Up next in 10
Ex Defence Secretary, Penny Mordaunt on Iran War and the state of the British armed forces
Mar 26, 2026
Are we sleepwalking into a national security disaster? In this explosive breakdown, former Defence Secretary Dame Penny Mordaunt reveals the terrifying reality of the UK's military readiness.
A new report from Team Lewis, the Defence Legitimacy and Investment Index, explains exactly why our armed forces are severely underfunded, and how daily attacks on shipping in the Middle East expose our critical vulnerabilities.
She argues current spending targets are dangerously inadequate and how bureaucratic red tape and regulations are choking defence innovation. Mordaunt doesn't hold back, detailing the urgent need for defence bonds and radical shifts away from welfare spending to fund our immediate survival.
Most chillingly, she predicts the catastrophic trigger - large numbers of British forces or citizens being killed- that might finally force the government to wake up.
This is the unvarnished truth politicians are terrified to admit.
[00:00] The Reality of Middle East Shipping Attacks
[02:15] Why the 2.5% Defence Budget Target Fails
[04:40] Civilian Defence: Cyber and Energy Threats
[06:30] Is Bureaucracy Choking the Military?
[08:45] Funding the Future: The Case for Defence Bonds
[11:10] The Trade-off: Welfare Cuts vs. National Security
[13:30] The Chilling Warning: What Will Wake Up Parliament?
Get more of City AM 👇
🌐 http://www.cityam.com
X(formerly Twitter): http://twitter.com/CityAM
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cityam
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/city_am
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/cityam
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
I think that it will only be large
0:03
numbers of our armed forces or British
0:06
citizens being killed. I do think that
0:08
is the only [music] thing that is going
0:10
to wake up this government. Not only
0:12
have we not done enough on pure defense,
0:15
warships, and all those sorts of things,
0:16
we've also not done enough on civilian
0:19
defense as well in our own resilience as
0:22
a nation, cybersecurity, energy
0:24
security. It is about giving citizens of
0:27
this country the knowledge they need.
0:29
It's a completely false [music] economy
0:31
to say, "Let's cut back and let's not
0:33
worry about these foundational
0:35
capabilities." If you do not invest in
0:38
them, everything else is in trouble.
0:41
Defense spending is costly. It's not
0:43
something voters see in effect on a
0:45
day-to-day basis like the NHS or
0:47
policing. But when Iranian missiles are
0:50
hitting hotels in Dubai, Chinese
0:51
state-backed hackers are bringing
0:53
British businesses to a halt, and
0:56
Russian threats against European
0:57
democracies ramp up with each passing
1:00
day, have people woken up to the need to
1:02
spend more on defense? A new poll
1:04
suggests that the majority of voters
1:06
want the government to give the armed
1:08
forces more cash. Sir Keir Starmer
1:11
previously announced the UK would spend
1:13
2.6% of the country's GDP on defense
1:16
from next year, funded by cuts to the
1:19
aid budget. Now the government is trying
1:21
to figure out how it could afford to
1:23
raise spending to 3% of GDP within
1:26
years. That would come ahead of a NATO
1:28
target to get the defense spending up to
1:31
3.5%
1:32
as a share of the UK economy.
1:34
The fiscal watchdog has said the
1:36
Treasury is falling behind in the race
1:39
for greater expenditure.
1:41
But after hiking taxes by 66 billion
1:44
pounds in order to increase spending on
1:46
health, education, and welfare, the
1:49
Treasury seems unwilling to find extra
1:51
money either through cuts or higher
1:54
taxes to fund an upgrade for the armed
1:56
forces. Starmer is now in a fight to
1:59
persuade the public is worth investing
2:02
in. Will he win? I'm joined by someone
2:05
familiar with these matters, Dame Penny
2:07
Mordaunt, the first woman to become the
2:09
Secretary of State for Defense when she
2:11
served under Theresa May's government in
2:13
2019. And since leaving Westminster in
2:15
2024, the chairwoman of the Coalition
2:18
for Global Prosperity, an organization
2:21
advocating for more international aid.
2:23
Thank you, Penny, for joining us today.
2:26
I think going back to when you were
2:27
defense secretary in 2019,
2:29
what we're seeing right now is a similar
2:31
situation, perhaps more
2:34
violent than what we saw when in your
2:36
sort of 80 days time across the Strait
2:39
of Hormuz when the sort of British
2:40
tanker was taken in by Iranian forces.
