the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

This means that it will be something for Andy Burnham as a short-term challenge.

The Treasury said no in the end.

The Treasury's a paradox: you have some of the very best and brightest officials in the Treasury, but you have, too often, a Treasury orthodoxy that's a dead hand on dynamic government.

The Treasury still often sees defence as a drain on public spending and not the driver of economic growth that we've demonstrated in two years.

It's important to Nato, it's important to Britain that we...demonstrate the sort of leadership that's required from within the European Nato as the US starts to scale back its contribution.

By 2030, well over half of Nato members will be spending 3% or more. And when allies are looking for British leadership, we must not fall behind.

Sir Keir Starmer is unable and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats

I appreciate how hard this is for cabinet colleagues and I am very grateful to those who support what is required, but not all needs to be done by cutbacks elsewhere

the UK’s defence spending plan falls well short of what is required

Our defence spending plan falls well short of what is required.

We need a bigger view of national security. It’s not just the job for defence or the agencies. Every department has a part to play in national security and national resilience.

Our adversaries do not follow timetables set by the Treasury.

I took the decision to resign with the very greatest regret and reluctance, but I continue to be certain about this decision.

When Nato needs European nations to step up, we must not fall short.

My decision last week was about our country, not career.

There is no date for reaching 3 per cent spending on defence, and our adversaries do not follow timetables set by the Treasury.

This is not the moment for calibration or incremental change. This means bigger politics, bolder priorities and harder choices.

At this dangerous time, I see the current defence investment plans falling well short of what is required, a rise at 0.08% from next year to 2030, no date for reaching 3%, no path to 3.5%.

the government's current plans to fund the military in the coming years fall "well short" of what is required.

readying Britain for an uncertain world was the "duty of our political generation".

We came into government, recognising Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defence.

You know what defence needs... Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country…

the UK's defence investment plan "falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time".

This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan.