Why Keir Starmer cannot survive as prime minister without this man

The name Morgan McSweeney may not be on the lips of people down in the pub or at the school gate but it is one that those in the Westminster bubble are obsessed with.

Labour MPs are particularly aware of the Downing Street chief of staff’s power and importance, either as something they consider to be a toxic poison at the heart of government or the means of future preferment and promotion.

So reports that Sir Keir Starmer was “screaming” at his chief of staff, telling him “you were supposed to protect me” over the Lord Mandelson debacle is a sign that this government is in incredibly serious trouble.

There is even a widespread belief in Westminster’s corridors that this is not Keir Starmer’s government at all, but rather Morgan McSweeney’s. The prime minister is in many ways the front man for a project which is actually being directed by an unelected official in Downing Street.

So when people question Sir Keir Starmer’s judgement on appointments, particularly the head scratching catastrophe of sending Lord Mandelson to Washington DC as the UK’s ambassador, they are in reality questioning the PM’s judgement in doing what McSweeney advises.

Recent tales from the big ministerial reshuffle seem to underline this point.

The three people removed from the cabinet were all people McSweeney wanted out, according to sources.

Angela Rayner may have self-destructed over her tax affairs, but there had been a long concerted campaign by the Blairite wing of the party, of which McSweeney is the prime member, to remove her. Who was it who authorised the revealing and damaging readout about Ms Rayner’s comments on immigration in a cabinet meeting just before the summer? That would only have happened with McSweeney’s blessing.

Lucy Powell – now apparently on a vengeance mission running for deputy leader against the Starmer/ McSweeney candidate Bridget Phillipson – was removed as Commons leader because “she kept standing up to McSweeney and telling him he was wrong”, according to an ally of hers.

Ian Murray was replaced by Douglas Alexander as Scottish secretary “because of McSweeney’s obsession with Blair-era figures”. Mr Alexander, a very capable individual, was a minister and campaign chief in Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments.

“McSweeney was desperate to get him in the cabinet, and Ian [Murray] was expendable,” a source told The Independent.

One of the footnotes of the reshuffle also saw McSweeney’s wife, Imogen Walker, inserted into the whips’ office. She was elected as MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley in 2024 after he oversaw selections and parachuted hundreds of preferred candidates into winnable seats.

The 48-year-old’s apparent enthusiasm for figures from the Blair years is what drove him to not only push for Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US but also try to prevent his sacking.

To understand the current project, you need to go back to the Corbyn years, when McSweeney was at the forefront in trying to save the party from disappearing forever down a far-left black hole.

As director of Labour Together, he effectively organised the fightback and handpicked Starmer as the man to take over after Corbyn and turn the ship around.

The success in the election last year, which McSweeney ran, was the vindication of that project, but unfortunately, they came into office without much of a policy plan.

And it all started with McSweeney removing an obstacle to his authority – Sue Gray, who had been brought in as the original chief of staff before he replaced her almost a year ago.

As the welfare crisis mounted before the summer, with scores of Labour MPs threatening to vote the government’s policy down, the calls to remove McSweeney grew very loud indeed. And they have not really quietened down. In fact, last week’s chaos with Mandelson made matters worse.

But here lies the problem. If this government is more a McSweeney government than a Starmer one, the prime minister may have the authority to sack his chief of staff, but where does it leave him?

Without McSweeney, Starmer is hugely weakened and the suggestions of a leadership coup by May next year become very realistic.

McSweeney’s problem is that he cannot orchestrate Starmer to be replaced either. A new leader will almost certainly be more left-leaning and will want to take the party in a new direction. That means he will be out too.

That gives the rather disturbing image of two men locked in a room together shouting at one another over the rapid demise of a government that has barely been in power for a year, but trapped with one another with no way out.

Man wanted after house explosion leaves multiple people injured

A man has been arrested and police are looking for another after an explosion at a house in Bradford left multiple people injured.

Bradford District Police has asked for people to come forward who have seen Jacob Ryan, 28 from Bradford, who is wanted on suspicion of theft following an explosion at an empty house on Southfield Lane.

