to leave them the personal space to come to their own conclusions.

But you see the problem here is you're saying effectively the ship is sinking because the government's not spending the money necessary to keep us safe.which are also applauding Dan Jarvis for stepping in to keep the ship afloat.I mean, which is it?Does someone at some point just have to say to the Prime Minister, frankly, none of us can make this ship float so long as you're continuing to deprive it of the necessary...

So I see where you're coming from.But as we talk on this radio show, there are pilots flying defensive combat air missions in the Middle East.There are soldiers in the trenches in Estonia, you know, looking over the border at Russia.And we have ships, you know, pursuing Russian submarines in the high north.Someone needs to hold that line, needs to carefully articulate and understand the risk and clear the ministerial submissions that come up.And I think Dan Jarvis is a good man to do that.

And there's a bit about when I left, you know, a little bit of not leaving my post, I was like, I've got to leave this responsibility.Because I really care about what happens to armed forces.It was a reallyreally difficult decision, but...I have said on the record, in the next three to five years, we will have a geographically constrained confrontation with a hostile state.

Yes.

And if that is the case, and we don't get it right now, there's every chance we will lose lives in the future.

OK, so mindful of everything you've said and the very perilous times we face.And we can look, if we wanted to, at historically the armed forces being hollowed out by successive governments.Just put that to one side.Take us inside the thinking.in the Labour government, because you're talking about military types holding the line.Why isn't the Prime Minister and the Chancellor holding the line when it comes to defence of this nation?

Not least when Keir Starmer does pride himself on his international statesman credentials.He's leading coalitions of the willing, yet he seems to be very unwilling to spend the money that's needed to protect this great nation.

So I'll be really clear, I think actually Keir Starmer on the international stage has done a very good job.especially the stuff that I've seen.First of all, I wasn't included in any of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, that was the Secretary of State, and I haven't been included in a defence investment plan.And so it is difficult for me to give you the in and outs working of government.What I would say is that if you are, and as the Prime Minister has said, that we are heading towards potentially conflict, then we need to fund it properly.Now, nothing is black or white in government, it's always a trade -off, but that needs to come from a central prioritisation decision -making in the centre.

And if we decide that defence is the central cohering principle of the government, which was also said previously, then it should be.What I would say is that we continue to talk about defence in the silo, and we think of tanks and planes and soldiers and sailors and airmen and women.We need to think of defence as national resilience, i .e.it's a much broader issue.Economic security is linked to defence.

Our industrial policy needs to be linked to defence.Our foreign policy affects your gas prices.We can no longer detract ourselves or disconnect ourselves from global conflict.

No, I mean, Mr. Carnes, you're preaching to the converted here.This is the rhetoric of the Telegraph comment desk.But just to drill into the issue here, what is going on then with a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who have repeatedly boasted of this massive boost to defence spending, that they're now not going to commit to.Clearly there is something ideological at play.Now it could be that there isn't the appetite for spending more on say defence as there is on welfare or indeed the NHS.The argument being mounted by critics of this decision is that they're prioritising welfare over warfare because ultimately they think they'll get more votes for it.

And that's extremely cynical when, if the former Defence Secretary John Healey is to be believed, that decision making is leading to Britain being less safe.The quote was less safe.

So I would say two elements to that.The first one is whether we like it or not, Labour has always spent more on defence than the Conservatives, especially in recent history.And this government has spent more on defence in the last two years than the Conservatives spent in the last 14.That's positive.The trouble is the geopolitical situation, the threats that we face, are actually moving even faster.And this is where this dichotomy and this gap is starting to build.

When we talk about welfare or warfare, I don't think it's actually welfare or warfare, I think it's a much broader issue across all of our government departments and I've been really clear that we need to really get our country back into productivity and then take the slices off that productivity and make sure it's then prioritised against thethat we want to deliver, which is primarily defence.

But one of the blockers to this is Ed Miliband and his department.You know, we've reported and others have that when told to cut his own purse strings on his net zero, zealotry, some think, not least Telegraph readers, he resolutely refused.