2:44
You know, looking at your response then,
2:46
and how do you what do you make of the
2:48
British government's response to the
2:50
crisis in the Middle East today? Well,
2:52
during that incident when I was
2:55
Secretary of State, we had forward
2:56
deployed ships. We knew something was
2:59
going to happen, and we had ships ready.
3:01
And the frigate that responded to that
3:04
particular attack was 20 minutes away
3:07
from the the incident.
3:09
So, that just was goes to show, when
3:11
you've even if you've got ships there,
3:13
this is still a very difficult thing to
3:15
do to escort vessels through.
3:17
It's worth saying, though, that what
3:20
we're seeing is obviously something
3:22
that's very hot at the moment. But on a
3:25
normal day, there's a attacks going on
3:28
on the straits all the time. The average
3:30
number of attacks that happens against
3:33
our shipping interests per year is about
3:35
500 attacks. But this is particularly
3:37
exceptional.
3:39
Normally, you'd have about 138
3:43
vessels transit per day through the
3:45
straits. Today, today,
3:48
we've had about six. So, it's a it's a
3:51
very serious problem, but
3:53
it's difficult.
3:55
But you need
3:56
assets there, and and you need fast
3:59
ships that can keep up with tankers. And
4:01
you need, I would argue, proper mine
4:03
hunting and mine sweeping capabilities.
4:06
>> I think the British government,
4:08
you know, actually got out
4:10
one of the warships from the region
4:12
earlier this year before the war. Now
4:14
President Trump is calling for
4:16
more support for shipping across the
4:18
Strait of Hormuz. But I suppose the
4:19
question is, I mean, does the British
4:22
government even have the resources to be
4:23
able to support any sort of military
4:25
operation to escort ships through the
4:27
Strait of Hormuz, you know, given the
4:29
state of the Ministry of Defense as well
4:32
as the, you know, the state of the armed
4:33
forces? I mean, why this is such a shame
4:36
is that this is one of the things that
4:38
we are we are best known for in that
4:39
particular region. It it is, you know,
4:42
the Maritime Trade Organization. It's
4:45
the mine hunting capabilities there that
4:47
we've had there for a very long time
4:49
indeed. Some capabilities on our mine
4:51
hunters totally unique,
4:54
and the only capabilities of its kind in
4:57
the Gulf. So, that's why it's a shame
5:00
that this has happened now,
5:03
right at the point where we're at our
5:04
lowest ebb with the with the Navy. The
5:06
First Sea Lord, very understandably, has
5:08
had to make trade-offs between
5:10
capability today and trying to rebuild
5:13
the fleet for tomorrow, all the drones,
5:16
autonomous vehicles, all those sorts of
5:18
things that we need to see. So, that's
5:21
very unfortunate. We still do have good
5:24
capabilities and we have good knowledge
5:27
and good people that can help a
5:30
coalition effort in the region. But I
5:32
have long argued we need more platforms.
5:35
We need more ships.
5:37
We need the ability to take up ships
5:39
from trade. And we've got to recognize
5:41
for particular specialist capabilities
5:43
like mine hunting, we need specialist
5:45
ships. You know, if you're hunting
5:47
mines, you don't want to be standing on
5:48
something made of metal. But is Britain
5:50
effectively starting from a point
5:52
position of weakness given years of
5:54
underfunding, you know, cuts under John
5:57
Major's government, Tony Blair's
5:58
government, and then in the 14 years of
6:00
the previous Conservative government as
6:02
well? We, I think as a nation, have not
6:05
prioritized defense. I mean, I have long
6:08
criticized our spending plans when I I
6:11
was in as a as a Conservative MP. We did
6:15
protect the defense budget compared to
6:17
other budgets when we came in in 2010,
6:20
and we managed to get some uplift to
6:22
capabilities and I think do a good job
6:25
in trying to reshape what was a complete
6:28
mess of programs that didn't make any
6:30
sense. But
6:32
not only have we not done enough on pure
6:35
defense, warships, and all those sorts
6:37
of things, we've also not done enough on
6:39
civilian defense as well in our own
6:42
resilience as a nation. And that's about
6:45
cybersecurity,
6:47
that is about energy security.
6:50
It is about giving citizens of this
6:52
country the knowledge they need if their
6:55
critical infrastructure is attacked,
6:56
what to do. And they want to help with
6:58
that. So, I think we've neglected this
7:00
whole area. I say every week on
7:03
broadcast and in print, "Wake up,
7:06
Britain." And I I'm now getting to the
7:08
stage, even in a crisis like this,
7:11
we still don't see the government coming
7:13
forward and saying, "Right, we're going
7:14
to turn on the taps and and modernize."