Emergency services rushed to the scene of a huge explosion on Southfield Lane in Bradford on Saturday night at around 10pm, at an unoccupied property.

Multiple people were taken to the local hospital to treat minor injuries, including a man, a woman and a boy from a nearby house.

Police said the explosion left the property, which was unoccupied, “significantly damaged” and caused damage to the two adjacent homes.

A 27-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of the theft of metal at the empty property where the explosion took place.

He was found near the scene with serious injuries and taken to the hospital for treatment to his injuries which are described as not life-threatening.

Superintendent Lucy Leadbeater of Bradford District Police, said: “A number of enquires remain ongoing into this serious incident today.

“While the cause of the explosion at this empty property remains under investigation, we are investigating reports of a metal theft taking place there just prior to the incident.

“One man arrested on suspicion of involvement in the theft was seriously injured, and we are seeking to locate a second man, who we can name as Jacob Ryan, in connection with the theft offence.

“It is possible Jacob may have been injured as well, and we urge him or anyone who knows him to come forwards. It is important we make sure he has access to any medical treatment he may need.”

A police scene was put in place, and the affected property was made safe with the assistance of utility companies, the police said.

A West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service said it sent a response to the incident at 10:08pm on Saturday night and at the time said “Domestic property, reports of house explosion with no fire, 2 casualties walking wounded in care of paramedics, further casualties are unaccounted for, the technical rescue unit and the urban search and rescue dog are attending to carry out further searches.”

The police said: “Anyone who can assist enquires in any way is asked to contact Bradford District CID on 101 referencing police log 1857 of 13 September.

“Information can also be given on www.westyorkshire.police.uk/livechat or anonymously to the independent Crimestoppers charity on 0800 555 111. “

The cause of the explosion is yet to be determined.

Foden gives hosts early lead as rivals meet in Manchester derby

The pressure is on as Manchester City host Manchester United in an early season derby at the Etihad.

City lost back-to-back games before the international break in a stuttering start for Pep Guardiola’s new-look side. After opening their season with a comfortable win at Wolves, City lost at home to Tottenham before they were stunned by Brighton in a late turnaround on the south coast.

United secured their first win of the season late on against Burnley but it’s been a rollercoaster start for Ruben Amorim’s team, too, marked with a disastrous cup defeat at Grimsby.

Despite City’s dominance when it comes to silverware, this fixture has often offered United some relief in recent years. Amorim enjoyed one of his finest moments in charge of United in last season’s late win at the Etihad.

Follow team news and updates ahead of Man City v Man United, below

‘Don’t mention the E-word!’ How Trump’s state visit is a minefield

Most state visits to Britain, it is fair to say, are relatively low-key, jolly and uncomplicated. On the orders of Downing Street and the Foreign Office, the royals get the best silver and the tiaras out, and put on a show and a feast. Such exercises are an exercise in what’s called “soft power”, which is sometimes the only kind of power the British still possess. The House of Windsor has it in abundance.

State visits are designed to butter up existing or prospective friends, or help restore fractured relations. The last one, by President and Madame Macron on behalf of the French Republic, was certainly a repair exercise, after years of open hostility from Boris “donned-moi un break” Johnson and Liz “friend or foe?” Truss. It passed off very well. Macron made a graceful speech or two, and soon the Bayeux Tapestry will be on display at the British Museum. Last year, the Emperor and Empress of Japan were similarly warmly welcomed, without even a token protest this time by old soldiers about atrocities during the Second World War.

This is as it should be, but obviously is not in the case of Donald Trump, a figure who invites mixed reactions in the UK just as he does in his native land and indeed globally. In short, no-one quite knows what will transpire before and after Tuesday evening, when the tangerine tyrant/saviour of Western civilisation touches down. For all concerned, it could just as easily turn out to be a triumph as a disaster, with a mixture of both the more likely outcome. It should certainly be eventful.