He has reportedly been refusing to even meet Keir Starmer to discuss it.

Now that's extraordinary when you consider, as you've talked about, how there's a bigger picture at play here and actually our defence and security plays into our energy security, which therefore plays into our cost of living crisis.So if you've got immovable cabinet ministers like Miliband and actually the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are bowing to them and not to you and John Healey, then that tells the public everything they need to know about the government's priorities.

So I'd say two responses to that.First, the conflict in the Middle East, and even now if the Straits of Hormuz open and get back to 120, 130 ships a day, it's stopped on average.perhaps 6 ,000 to 7 ,000 ships going in and out to the Straits Armouries.That economic ramification we're going to feel for the next two years.Some of the infrastructure destroyed in the Middle East will take five years to fix.That's just the LNG sort of processing facilities.

So there's going to be a ripple effect for the Middle East for a long time to come.The second bit is, from my perspective, less net zero.and actually ensuring we have energy security.And I would like to see a very balanced transition from oil and gas towards green and renewables to ensure that we, as a Labour government, protect jobs as we transition through.Because we are losing hundreds of jobs in the North East in particular.Remember where I'm from.

I'm from Aberdeen and people speak to me all the time on this.And I would like to see that balanced transition.I'd like to see the profits of some of that.transition go into people who are struggling with the energy costs.

So you do think Miliband hasn't got the balance right?Because he thinks he has and you seem to be saying he hasn't.

Well I would like to see a balanced trajectory.towards not net zero but towards energy security.And that's the way I look at it.

But that's not his trajectory, is it?His trajectory is headlining into net zero.So are you saying Ed Miliband isn't being balanced?

What I would say, and it's down to others to comment on the specific figures and the economics of it, is that oil and gas, whether we like it or not, is here to stay for a generation.

Let me put it to you that you're in the wrong party.

Absolutely not.Well, what have I talked about here?I've talked about jobs.So our decision -making in government is absolutely critical to ensure that we sustain jobs for individuals who are trying to put a meal on the table, trying to get their kids to school in their car, and trying to pay their mortgage.If we're making decisions that are putting people out of jobs, then that's not the right thing to be doing.Understanding that we may want to get to net zero and energy security, we need to make a balanced transition to it limit the impact, not just on the jobs, but on the cost on everybody's pocket across the country.

And I think that balance is exactly where we need to go.When I talk about defense and we talk about bombs, bullets, and battleships, I'm talking about national resilience.I'm talking about cadet forces, giving people a lift up and allowing them to be more mentally and physically resilient to achieve much more in school and then go on to succeed.I'm talking about how we can give people opportunity.Remember, I come from Aberdeen, a relatively rough area, and I got an opportunity.That's why I'm Labour.

But you're sounding like a Conservative.

Well, no, I think we need to be realist in our policies.

Again, you're sounding like a Conservative.

Well, that's entirely up to you and your opinion.What I would say is, being brought up in a relatively humble background, I was given a chance.I had the rigs to go to offshore, oil and gas.I had the military, or I went slightly awry.I was a little bit of a rogue when I was young, anyway.I then went into the military, and I found out

that I got a lift up and out.I always say if you were a rogue you weren't stealing the lead off church No, but I was I was you know, I was brought up in a relatively rough area Okay, and so I joined the Marines that channeled my energy.It made a man of me.It gave me principles It gave me boundaries.It gave me a structure to live my life and it brought me up and up and through What I'm saying to you is if there's lots of areas of this country They've been left behind my sit in Birmingham in my constituency.I cannot describe to you some of the level of deprivation That can't be right in a g7 country It just can't be right.

I've been to some of the worst places in the world and I now go to areas around our country and I'm like, how have we allowed this to happen?And one of the reasons is because we blame the individual, not the environment.So I always say, if a plant is wilting, it's not the plant's fault, it's the environment.It doesn't have the right water, it doesn't have the right food, it doesn't have the right sunlight.I was one of those individuals who could quite easily have gone left or right and away from the military.But guess what?