7:17
But by 2018, I think the defense budget
7:20
as a percentage of GDP was around 2%,
7:23
even lower than 2%.
7:26
You've obviously argued for more
7:28
spending to be given to the armed
7:29
forces. Did you fail to sort of persuade
7:32
your colleagues and chancellors that you
7:34
saw over your years
7:35
in government to to actually give the
7:37
right and So, yeah. I mean, I I think
7:40
that
7:42
prime ministers and chancellors who were
7:44
in, even if they said, I mean, Jeremy
7:46
Hunt's a classic example. He he
7:48
when I backed him for the leadership
7:50
contest, he said he would he would do
7:51
3%. He wasn't able to do that as as
7:55
Chancellor. And I think you you have to
7:57
decide,
7:59
you know, what you're going to
8:00
prioritize and what you're what you're
8:02
going to cut if you want to spend more
8:04
money in defense. And he was clearly not
8:06
able to to carry the Prime Minister in
8:09
that respect. So,
8:11
yes, and I I also think we we we rightly
8:15
and understandably focus on spending.
8:18
But
8:19
equally critically is the regulation
8:22
that accompanies it. And there's a lot
8:25
of things that we could do even if we
8:26
didn't tackle
8:28
taxation or or anything like that that
8:30
would reduce the costs, particularly for
8:33
smaller businesses where all the the
8:36
innovation is going to come from. And
8:39
that would be hugely helpful to industry
8:43
which has got to totally transform how
8:46
it designs, manufactures
8:50
equipment that's going to be out of date
8:52
within 6 months of it being introduced
8:54
theater. What regulation are you talking
8:56
about? Which sort of bodies there, you
8:58
know, because
9:00
I mean, there's been talk in the past
9:01
about around ESG, for example. It's not
9:04
you know, whether there should be more
9:06
intervention in the ESG.
9:08
What what regulation should be talked
9:09
about?
9:10
>> of things, and industry has asked the
9:13
MOD for these changes. I'll give you one
9:16
example. We don't really have anywhere
9:19
in this country where we can test
9:21
equipment.
9:23
And there are no dedicated maritime
9:26
ranges, for example. So,
9:30
some of the big primes that have
9:32
particular
9:33
things that they can do. But if you're a
9:34
small
9:36
company producing maritime drones,
9:39
you really can't test them in the UK.
9:42
And you might manufacture them here, you
9:43
might design them here, but you sure as
9:45
hell can't test them.
9:47
And that's because they have to operate
9:49
under civilian regulations. And if they
9:51
could operate under defense regulations,
9:54
they would be able to do that. So, just
9:56
a simple stroke of a pen from someone in
9:58
Whitehall and earmarking areas
10:03
that we can use around our coast for
10:08
not testing dangerous equipment, but
10:09
just literally driving things up and
10:11
down to to make sure that they're
10:12
working well. From within Whitehall, but
10:14
also across the sort of House of Commons
10:17
benches from opposition parties
10:18
included, do you actually think there's
10:20
this appetite to sort of double down on
10:23
defense, you know, whether it's
10:24
strategically or financially?
10:27
You know, I
10:28
Reform UK, the Tories, they haven't come
10:30
up with you know, this they've come up
10:31
with the ambitions to also reach 3%, but
10:34
they haven't actually costed any of
10:35
those plans. The government is clearly
10:38
in this massive tussle between the MOD
10:40
and the Treasury to find the funding.
10:43
Why is there no appetite, you know, for
10:46
people to find the right money?
10:47
Parliament is starting to wake up to
10:49
this, in part because the public are way
10:52
ahead of politicians on this. And in
10:55
this report shows that 60% of Britons
10:59
want more money spent on defense, and
11:02
they want the defense budget protected
11:04
when cuts are being made elsewhere.
11:07
Even more than the NHS. That's what this
11:09
data shows. So, the public get this.
11:12
They're feeling less safe. They see the
11:15
connections between what is happening
11:18
with shipping lanes being shut and their
11:20
cost of living at home, and they see the
11:23
threats around them, and they see that
11:24
they're growing. So, they get this.
11:27
Parliament's got to catch up with them.
11:30
And I mean, credit to Kemi, she's she
11:33
has made some announcements about how
11:36
she's going to fund some of the
11:38
innovation required in drones and other
11:41
new technologies, but critically, she
11:43
has also started to say more about how
11:47
she will manage the debt. We're paying
11:49
to service the COVID debt
11:51
is enormous, and if we we're doing that
11:54
in a better way, it would be easier to
11:56
find defense.
11:57
>> She she's she said cutting the debt she
11:59
you know, through the savings on the
12:01
welfare savings for example that they
12:03
found they would actually cut taxes
12:05
rather than increase spending on
12:07
defense.
12:08
>> Yes, so she but she has also said
12:10
announced at the conference about
12:13
ring-fencing a proportion of
12:16
the country's income to a program to get
12:20
the debt down. And so, I think you
12:23
there's more than one thing. It's not
12:24
just about the defense budget. It is
12:26
about tackling regulation. It is about
12:29
dealing with the debt. It's also about
12:31
getting the energy costs down. If you
12:33
really want to help industry, do what
12:35
we're asking it to do, you need to I
12:37
think half the cost of energy. So,
12:40
the things that Claire Coutinho is doing
12:41
on that front I think are are welcome.
12:44
If you're the Chancellor today, you
12:46
know, you have MOD lobbying for more
12:48
money, but also, you know, the
12:50
Department for Health, Department for of
12:53
Education, and all the other sort of
12:55
sectors all asking you for more money.
12:57
There's been talk about aid budget being
12:59
cut again. Is that the right choice to
13:01
make? A lot of the aid budget, and
13:03
certainly where a lot of the current aid
13:05
budget is going, is on things that help
13:08
national security. And it'll be very
13:10
interesting to see how the Treasury
13:11
accounts for some of this with regard to
13:14
the NATO target. So, I don't think
13:17
you're going to make much headway there.
13:19
You're just you know, robbing Peter to
13:21
pay Paul. But you do have to make some
13:24
decisions here on on what you're going
13:26
to focus on. Clearly, my party would be
13:29
more ambitious on on welfare. The
13:31
problem that the PM has is that even if
13:34
he's decided he wants to reduce the
13:36
welfare bill,
13:38
he hasn't had it in his manifesto. His
13:41
MPs' hands have not been dipped in the
13:43
blood. It's very hard to get them, as
13:45
we've seen, to go through the lobbies
13:47
and and vote for that.
13:50
But I what I would argue to people, and
13:52
what I would say to all MPs of
13:55
any political hue sitting in the Commons
13:57
right now,
13:58
is that if you don't invest in these
14:00
capabilities, you don't have anything
14:03
else. You you don't have a reliable NHS
14:06
because it's subject to cyber attack.
14:08
You can't grow the economy if you can't
14:11
have secure energy and you can't have
14:14
secure data. So, it's a to my mind, it's
14:17
a completely false economy to say, let's
14:20
cut back and let's not worry about these
14:23
foundational capabilities. If you do not
14:26
invest in them, everything else is in
14:28
trouble.
14:29
I just wondered as well, coming from the
14:31
private sector and that private sector
14:34
investment and how it could support
14:36
extra defense spending.
14:38
Is there actually an avenue there for
14:41
you know, investors for the government
14:43
actually So, for example, the Liberal
14:44
Democrats have suggested that bonds
14:47
should be created for defense.
14:49
Labour Party and the Conservatives and
14:51
Reform are pretty quiet on that. Is that
14:53
possible tool that could be used to sort
14:56
of leverage more city finance, or are
14:58
there better ways? I think there's lots
15:00
of options that you have, and we know
15:02
that investors of every type are keen
15:07
from this research to invest more. So,
15:10
people are very comfortable with their
15:11
pension funds for example being
15:14
invested. And I when I talk to
15:17
businesses, they are they are up for
15:19
doing more.
15:20
And I think the private sector very much
15:22
wants to play its part.
15:25
All the companies at the moment are
15:26
doing things at risk. All the defense
15:28
companies are doing things at risk. The
15:30
good thing about a bond,
15:32
and you can obviously have ways of
15:34
dealing with your your debt which help
15:36
the defense budget, as well as having a
15:38
bond that is focused on defense
15:40
spending.
15:41
One of the benefits of that is if you're
15:43
doing it in partnership with other
15:45
nations, you you have proper burden
15:48
sharing. So, everyone is
15:51
is is doing the same thing.
