It is deeply selfish of John Healey to demand a military when Keir Starmer is trying to balance a spreadsheet

Let us be absolutely clear about what happened this week. When John Healey flounced out of the Ministry of Defence, muttering predictably tedious complaints about the prime minister being "unwilling to commit the resources that the nation needs," he did not look like a statesman. He looked like a teenager demanding an advance on his allowance to buy a PlayStation.

I happened to be sharing a perfectly adequate, unbuttered slice of toast with Rachel Reeves at a think-tank breakfast in Westminster the morning the news of the resignation broke. The Chancellor did not panic. She simply adjusted her glasses, made a small notation in a ledger she carries everywhere, and noted that avoiding a Russian invasion is not, strictly speaking, a legally binding fiscal target. This is the kind of sober, grown-up leadership the markets have been begging for.

Healey’s resignation letter spoke of a world growing increasingly dangerous. He gestured wildly at Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and various other geopolitical flashpoints that, frankly, do not contribute to British GDP. He claims the military needs "resources." But what he fails to grasp is that in 2024, the ultimate deterrent against foreign aggression isn't a fleet of nuclear submarines or a well-equipped infantry. It is a strictly adhered-to set of self-imposed Treasury borrowing rules.

Think about it from the perspective of our enemies. If you are Vladimir Putin, you might not fear a British army of 70,000 personnel. But you will certainly think twice before invading a nation that has demonstrated a chilling, sociopathic willingness to cut its own vital services just to meet an arbitrary debt-to-GDP ratio by the fifth year of a rolling forecast. You cannot defeat a country that is already perfectly willing to destroy itself for a spreadsheet.

We are seeing this same tiresome demand for "money" to "do things" across the political spectrum. Just look at Andy Burnham, currently throwing a tantrum up north over the Waspi women. Burnham actually went on record saying these women "deserve some recompense for the unfairness." Unfairness! As if the Treasury is a charity designed to right historic wrongs, rather than a highly sophisticated mechanism for telling people "no" in an authoritative tone of voice.

As one government figure rightly noted to me over drinks at the Carlton Club, Burnham’s agenda is virtually indistinguishable from the hard-left fantasies of Jeremy Corbyn. And frankly, so is Healey's. What is more Marxist than the state providing a massive, centrally-funded organization of uniformed workers who don't even turn a profit? The military is essentially a £50 billion public sector union that occasionally shoots at things.

There is a pervasive entitlement in modern Britain. People expect the trains to run. They expect the hospitals to heal. Now, apparently, the Defence Secretary expects the army to defend. Where does it end? If the armed forces truly want new artillery shells, they should do what any sensible modern enterprise would do: seek series A funding from Andreessen Horowitz, or launch a premium subscription tier for their protection.

The Ministry of Defence must learn to do more with less. Has Healey considered that soldiers could share rifles? Have we explored the cost-savings of replacing the Royal Navy with a strongly worded press release condemning maritime incursions? These are the innovative solutions that a modern, dynamic, fiscally constrained Britain requires.

During a recent dinner with Sir Keir, he explained his vision to me over a bowl of tepid, unsalted broth—a masterful, visceral display of his commitment to fiscal restraint. "We cannot spend our way out of a ground war," he told me, his eyes shining with the quiet dignity of a man who has never once been swayed by human emotion. "If a hostile power lands on the beaches of Kent, they will find a government that is fully costed, entirely compliant with the Office for Budget Responsibility, and completely prepared to surrender in a fiscally responsible manner."

This is the grown-up politics we were promised. We are finally free from the magical thinking of the past. If the cost of maintaining a AAA credit rating is a hollowed-out military, a defenseless coastline, and the occasional uncompensated pensioner, then it is a price we should all be proud to pay.

John Healey may have resigned, and the military may be running on fumes, but the sacred spreadsheet remains perfectly balanced. And in the end, isn't that what truly keeps us safe at night?