The military captured my imagination, up and away I went, and here I am now, rightly or wrongly so as an MP.

Sure, but you could argue that if your constituency has got pockets of deep deprivation, which I do not doubt, that the last two years of Labour government probably haven't helped.You know, youth unemployment has gone up by 2%, people are really struggling, and communities seem more fractured than ever.So the Labour solution so far It's not really ticking any boxes.

And so I can understand perspective, but I just want to throw back at that, and there's lots of criticism in this space, but I would say the people that I've met in my constituency, for example, lifting the True Child Benefit cap has lifted 450 ,000 children out of poverty.We have some of the highest child poverty levels in Birmingham.The Renters' Rights Act, the workers' rights, actually really support some of those individuals that are just getting by.and I think they're great things.I would say the youth guarantee that Pat McFadden launched two weeks ago is a fantastic initiative.But I want to scale that times 10.

And this is part of the issue.For example, I mean, take some of the facts and figures.And you can add circa around this, because I'm not exact.$300 billion on mental health.That's sort of the impact it has on the economy.There's $110 billion of that that is lost economic output.

$130 billion, which is the human cost, and $60 billion on the NHS.Now let's work on how we can make our country more physically and mentally resilient.

But that costs money.

It might come from the defence budget.That's what the government's trying to do.

It's trying to balance all of these demands.Exactly.

And it's really, really difficult.But we've got to have a long -term vision.You mentioned two years.Two years to change anything is exceptionally difficult.Sometimes you've got to go down before you've got to go up.

Well, Starmer might need to go down before he comes up.I was just thinking, Tim, you come in, but you're not just sounding like a Conservative.All right, I take that.You've batted that back at me fine.But you're not sounding like an ordinary MP now.No, you keep saying, I want to do.

You're sounding like a future prime minister.Is this also about your own leadership?bit.

This is about me having a voice outside of government now and seeing the things that I've always been seeing in government but haven't been allowed to speak them outside of it.

be cynical, but he's not afraid of getting in front of a camera, is he?

I'm not afraid of anything.I make it fun.

But are you going to run?I mean, let's just ask you that question straight out.We've got Burnham in this by -election on Thursday.Don't know whether he's going to win or not.That's his own attempt to unseat Keir Starmer.We know it is, regardless of what everyone's saying.

There's then going to be a leadership race, which the Prime Minister wants to stand in.There's a huge amount of speculation that you're also going to stand.Are you going to stand?

I don't think it's as black and white as that because I haven't actually made a decision either way.I would like to see a couple of things.I'd like to see in particular a large chunk of MPs listened to within the party who have great ideas and really want to be bold.And we need to be bold and courageous.The only way we are going to sort this country out in the next three years and head on our continual democratic process, my view, is unless we go really bold over the next three years.And that's primarily around education.

I think it's so education, make ourselves a education superpower.When do you ever see a failing education system and a failing economy?I want to see above all else.I want to see us move towards mental, physical health, resilience and preventative health care strategies.and those government departments start to feed into each other in a combined strategy to deliver outputs rather than silos.And I want to see us, and I'm being really honest, I've said this a thousand times, I want to see us add a trillion onto our GDP in the next 10 years.

By harnessing the talent we have in this country, the entrepreneurial startups are making business come here, provide jobs in exchange for skills and opportunity across society, not just really high -end degree courses.These are the arguments and discussions we should have.

OK, that's fine.But people might be listening and watching this with a degree of cynicism, because we had all this from Keir Starmer.We had all this with a manifesto, with him in a power stance, and the word change written on the front.You seem to be, inadvertently, it's probably not on purpose, damning Keir Starmer with your own analysis of what is needed.You're saying we need to be bold and radical.By implication, you're saying he hasn't been bold and radical.

And frankly, if I can use a military analogy, you don't want to be in the trenches with Keir Starmer, do you, Al Khan?So that's the problem here.He's just weak and not good enough.

I'll just be really clear.I really enjoyed being in the trenches.I'm now in politics.

To answer that direct question, because you know, to use that analogy, you've been at the sharp end.I don't think you're the type of bloke that wants to follow Keir Starmer over the top.

So I've been in government now.for two years.I've sat in the veterans job and now I've sat in this job.I've met Securist Armour once in an official capacity to talk about the issues surrounding my portfolio once in two years.But my honest view is that he is a good, decent man trying his very best against significant headwinds.What I am saying, and I say this ever so gently, we need to be bold, courageous, And we need to run this like we've lost it.

Because if we don't, in 2029, if you end up with a conservative reform coalition government, you'll have a 16 % pull swing towards Scottish independence.And in 2031, you won't be dealing with any new idea that reform brings to the table.You'll be dealing with a customs union and a border crossing issue going north.And it will be a disaster.I did not fight for England, Scotland, Wales, Wales and Northern Ireland, I fought for the whole of the United Kingdom and we must hold it together because we're in the foothills of a Brexit style disaster.

But forgive me, if you get a reformed Tory government, you probably will get the defence spending that you've been asking for.And secondly, the SNP has done well.

You might even get national service.

The SNP did well in the last round of elections, well -ish in considering the context of the enormous leadership scandal they had on Nicola Sturgeon.On your watch, Labour is not beating the SNP right now.

independence that will be deniable for any government to stop and it will happen in 2030, 31 and you won't be doing national service or defence spending, you'll be cutting up your GDP back to Scotland and talking about the nuclear deterrent and our place in the world, the beacon of hope which our country has been, irrelevant of which government it has been in.For the last couple of hundred years we forged democracy, created all sorts of things around the world as a way to tear itself apart.

Are you sure about that, though?Because reform has performed well in Scotland, much better than the Conservatives.And indeed, I take Tim's point that...Wales, too.The rise and fall of Sturgeon happened because of Labour's inability to retain those seats.Let's be perfectly honest.

Labour's collapse in Wales.

Indeed.And the rise of Labour in reform.Devolution, ironically, because it was the invention of Tony Blair, has proved to be rather disastrous for the Labour Party.24 years, was it, of Labour rule in Wales, educational standards down, NHS waiting times up.Drakeford, frankly, humiliated during COVID.Similarly, even if you reflect on the whole camper van gate, I mean, it's extraordinary that Labour aren't making more headway there with the lefties when you consider everything that's gone on with Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon, and beyond.

Good grief.So you're having a go at the right.This is a left problem.

I'm with you.I think I should let you keep going because I'm not a fan of the SNP either.I mean, we used to have one of the best education systems in the world.True.Yeah.Now look at it.

They've taken us out of the ratings because it's so well.

But you take my point about in light of all that, when you're considering an electorate that is majority left -leaning.Labour should be mopping up there, not Nigel Farage.

I just want to be really clear.If we step back and look at this, look at the way it's going, we have, and this is one of my concerns, and I've said this on the radio the other day, is that we have some parties seeking to highlight division and discord, champion the problems in society, split communities along race, religion, indeed some micro cultures that we have in the UK.My concern is that thatis sat at a lower level, and if we end up in the next four years moving towards a reform conservative government, it goes national.And what I want to be really clear is that we have the analysis and the discussion about what that means, because I love this country, the United Kingdom.I'm a proud Scotsman, but I love the country and I need it to hold it together, especially in this geopolitical environment.

And it's a really interesting fact.I'll link on to your next point, social media, which I know you're coming on to.Six months ago, sorry, about a year ago, when American Israel struck Iran, they destroyed a couple of targets in and around Tehran.And you can argue rightly or wrongly, so it's down to others.When they struck those targets, it destroyed 3 % of all Scottish independence media.Just have a think about that.

Just let that sink in to your listeners.3 % of Scottish independence media was being produced by Iran.Now, Iran's propaganda budget is minuscule in comparison to Russia's.Russia has 1 .5 billion in its propaganda budget.Now think of the social division you can sow here in the country that results in this country breaking apart without firing a bullet, dropping a bomb, or sailing a battleship.And I'm really concerned that when you look at the Wales leader in reform getting 10 years for taking Russian money, and you look at the system how it's starting to sow division in right down to the lowest level, street to street, community to community, and then when you step back and you think, actually, hold on, are we defeating ourselves?

And actually, where are the hearts and minds of the country and who's affecting those hearts and minds?And I think we need a really detailed analysis into that.

I

So, can I be really honest?The social media ban as a whole that came out today, I welcome it.I hope it brings the tech industries into negotiation for much more nuanced solutions.But I do not understand why on earth we are allowing our children unfettered access to extreme images on one hand, and extreme violence on the other.You cannot stop it.It would be like allowing a weirdo into your kid's bedroom.

You have no control over it, of what they look at.I have two boys and a daughter.My young boys speak to me about things I would never have considered when I was young.

How old are your children?

14 and 11.I'm 22 but my point being is I just can't understand it.It would be similar to a newsagent when you were young taking the top shelf of the newsagent magazines, bringing them down, locking kids in there and saying read whatever you want.

Yeah and have some sweets while you're at it.

people have got a key to the shop.But that's where the nuance comes into.Tearing some strips off those tech companies and saying you're responsible for this, you need to police it.Would your mum and dad ever have allowed you to go into an 18 or an R rated movie when you're 11 or 12?

No.Then why on earth are we allowing it?I mean, I had two older brothers, I was watching all sorts of inappropriate films when I was too young, but whatever.With that in mind then, why not go the full hog and actually ban smartphones for under 13s?Why do under 13s need a smartphone at all?

Yeah, so I think the implementation of that, the safety elements of phones, and I know there's lots of different views of it, I think we've got to be careful.There's this balance between individual freedom of speech and individuality and collective security, and then everything in between.

They can have a brick phone, they just can't have an iPhone.

I would say that the ban has come in, I think it's a good thing.What I'd like to see is consistent, very focused iterations of the legislation to hold the tech companies to account to ensure we are protecting our youngestin society.

Okay, before you go can we ask you some quickfire questions, just for fun.It's a bit of fun Al Khan, are you up for fun?Okay, let's think.Favourite war film?

Saving Private Ryan.

Is it?Favourite military leader in all history?

Churchill.Interesting.

Favourite military uniform of all time?

Royal Marines Blues, obviously.

Obvs.Best weapon to use in combat?

Oh my goodness.Be careful what I say here, I guess.A rifle.

Right.Why?

It has a mixture between long range and short range capacity.

Good question.I don't know why I'm throwing this in, but you throw them into every quickfire.Favourite James Bond?

Sean Connery, obviously.

Obviously as a Scotsman.

Favourite Prime Minister?

Clement Attlee or Churchill.

Okay.Famous Scottish food stuff?

Haggis.I mean, everybody loves haggis.

I thought you might say Tunnock's Caramel.

Battered black pudding.

And how many pints of iron brew could you consume in five minutes?

Thousands.It's made of girders.It's the only place that outsells Coca -Cola.

There we are.Al Cancell, thanks for being a good sport.Thank you for being so clear in your views and thank you for coming on the Daily Tea.

And thank you for having me.Have a great day, everyone.

Camilla, this morning we went to listen to a speech by Kemi Badenoch about defence.And it strikes me, having spoken with Al Cairns, who we've subsequently discovered voted Conservative in the past.

Yes.Surprise, surprise.

It's striking how similar their criticisms of the government are.

Yes.

It's not just the not spending enough on defence.It's the lack of a bold, big vision for the country.And of course net zero as well.

Well we spoke to the opposition leader after that press conference and this is what she had to say.