15:53
We've seen in NATO you have you have
15:56
some people that meet the floor, and you
15:58
have some people that don't. So, I think
16:00
there are merits to having
16:03
an approach using a bond, and certainly
16:05
nations
16:07
Poland,
16:09
Spain I think, and others have been have
16:11
been pushing for that within Europe. I
16:13
think bringing it back to the appetite,
16:15
I think you're talking there about
16:16
people supporting their pensions being
16:18
used. In the last year or so, pension
16:20
funds have actually started increasing
16:22
their defense exposure
16:25
on aerospace companies for example. And
16:27
I think Morningstar analysis have some
16:29
have some good analysis on that. I just
16:31
wondered actually, when it actually
16:32
comes to push comes to shove, I will
16:34
take money away from health, you know,
16:37
because this is a problem the
16:39
government's facing in trying to balance
16:40
the books, meet Rachel Reeves' fiscal
16:43
rules. Does the electorate really
16:46
actually back a massive increase in
16:48
defense expenditure at the at the cost
16:51
of you know, spending cuts in other
16:53
departments or taxes going up again?
16:56
Because it doesn't sort of add up to me
16:58
when it you know,
16:59
it's really
17:00
before
17:00
>> most most people you ask, and we've
17:03
we've asked people in quite a large
17:06
survey, they will prefer to go to the
17:09
welfare budget and and try and get more
17:11
people into work and cut the welfare
17:13
bill,
17:14
which is certainly a you know, a massive
17:16
bill that needs addressing. But one of
17:19
the interesting things from this, it
17:21
shows that
17:22
people are less reluctant, less keen to
17:27
cut defense to make savings and balance
17:30
the books, than they are the NHS. So,
17:34
actually, in terms of protecting
17:36
budgets,
17:37
defense has moved ahead of the NHS, and
17:41
I think that's the first time that's
17:42
happened. Is that sort of do you think
17:44
that's might maybe a cyclical or current
17:47
affairs factor? Because
17:48
I'm just reminded about every time the
17:50
government tries to sort of find a bit
17:52
of tax or cut winter fuel payments,
17:55
there is this massive backlash. You
17:56
know, all the parties at the moment have
17:59
pretty much committed to the triple lock
18:00
pension as well, which has been
18:02
described as unsustainable by the fiscal
18:04
watchdog. All of these sort of
18:06
government welfare schemes, when you
18:08
know, you sort of locate the policy and
18:11
put it in front of voters,
18:13
voters will sort of they'll they'll be
18:15
backlash. And defense, as I said at the
18:16
beginning, isn't something that people
18:18
see on their day-to-day basis. I think
18:21
that has changed, and I think it had
18:23
changed even prior to the the current
18:26
conflict that we're we're witnessing.
18:29
You know, people are
18:31
really quite situationally aware.
18:34
I mean, as as we've all been looking at
18:36
the Middle East, Russia's been getting
18:37
more aggressive.
18:39
It used to be the case that you'd have
18:41
cyber attacks against the UK obviously
18:43
every week, but people would be
18:45
attacking us to go into systems and take
18:49
data or or just see what was going on.
18:52
Now, Russia is overtly attacking
18:56
critical national infrastructure. We've
18:58
had attacks in Norway, we've had attacks
19:00
in Poland. Businesses here will be
19:03
having to do more with working with the
19:06
the National Cyber Centre and others to
19:08
make themselves more robust. We've seen
19:10
big attacks and vulnerabilities on major
19:12
companies with all sorts of
19:15
impacts on
19:16
jobs and a whole lot of things. So, this
19:18
is the public get these connections.
19:21
They really do understand it. And
19:24
they also see how warfare is changing.
19:28
We've sadly had, you know, pretty much
19:30
every night on our our tellys for the
19:32
last few years,
19:33
the the war in Ukraine.
19:36
People know that warfare is changing,
19:38
and they know that the systems you have
19:41
that are going to generate those
19:42
capabilities have to radically be
19:45
overhauled. The shelf life of a drone in
19:47
Ukraine is 6 months. That that after
19:51
that time, your your enemies will have
19:53
figured out how to thwart it. So, this
19:56
is this is going to have to change so
19:58
dramatically, and the public understand
20:01
that. You believe that well, the polling
20:04
might show that public understands that.
20:06
From that point on, that would give full
20:08
encouragement for the government to sort
20:10
of move everything aside and actually
20:12
really double down on defense.
20:14
I mean, I it's still sort of, you know,
20:16
defense investment plan has been delayed
20:18
for for months now.
