We have neither the political capital nor the resources to spare for this unjust journey.

The reality is we are spending too much time preparing for last year’s war, not tomorrow’s.

There comes a point when honesty requires action. And for me, that point came last week.

We are no longer packaging up our military to deploy to a foreign field, but being ready to fight from here, right from the home base, for democracy, for the right to self-determination and for European security.

Firstly, because I no longer believe the defence investment plan was preparing for the wars we are most likely to fight. The character of warfare is changing at an exceptional speed.

The character of conflict is changing faster than our procurement can keep up with. We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one.

Spending 2.68% of GDP by 2030 is not a serious answer to a world where the character of warfare has changed fundamentally.

The prime minister needs to make "bold and courageous" decision to fund defence.

We face a more unstable and dangerous world than at any point in recent decades, and having spent most of my adult life in uniform, I understand what public service in such a moment demands.

I have said that there are issues facing this department that do not lend themselves to easy answers, and that there needs to be agreement throughout the Government about the scale of the challenges we face.

a really honest conversation with the population about the threats we face"

bold and courageous" decision to fund defence, Al Carns has said

I want to see a higher percentage for uncrewed systems, AI, data – data is the new gunpowder – and we’ve got to move that forward if we are going to win the next war.

But we are fighting amongst each other to get more money for the key unifying principle of the of any government, which is to protect this nation.

I generally think Keir Starmer is a good man, he’s an honest man, and he’s an integral man.

I didn’t think the funding settlement was correct for defence, and I didn’t agree with the defence investment plan, which I thought was looking at how to fight the last war rather than the next one.

I cannot "in good conscience stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task".

We ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it's done. We are failing on both.

A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.

I have watched, as a Marine, what war looks like now. I have spoken to those who have seen it up close in Ukraine. The lesson is uncomfortable and it is unambiguous. The character of conflict is changing faster than our procurement can…

I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government.

There is an argument around welfare.

We need to have a really honest conversation with the population about the threats we face.

A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.

We are asking our Armed Forces to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.