One word that no one involved will want to hear is “Epstein”. But they assuredly will. The journalist who first mentions the “E-word” at a joint Trump-Starmer press conference should immediately be nominated for a special prize, the equivalent of the Victoria Cross for valour at the British Press Awards. For all three major figures involved in the trip are embarrassingly tangled in the Epstein web, and have no wish to be reminded of it: Trump, because of past association and his unwise campaign promise to “release the files”; Keir Starmer, via Lord Mandelson; and the King, because of his brother, the self-styled “too honourable” Prince Andrew, who’ll be confined to Royal Lodge for the duration. The squirmingly uncomfortable chill that will descend at the mention of Jeffrey Epstein from the media will be unbearable for those present and tangible even to a television audience. It will be quite the moment.

Of the prime minister and president, it is Trump, curiously enough, who has the better line of defence. Despite all the evidence that Trump was once a close friend, including photos of the pair partying, the endless replayed video clip of them bopping and joking, and a bizarre entry (denied) in the Epstein 50th birthday book, Trump can credibly say he cut all contact with the “creep”, as he calls him, before he was convicted. (That is to say, in unspoken contrast, unlike Mandelson). The president can also say that it is he who (reluctantly) released thousands of pages of the Epstein files. If asked about Mandelson he can deflect that on to Starmer, but innocently remark that he had no problem with him as an ambassador.

Without anyone quite expecting it, the spectre of the dead billionaire paedo haunts Starmer more than it does Trump – and Starmer assuredly never met the guy, let alone threw himself into one of the Roman orgies Epstein hosted. This is for the unfortunate and all too obvious reason that it has now come to light in excruciating detail quite how devoted Peter Mandelson was to his “best pal”, particularly as Epstein’s crimes became public knowledge. It’s hard to know, in fact, which of Mandelson’s messages to Jeffrey is the more damaging. Is it the greeting in which Peter looks forward to his next visit – “yum, yum”. The one where he tries to cadge a free flight on the Lolita Express? Or, more shamefully, the one where he urged Epstein to “fight for early release”. For Starmer, the question is which of these, and other, indiscretions he knew about, when he knew about them and why he appointed Mandelson to the post of US ambassador, and then apparently tried to cling on to him for too long when it all spilled out.

Then there is Trump’s habit of just saying random stuff whenever he feels like it. In such moments – and the British authorities will wish they can minimise the opportunities –Trump could criticise Starmer for his (fictional) war on free speech, the incarceration of Lucy Connolly, the war in Ukraine, Gaza, tariffs, China (especially their gargantuan London embassy), Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, Prince Andrew, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, and the comparative lack of gilt ornamentation in Downing Street and Buckingham Palace. Sections of the British press will see an easy win in simply putting some distorted version of current government policy to the president in the expectation he’ll provide a suitably rude response that what Starmer is doing is “stupid”, “dumb”, “dangerous” or whatever. Farage might even score a propaganda interview with Trump for GB News. It will all mean a tense period for Starmer.

How well Starmer copes with the inevitable gaffes and moments of mortification will be as crucial as anything else to his survival this week. He can only hope that he will have some positive news on US-UK trade, defence and technology cooperation to convey that will counteract any Trumpian bloviations; and that the glittering Ruritanian ceremonials will dazzle the audience instead. There will be lighter touches, too. Some of us are expecting great things of the scheduled encounter between the glamorous first lady, chief scout Dwayne Fields and Kate Middleton, as we still call her, joint president of the Scout Association. Will the Princess of Wales outshine Mrs Trump; or will Melania dress up as a girl scout as a world fashion sensation? Interesting. The almost traditional raising of the giant inflatable Trump blimp baby will surely be another highlight. But for the prime minister what would normally be a relaxed time when parliament is in recess, and gentle diplomacy takes over, will instead be the political equivalent of being on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! – endless ordeals punctuated by ritual humiliation, all accompanied by severe indigestion. Good luck in the jungle that is the Trump state visit, Sir Keir – you’ll need it.

Thomas Skinner admits to cheating on wife weeks after their wedding

Strictly Come Dancing 2025 contestant Thomas Skinner has admitted that he cheated on his wife just weeks after their wedding.

The former Apprentice star, 34, said that he had a “fling” with an “attractive” single mum who gave him free cosmetic treatment after meeting at a pub.

“I’m just so lucky that she forgave me. When I told my wife, I fully understood if she were to never speak to me again.

“It just shows you that 10 minutes can just ruin your whole life,” Skinner told The Sun.

The newspaper said the woman in question is Amy-Lucy O’Rourke, 35, and their affair took place three and a half years ago.

Skinner added: “I had a fling, I suppose, it was nothing more than that, it was the one time, it was a mistake, then I woke up feeling absolutely terrible about it”.

The married couple were not arguing or having relationship troubles but it was “just me in a moment of madness”, Skinner said.

The aftermath “was a very, very dark time”, he said, adding that his wife “never deserved that, she’s such a good person, without her I wouldn’t be where I am today – she made me”.

He advised anyone who has made a mistake to “be honest and own up to it”, and said “we are in an incredible place. It’s forgotten about and we’ve moved on from it now”.

In a statement to the paper, a spokeswoman for Ms O’Rourke said: “This has been an incredibly stressful chapter in her life.

“She did not have a fling with Mr Skinner, she had a relationship with him.”

This comes days after Skinner apologised for picking up a journalist’s phone and walking out of a Strictly Come Dancing press event.

He later said his departure from Tuesday’s event was not related to the BBC dancing show, and claimed he did so because he had seen messages about his past on the reporter’s phone.

Skinner was reported to have grabbed the phone and walked out after objecting to being recorded by a journalist.

He has previously drawn strong criticism for X/Twitter posts saying it is “not far-right” to be “flying your flag and loving your country”, and complaining “it ain’t safe out there any more” in London, saying the city is “hostile” and “tense”. He was also pictured with JD Vance during the vice president’s recent holiday in the Cotswolds.

Skinner will join fellow stars such as Love Island winner Dani Dyer-Bowen, Gladiators star Harry Aikines-Aryeetey and CBBC actress Ellie Goldstein, who is to become the first contestant with Down’s syndrome to take part in Strictly’s full series, when the show returns later this year.

Additional reporting by PA.

I wish my mum had contacted Macmillan Cancer Support

I wasn’t at my mum’s side when she learned she had breast cancer, but that made me determined to be there the day she was getting the all-clear 18-months later. However, things didn’t go to plan that day.

Mum’s cancer journey started over a decade ago, a few months after a routine mammogram – when she developed “a pain”. She told herself it was probably nothing, because the scan she’d just had was fine. When she mentioned it to her GP – a small lump that didn’t feel quite right – she convinced herself that she was just being silly. The biopsy begged to differ.

In the list you keep in your head of the cancers you worry your mum might get, breast wasn’t that high on mine. Yes, it’s long been the number one cancer affecting women, with Macmillan Cancer Support reporting that about 55,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK each year  – the risk factor only increasing with age. But my mum had other health concerns to contend with.

As a schoolgirl in swinging London, she’d been a back-of-the-bikeshed smoker, which had graduated into a lifelong habit. Lung cancer seemed like a possibility.

Mum’s also the biggest sun worshipper I know. Long before any of us had heard of SPF, she would think nothing of spending an afternoon in the garden, stretched out on a blanket, slathered in baby oil. So, given what we know now about UV radiation, I wondered about skin cancer too.

Mum went on to have a series of lumpectomies to get rid of three spots of malignant tissue. She would also have lymph nodes removed as a precaution, as well as undergo extensive chemotherapy.

For me, her diagnosis was as though a stopwatch had been started. How long might she have left? She did her best to be stoic. Which was just as well, given what government austerity measures at the time were doing to the NHS: budget cuts, hapless reorganisations, and an end to the “gold-standard” two-week referral from detection to the start of treatment.

All mum could do was wait for the brown envelopes to drop on the doormat detailing appointments at unfamiliar hospitals many miles away, sometimes after the appointment had been and gone.

If she felt let down by the bureaucracy of our health service, the same could not be said for the army of individuals involved in her care. On a human level, she found her nurses and doctors to be uniquely composed and compassionate throughout her treatment.

When the day finally came for her oncologist to tell her that all the signs of her cancer had gone, I was invited along to hold her hand. “The scans are back,” he began. “And I need to discuss your options for the next course of action.” It seemed the cancer hadn’t quite gone after all. She had fought so hard to get to this point, she was expecting good news, and was unprepared for the knockback.

But she did go on to beat cancer – and has been in remission for more than five years, which we couldn’t be more grateful for. However, should it ever come back, there’s one thing we’d do differently from the off: make a call to Macmillan Cancer Support.

Only with hindsight, did we realise how much help Macmillan would have been. Someone to provide her with a calming companion for the journey, someone to help with the cancer admin – the appointments, the prescriptions, the test results – and someone to explain what all the scans and tests were for, what the results might mean, and what to expect next.

I couldn’t always be around while mum was living with cancer, and that’s where Macmillan steps in. Now, enjoying a slice of cake at a Coffee Morning, which is raising money to fund the work they do, seems like the least I can do.

Find out how you can help raise vital funds by hosting a Macmillan Coffee Morning. Sign up now on the Macmillan website

Macmillan Cancer Support, registered charity in England and Wales (261017), Scotland (SC039907) and the Isle of Man (604). Also operating in Northern Ireland.

Concerns over fluoride in water as expert urges UK to reassess dosage

Concerns have been raised that some babies in Britain may be having more fluoride than experts in Europe believe is safe as a leading supporter of fluoridated water urged officials to look again at the dosage.

Experts from the European Food Standard Agency (EFSA) in July set a maximum limit of 1milligram of fluoride a day for children under the age of one to consume after recent studies suggested too much exposure to the chemical may damage developing brains

One expert has now warned that babies living in areas of the UK where fluoride is added to the water could already be drinking the amount deemed unsafe by European experts.

Around 6 million people have fluoride added to water in Britain as a way of avoiding tooth decay. The UK level is currently set at a concentration of 1mg per litre but can go up to 1.5mg per litre under British law, a threshold currently accepted as safe by the World Health Organisation.

Professor Vyvyan Howard, a toxico-pathologist specialising in the effects of harmful substances on the foetus and former member of a government advisory panel on pesticides, said: “I don’t know a parent who would trade an iota of their child’s intelligence for the offer that they might prevent a fraction of a filling.”

Prof Howard said the average fluid intake of a 1-year-old in Britain is 1.1 to 1.2 litres per day and some will drink more. So if water has 1mg per litre of fluoride, the safety margin – according to the researchers in Europe – is zero. Those most likely affected are babies aged between six and twelve month who drink formula milk, he said.

His warning comes as Professor Fawell, an academic who is a WHO adviser and leading support of fluoride in drinking water, called for officials to look again at the dosage used in water in Britain.

Professor Fawell, who has written a book on the benefits of fluoridation for oral health, believes the UK should consider bringing its concentration in water in line with the United States and Canada at 0.7mg per litre, which is 30 per cent lower than the UK.

But the evidence pointing to a link between excessive fluoride levels and lowered IQ has been called in to question by other experts. The fluoridation of water has also been previously described in government documents as “the single most effective public health measure for reducing oral health inequalities and tooth decay rates”.

The UK Food Standards Agency said officials were aware of research showing risks from exposure to fluoride, in particular on potential impacts on IQ, and said the Committee of Toxicology – an independent scientific committee that provides advice to the government – was reviewing the evidence. It is understood that the review could take up to two years.

A spokesperson said: “This research does not suggest these impacts on IQ are evident at the level of current UK regulatory limit for fluoride in drinking water, but a referral has been made to the Committee on Toxicology, so it is able to make an independent assessment of this evidence.”

In Europe, only Ireland and 10 per cent of Spain have artificially fluoridated water. Sweden, Netherlands, Hungary and the Czech Republic have ended schemes in the past.

In contrast, the UK – which already adds fluoride to the water in areas such as the West Midlands, North West and North East – plans to increase fluoridation in the North East. The expansion will affect an additional 1.6 million people in areas like Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough.

The decision follows a public consultation and is part of a national strategy to improve dental health.

In August last year, a major study was published by the National Toxicology Program in the US which found “with moderate confidence, that higher estimated fluoride exposures are consistently associated with lower IQ in children”.

