Sakeer Starmer has said that labor aims to boost military spending to 2.5% of GDP, as long as it's achievable within labour's borrowing rules. My question to you is, why has he designated this as labour's number one priority?

Well, our commitment to the nuclear deterrent is total, and our support for the armed forces is on the record. What we need to make sure is that we're reflecting the changing international circumstances is the growing threats to not only the UK, but our allies as well. That's why we've set out our ambition to get to 2.5% of GDP on defense spending, but also that defense spending should be focused primarily on UK companies creating and supporting jobs across the United Kingdom rather than buying equipment on the international markets from international partners where the jobs clearly go abroad. Setting out a clear commitment to our nuclear tariff, a clear commitment and direction of travel on defense spending, but backing our British jobs as well.

You call it an aspiration and the direction of travel, this 2.5% of GDP on military spending. That sounds quite vague to me. How soon could it happen under a Labor government?

Well, the 2.5% commitment matches where the government is on defense spending at the moment. But we can't see in opposition the information that would be required to make that decision to work out when precisely that would kick in. That's why we've committed to a full defense and security review within the first year of a Labor government that would set out what are the challenges facing the United Kingdom? And importantly then, what are the capabilities that are required to defend the UK and support our allies. We know that there's been a hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces over the last 14 years. That's the words of Ben Wallace, the former defense secretary. And if we do win the next general election, we're going to have to repair that damage, replace those capabilities that we've now lost, and make sure our forces are not only able to deter aggression, but should and will happen, be able to defeat adversaries as well.

But can you commit to the 2.5% by the end of a labor term, were they to win the general election?

Well, the commitment that Keir is making today is 2.5% of GDP when economic circumstances allow. There's the same position that the conservative government have currently, but they can see the information that's required to make the assessment of the facts and threats, and we can't. I can't answer I'll answer that question directly to you because I don't get to see the information, the security briefings, the intelligence that would be required for us to set out clearly which capabilities need to be invested in at what time to deter what threat. But we do know that tensions are rising, the threats from Russia, in particular, to the United Kingdom and our allies are growing, and maintaining a 2% defense spending is insufficient to guarantee the security of the United Kingdom.

And Takir Starmer is saying that defense is Labour's number one priority. So Is it more important then to a labor government than schools and hospitals?

Well, I think the answer in politics is always and rather than or. But we do know that going in- But if you make something your number one issue, it does imply that other things are less important. Well, there's certainly an importance of making sure that our defense spending, our defense and national security picture is secure against rising tensions. We need to make sure that we've got the investment going into our armed forces. But for any voter out there, before they start looking at our health, our education, our environment policies, as important and critical as they are, they want to know that national security and economic security is safe with the Labor Government. That's why Rachel Reeves has set out our policies on economic security and growth. That's why John Healey and Keir Starmer are today setting out policies to increase defense spending when economic conditions allow and renew our nuclear deterrent, guaranteeing jobs not only in Barrow in Cumbria, where the submarines are built, but in the supply chain across the country as well.

When you make an aspiration like the 2.5% of GDP, people are always going to ask you where the money comes from. That is a very real question, isn't it? What are you going to cut back on spending to spend on defense? Are you going to spend less on pensions, on schools, on hospitals? Where's the money going to come from?

Well, what we've set out as a party is that the only way to reinvest in the country to correct the damage of 14 years is to grow the economy, is to get more growth in our economy. We've seen pretty feeble growth figures today. In that growth comes more tax revenues, and that comes the greater ability to spend on the priorities of a government. Now, against the rising international tensions, we need to make sure our armed forces have the equipment and the capabilities they need to keep us safe. That clearly is the first priority of any government to keep the country safe. Without that security, you can't have a vibrant economy, nor can you have the investment in public services that labor also wants to see within the first term of a labor government. That's why Keir is so clearly setting this out today, being clear that there is an ambition to get to 2.5%, that our support for NATO is unshakable, and that we have total commitment to Britain's independent nuclear deterrence.