Kimmy Badenoch, thank you very much for joining us on the Daily T. Thank you.I just listened to your speech about defence.You said the government is not serious about it.Now, if he were here right now, Akir Somer would say, the Tories underfunded defence.I have made the commitment to raise defence spending from 2 .3 % to 2 .6 % in 2027.So it's heading in the right direction to hit 3 .5 % in 2035.

How would you respond to that?

Defence spending has been going down since 1989, since I was nine years old.There's no point us talking about what went on for those 30 years.The fact is we were spending a peace dividend, and the peace dividend has now been spent.These are new threats that are coming in.The world is more dangerous than it has been before.And we need to get ready for those threats, not talk about the threats of 20 years ago.

That means we need 3 % by the end of this parliament.And the fact that the Defense Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister have both resigned, saying Keir Starmer is not keeping the country safe is extraordinary.It's unprecedented.I don't think we should underplay the gravity of the situation that we have right now.

You've made the offer before to Keir Starmer of we'll work with you to cut welfare in order to spend more on defence and that was obviously ignored.Today in your speech you repeated that offer to Andy Burnham.Do you think he might accept?

Well I think that it's important that we know what Andy Burnham is going to do before he gets into the job that he is trying to take off Keir Starmer.I think having somebody whose plans are unknown is extremely disrespectful.If he really wants to be the Prime Minister then he should be brave enough and bold enough to say exactly what it is that he's going to do.And it is my job to hold Labour to account.That is what I am doing.I worry when I hear Keir Starmer saying, well, he's increasing defence spending.

He's talking about increasing defence spending.He's actually cut defence spending this year byand a half billion.Most people don't know that because the smoke and mirrors of him talking about increasing it later while cutting it now seems to be working.He is not increasing defense spending this year.He's asked the department to find cuts.

We need to stop him messing around.John Healey has done the right thing by exposing what was going on.Everybody else needs to join in.Hold Keir Starmer to account and let's find a solution.

By making an offer to Andy Burnham, you're not making it to Al Khan's, you're not making it to West Streeting.I assume you think he's going to win the by -election and he is going to become Prime Minister.Is that the plan that you're working on?

Well, actually, I've written to more than Andy Burnham.I've written to several people.But the truth is it doesn't matter.It doesn't matter who the Labour leader is.It's still the same backbenchers.the same Labour Party.

And as I've said, they're not the Labour Party anymore.They are the Welfare Party.Pat McFadden, the Welfare Secretary, had his text messages to Peter Mandelson exposed.And what did he say?That all Labour MPs want to talk to him about is who can we tax to pay for benefits.That's all they care about.

The other big story of the day is the social media ban for under -16s that the Prime Minister announced this morning.I was with him earlier because we both appeared on This Morning on ITV.And I made an argument that when a little I know you're supporting the ban in principle.You're a mother of three.I'm a mother of three.Your children are slightly younger than mine.

So we've both been through this.I said, actually, if you really want to do something substantial for those generations, you should just ban the smartphone for under 13s full stop.Then you get around the issues of, oh, well, what if they circumvent it with a VPN?What if they do this?What if they do that?I think primary school children and smartphones just don't mix.

Would you go even further than the Prime Minister?

So I don't think primary school aged children should have smartphones.Our policy is to ban phones from schools.There are variousreasons why, you know, children in year seven, for example, might need a phone.You know, there are no red telephone boxes anymore.If you do need to call home, it's actually, as something's happened, it's actually very difficult to do so.

But having the phones in schools distracting, I think, is a real, real problem.I also want us to distinguish between smartphones and social media.The social media worries me because it allows strangers to contact children, their algorithms designed to be addictive, social media making a lot of money off our children.Social media should be for adults, not for children.Kirstein has only done this because of amendments which conservatives put in place.We got them through bills in the House of Lords.

He's been pushed into this.It's not something that he was interested in doing, but I'm not going to complain or let the perfect be the enemy of the good.He's at least done something.We will want to tidy it up.

But might you be minded to go further?