20:20
Um, so, you know, actually what should
20:22
change not just in the policy approach
20:24
or the tax cuts or spending cuts, but
20:26
actually in how the government and
20:28
actually opposition parties to
20:30
communicate, you know, defense
20:31
expenditure and defense plans to, you
20:34
know, ahead of elections, especially
20:36
ahead of them.
20:37
>> Yeah. Well, obviously everyone is
20:39
waiting for the defense investment plan.
20:42
I think there was a Liaison Committee
20:44
yesterday, and uh, Prime Minister was
20:46
asked, "Where is it?" And he got very
20:48
shirty in his response. That is needed,
20:52
but just by plonking it on the table,
20:55
uh, you know, you don't you don't
20:57
resolve everything. It's going to be 18
20:59
months before you you'll you'll see
21:02
industry being able to deliver on that
21:04
and and respond to it. So, they need to
21:07
publish that very swiftly. They need to,
21:10
I think, uh, prioritize funding. At at
21:14
the moment, um, I mean, the defense
21:16
chiefs are working to 4 years to have
21:20
regenerated and produced these new
21:22
capabilities, the Treasury isn't going
21:25
to start giving defense money until year
21:28
five. That's that's how out of kilter it
21:31
is.
21:32
People will remember that we were second
21:34
only to the United States, uh, until I
21:37
think the last year of the Conservative
21:40
administrations, uh,
21:42
in terms of our, um, commitment to NATO.
21:46
Uh, we were one of the highest spending
21:48
nations in in NATO as a percentage of
21:50
our GDP and met the NATO floor. Um, we
21:53
are now second to bottom in terms of
21:56
delivering on our our end of the bargain
21:59
for for NATO in terms of our
22:01
capabilities and equipment. I mean,
22:03
we're just now completely out of step
22:07
with nations like Germany and others.
22:09
And that that is wrong because you not
22:11
only is it we're shortchanging our own
22:13
capabilities and our own resilience for
22:16
the future, but you don't get the value
22:18
of doing this
22:20
with other nations if you're if you're
22:22
not starting for another 5 years. But it
22:24
still feels that we're sort of at that
22:26
sort of stasis point, you know, the
22:28
defense investment plan hasn't been
22:30
published because there isn't enough
22:31
funding. There is a sort of worry about
22:34
the public finances and and how to find
22:37
savings across welfare given problems
22:39
within politics and and elections, I
22:42
guess. You know, what actually needs to
22:44
fundamentally change for that dial to be
22:47
shifted on defense. I think Everyone's
22:50
spoken about these problems, but is
22:51
there some sort of communication error
22:54
that's going on between Treasury
22:55
officials? And, you know, is it a wider
22:58
problem?
22:59
>> I have to say that I've concluded that
23:04
the the kinds of situations that you're
23:06
seeing now, which are should be such a
23:09
wake-up call for our nation.
23:11
Uh,
23:13
if if the Prime Minister has not yet
23:18
figured out that it's a total
23:21
dereliction of his duty
23:23
not to turn the taps on in Treasury, not
23:26
to start to put enabling regulations
23:29
through, and all the other things he
23:30
knows he needs to do to get defense
23:33
where it needs to be. If he's not going
23:35
to do that in these circumstances,
23:38
where our armed forces personnel are in
23:41
harm's way, where one of our sovereign
23:43
bases, uh, has been under attack and
23:46
we've been very limited in what we can
23:47
do to defend ourselves,
23:48
what is it going to take? This is a good
23:50
question. I think that it will only be,
23:54
on all current evidence, uh,
23:57
large numbers of our armed forces or
24:00
British citizens being killed.
24:02
I do think that is the only thing that
24:05
is going to wake up this government and
24:07
get the Prime Minister to deliver on
24:09
what he said he's going to do. He's
24:12
eyeballed all of us and said, "We've got
24:14
to spend more money on defense. We need
24:16
a 5%, you know, floor in NATO." He's
24:19
told our closest ally, the President of
24:21
the United States, he's not doing it.
24:23
So,
24:24
the answer to your question, what is it
24:25
going to take,
24:27
having everything that's happened not
24:29
moved the dial a jot, I think it will be
24:32
in the wake of an immense unavoidable
24:35
tragedy that we then
24:37
turn our attention to
24:39
this foundational capability.
24:42
Thank you very much, Dame Penny
24:43
Mordaunt, on that slightly somber note,
24:45
but well, we'd like to love to have you
24:47
again.
24:48
>> all serious now.
News