But if it is so urgent, don't you need to have answers now about how you're going to find the money to bolster our defenses?

Yeah, we've committed to that defense review that will look at what we need to spend in what sequence. And so we can understand where- But where's the money going to come from? Well, first of all, we need to spend the MoD budget they already have better because the MoD is not known for its wise spending. Then we need to see the growth in the economy that delivers the additional tax revenues that will allow not only the investment in defense, but also the investment across the whole range of public services that have been hollowed out so much under the last 14 years of conservative the government. Really, without that economic growth, you're going to struggle to provide the economic security. That's why the government has been struggling so much because they've had such feeble and weak growth. That's why Rachel Reeves and Keir Salma have set out that growth is our primary economic mission to make sure that we're getting more people into well-paid jobs, that we're motoring the economy at a faster rate. In that comes more tax revenues that we can spend on the priorities that we have. But securing the safety and security of our country is the first priority for any government, and it will be if Labor is elected at the next general election.

A quick question about Keir Starmer vowing his unshakable commitment to the nuclear deterrent today. There are, though, aren't there? Many people in your party are pretty uncomfortable about labor spending millions on nuclear weapons. Will everyone in your party be on side for this? Are all the shadow cabinets on side with this?

Yes, there is strong support for the renewal of our nuclear deterrents and the investment in the four Dreadnaught-class summarines that Kyrie is also setting out our support for today. I think when you're looking on the screen, on your news bulletins, and you're seeing Russian aggression against Ukraine, where we're seeing daily cyberattacks against the United Kingdom, where we're seeing our allies being threatened internationally, the case for a robust and strong defense policy is set out very clearly in front of us if we just look at it. That's why labor is today being clear that we We want to increase defense spending to 2.5% when conditions allow and make sure we're addressing the capability gaps that we could be inheriting. We've lost 200 aircraft from the RAF, one in five Royal Navy ships has been cut or mothballed, and the armies down to its smallest level since the Napoleonic era. One of the reasons that people in the armed forces and our veterans are turning to labor is because they've seen the damage that has been done. Now, these are big challenges. This isn't just a political mud-throwing fight. This is about securing our future and our national security for the United Kingdom and our allies that are under more imminent and daily threats, especially when you look at those allies in the Baltic states or NATO's Eastern Franks that are border Russia, seeing the aggression and the confidence that Putin now has to threaten NATO.

Well, we can't deter that aggression without a strong commitment to defense and without a strong commitment to our independent nuclear deterrence. And that is what labor is setting out today. So Putin and anyone that to threaten the United Kingdom and the security of our allies, can be determined that Britain will possess an independent nuclear deterrent, that we will be reinforcing our armed forces, and that we will be supporting Ukraine until they win against Russia pressure. Now, these are big challenges, and I'm very glad that Keir is setting out labour's response to those today and our total commitment to the nuclear deterrence.

We're running out of time, but I very quickly want to ask for your response to an interview I did with the former defense minister, Tobias Elwood, a little bit earlier. In that, he said that he suspected that battlefield tactical nuclear weapons would be used by a state or a nonstate actor within the next five years. Do you agree with him?

Well, I haven't seen any assessment that suggests that. Certainly, the proliferation of smaller nuclear devices is something that we are tracking around the world. To be able to deter the use of nuclear weapons, be it strategic nuclear weapons, big continental missiles, or tactical ones, smaller battlefield arms, we're going to need to make sure that we have a set of armed forces, an international alliance that can deter that aggression in the first place. That means preventing those nations that threaten international stability from getting hold of nuclear material, in particular, looking at Iran in that case, but making sure that the cost of using any nuclear weapon is so high that no one would want to use one, especially a tactical nuclear weapon. That is really important that we have that strong position. But where Tobias and myself will agree, I think, is that our armed forces have been hollowed out. We do need to see investment in our military. The best way of winning a war is to deter one in the first place. But hollowed out and underfunded armed forces isn't the way to deter Russian aggression. Having strength on our side and a total commitment to national security to make sure we can defeat an adversary, if required, is the way to do that.