It reported that, of 72 known scientific studies into brain damage globally over more than 30 years, 64 show fluoride affected the developing brain. This included 18 out of 19 studies considered high quality. A 2019 study by Rivka Green et al found a 3.66 decrease in IQ points in boys for every 1mg per litre increase in fluoride in maternal urine. In 2020, Christine Till et al found there was an 8.8 point reduction in IQ for babies fed formula milk made up with fluoridated water. 

There have also been challenges in America over the levels of fluoride. A California court assessed the available evidence and ruled that at 0.7mg per litre of fluoride represents an “unreasonable risk to human health”.

Judge Edward Chen demanded a response from the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has appealed his ruling.

Although the California ruling did not conclude with certainty that fluoridation at 0.7mg/litre was harmful, the National Toxicology Programme in the US has stated that it has moderate confidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin for unborn children at 1.5mg per litre.

Prof Fawell said no specific mechanisms have been identified for fluoride having a neurocognitive effect and epidemiology cannot, at this moment, conclude that there is an association between fluoride exposure and IQ, although more studies are under way.

But he added: “I expect to be involved in a WHO re-evaluation of the guideline for fluoride in the guidelines for drinking water quality.”

WHO recommends fluoridation to prevent tooth decay. It confirmed that the latest scientific research would be assessed for the 5th edition of its guidelines later this year.

Prof Howard, meanwhile, says the current research cannot be ignored, describing the US judgement as a “game stopper”.

He also pointed to the recent Catfish studies which showed minimal benefit from adding fluoride to water in preventing tooth decay. This research, conducted by the Universities of Manchester, Aberdeen and Dundee, showed an advantage of only a “quarter of a tooth” not decayed, missing or filled on average.

In America, two states – Utah and Florida – have banned fluoride in drinking water. Five others have introduced fluoride bills.

But Dr Barry Cockcroft, former chief dental officer and chair of the British Fluoridation Society, said scientific studies suggesting harm to unborn children and babies have been flawed. He invited anti-fluoride campaigners to watch a small child having a tooth extracted as tooth decay is the primary reason 5-9-year-olds end up in hospital, according to data published by the NHS. He said that his children and grandchildren live in Warwickshire and he would not be promoting fluoride if there was the slightest risk to their IQ.

“In the UK, there are three-year reviews of the health impact of fluoride. If anything is identified, they check on it. They never find anything that’s conclusive,” he said.

He said that his view had now changed slightly regarding the need for universal fluoridation. Fluoride could be added to water in areas of higher deprivation like the North East rather than universally because that’s where the greatest benefit to dental health would be achieved, he said. He also accepted more people are using fluoride toothpaste which reduces the need for adding fluoride to water.

The Department of Health and Social Care said: “The fluoride levels permitted in the UK are proven to be safe and are well below the levels quoted in Who safety guidelines (1.5mg/litre).

“There have been multiple reviews of water fluoridation schemes from around the world. The common finding of these reviews is that water fluoridation, at levels permitted in England, is safe and effective.”

It added: “There is a duty to monitor effects of water fluoridation schemes on health. The next health monitoring report will be published in 2026.”

With £60bn to spend, how can the UK still be so unprepared for war?

On the night of 9 September, Russia fired hundreds of suicide drones and dozens of ballistic and cruise missiles against Ukraine, a regular event for the Ukrainian population. As with many such attacks, Ukrainian air defences shot down over 75 per cent of the Russian weapons. On this occasion, around 20 drones also went into Poland. Warsaw was able to mobilise its defences, and many were shot down by fighters or ground-based SAMs. A similar attack against the UK would see the vast majority of drones/missiles getting through. The uncomfortable truth is that the UK is more or less defenceless against the sort of missile attack that is commonplace in Ukraine.

Why, more than three-and-a-half years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the UK still not buying the equipment that is so obviously needed for the basic defence needs of the nation?

This was what many of those who attended last week’s DSEI defence exhibition were asking. The defence secretary, John Healey, in his closing speech, lauded defence cooperation between London and Kyiv. One issue he highlighted was innovative work on new families of long-range attack drones, but also of a new class of extremely low-cost drone interceptors, aiming to defeat Russian swarm attacks without having to use expensive SAMs. What was missing in the speech, or in the questions that followed, was any sign that the British armed forces were going to buy any of these weapons – drones produced in UK factories will be shipped to Ukraine.