Well, there's all sorts of weird stuff that he's brought in, like the curfews for 16 to 18 -year -olds.That doesn't really make any sense.But let's see where we get to.With policies like this that come in on the fly, because they didn't have a plan, I think we should see how it's working for us before proposing we go further.There's a lot that we'll need to clear up in terms of how it's going to work.It's not going to help everybody.

Some children will circumvent with VPNs and so on.Some parents won't care and will let their children go on.social media, just as some parents give their children cigarettes.But what I want to see, what I want to see is a culture change.We didn't have, you and I didn't have social media when we were growing up.Happy days.

Yes, indeed, indeed.And we've seen a generation now that has grown up with it.And what have we seen?More mental health problems, more anxiety, more depression, fewer friends, more fear.And this is contributing to our welfare bill.It's all linked.

So if we can get people off social media, we should see fewer young people going straight from university.on to benefits as we have been seeing in recent days.

From smartphones to a question about smartness from Tim, who you've noted, Kemi Bainox, had a bit of a glow up lately.Tim, how's the lighting?

A lot of people were concerned about the Prime Minister when he appeared this morning with a T -shirt and a tracksuit top.And of course, Andy Burnham never wears a tie.What do you think about politicians dressing as though their life has fallen apart?And will you demand high sartorial standards if you're Prime Minister?

I do believe in high sartorial standards.I haven't actually seen the Prime Minister's outfit this morning because I was giving my own speech.But I do think standards are dropping everywhere.I think it's important that we have men wearing ties in Parliament.I think women should be dressed appropriately.

Can you hear that, Tim?Can we make Knox pointing out that you've asked this question, you're not actually in a tie yourself.

Yeah, ties don't go well with stubble.

That's the issue.I certainly think in Parliament we should do.I've been in Parliament when Labour MPs, I should say, female Labour MPs looked like they were going to a nightclub afterwards.I think that we've got to set the standards, we've got to set the standards in Parliament, so I always make sure that I'm dressed appropriately.We are representing our constituents, so high statutory standards, yes, absolutely.

The women in Westminster are setting these standards that you must achieve, Tim Stanley.Kemi Badenoch, thank you so much for joining us on the Daily T. Thank you Camilla, thank you Tim.So that's a nice endorsement isn't it from Kemi Badenock to you?

It is, I'm not quite sure what a glow -up is but I can assure you I've not had one.

You have because you've got these new spectacles and the glow -up is where you have a kind of like a renaissance later in life where you were perhaps not as attractive as a student.For instance, I'm speaking personally here because my eyebrows are just, some of the photographs of me from the 90s are so embarrassing.

I think that's more on the 90s than you.

I don't think anyone looked good in the 90s.I put on a lot of weight at uni as well.I will show you at some point.But anyway, I'm regarded to have had a bit of a glow up.I mean, I don't want to brag.And she was just saying that you looked like you'd had one.

I've always been good looking.But what I will say, and some people will identify with this, is how I look changes according to the weather.

Yes.

It really does.I cannot tell you what color my eyes are.

Well, they're bluey, greyy, green.

Exactly.

Well, mine are a bit mysterious as well.

It changes according to the season.So in winter, it does look like I've got grey eyes and then in summer I find they go blue.As you can tell, I spent a lot of time in front of the mirror.

Yes, indeed.

Asking who is the fairest journalist of them all.I've had to kill several people who the mirror mentioned.

Can I by the way say, just to quote David Cameron, put on a bloody tie.I mean, if you could have asked about sartorial standards, look at you in your open neck shirt.

I know, but it's because I cultivate stubble and I just think a tie with stubble looks worse than stubble without a tie.

OK, but I'm just saying I want to see you clean shaven and suited and booted tomorrow.

When I am clean shaven, I almost always wear a tie.

All right.I'll also have a shave for tomorrow and we'll both be back at 5 p .

m.If you're enjoying our journalism, why not sign up to From the Editor, our free email newsletter.Start your day with the latest news and opinion, plus our bite -sized puzzles.Scan the QR code to sign up free today.