At the same show, two years previously, the then-chief of the defence staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, had expressed a wish to see the British Army set up a “suicide drone regiment”, copying the success and rapid innovation of the Ukrainian Army. Two years later on, no such unit(s) exists. And even if there are numerous trials and tests of suicide drones and the like, nothing has been bought in any significant numbers to be of military use in the event of a large-scale war.

The Ukraine war has shown that artillery is still “queen of the battlefield”, a proven war winner. Having supplied Kyiv with all of the old (but still highly effective) AS90 155mm self-propelled howitzers, the British army has only 13 new Archer 155mm howitzers (one crashed on exercise), and will not get major numbers of this vital type of weapon until 2028.

And during last week’s conference, various defence chiefs were vocal that their mission was to get their services ready for an all-out war in two to three years. If there is a serious prospect of a war in a few years, then 2028 or 2029 isn’t “just in time” – it is “too late”.

It was clear to me that the army wants faster delivery of artillery guns, but have been told “no money”, a common phrase throughout the event last week. Lack of funds has held up the procurement of the hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles that the UK needs to protect itself against the sort of drone attack that Ukrainians live with daily – “accidental” drone attacks on Poland (and Romania, and the Baltic states) today, could well be ones even nearer to the UK tomorrow.

Wise heads studying any lessons of war in Ukraine are not jumping to conclusions, and are not making simplistic judgements about what new capabilities, what innovations have been vital. But in possibly the best summation of the conflict and any lessons, the current chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton, in his speech, stated that there was a dichotomy: innovation in defence equipment and technology by both Moscow and Kyiv has been at an unprecedented pace, but the battlefield still resembles the Western Front in the First World War. He added, “Innovation and technology have not proved decisive for either side.”

Yes, it is true that use of a huge range of drones, spiralling capabilities on an almost weekly basis, has kept Ukraine in the fight. It is also true that Ukrainian start-ups have brought AI onto the battlefield, with results that have astounded Western observers. Innovation has been at the heart of Ukraine’s fight – but also that of Russia.

No one should dismiss the massive range of new technologies that exist while planning for the wars of tomorrow. It will be impossible for any Army to go into any war tomorrow without tens of thousands of drones of all types and different types of drones, or “uncrewed systems” will undoubtedly be vital for future wars in the air and at sea.

But despite enthusiastic words, progress in the UK is close to glacial. Process and paperwork certification has meant that no decisions on new capabilities are leading to any significant advances in capabilities, and certainly not at speed. There are baby steps here and there – but urgency is not visible.

A phrase that was used by all of the service chiefs, as well as the political heads of the MoD at the DSEI show was “transformation at the speed of war”. In essence, this was saying that rather than having procurement cycles that last for eight, 10, 15 years, the MoD has to think in months – “at worst” a few years. Several defence chiefs at DSEI made explicit reference to the speed of innovation seen in World War Two, marking it as the reference point for how the UK should be operating today.

But the current UK equipment procurement system is very much an oil tanker – it can take a very long time to turn around. How to change the current cumbersome (and wasteful) system to one able to react at Elon Musk-like speeds is very much an open question.

The war in Ukraine does provide important lessons: the nature of war hasn’t actually changed – ground has to be held; troops have to attack and defend. Drones might be used, and they might have AI in their night vision goggles – but the soldier with the AK-74 still has to “go over the top”.

Innovation is not everything – magazine size, stocks of weapons, shells, bullets, “old-fashioned” equipment are still absolutely vital. The UK has incredibly low stocks of almost everything – and somehow is still finding it difficult to place the sort of orders required to create and sustain credible and reliable armed forces.

The question is this: how can a country with a defence budget of over £60bn, one of the largest in the world, be in this situation? And how can it be so difficult to turn the supertanker around, to create the armed forces that will be required for the wars of tomorrow? These will need a mixture of current technologies, with an injection of new ones. Everyone seems to know this – but getting from understanding to action is proving incredibly difficult even when the threat is rising every day.

Francis Tusa is editor of Defence Analysis