Ernest Bevin Lecture 2025 with General The Lord Dannatt GCB CBE MC DL

At the Coalition for Global Prosperity’s inaugural 2025 Ernest Bevin Lecture, General The Lord Dannatt GCB CBE MC DL, delivered the keynote address titled “The Cost of Complacency: Security in a World on the Brink.”

Full Speech (as delivered):

Ladies and gentlemen, good evening, it is a pleasure to be with you today. I am grateful to the Coalition for Global Prosperity for inviting me to give this inaugural lecture, about the legacy of Ernest Bevin. It is a particular pleasure to be doing something positive after a rather negative couple of days.

But now, to address this evening’s topic: The cost of complacency - Security in a world on the brink. I think for years, it has been quasi-colloquial to state that the world is more dangerous than at any time since the Cold War. But even at its height, the Cold War did not precipitate full-scale war on the European continent. 

As I speak, only a few hundred yards away from here, the Chancellor is busy preparing for tomorrow’s Budget. It may be wishful thinking but I sincerely hope that the Government has been brave enough to take the difficult but necessary decisions that reflect the precariousness of the position that Britain finds itself in today. Tomorrow, we shall see.

The global system that has maintained peace for eighty years has been crippled by the return of state-on-state competition, a devastating global pandemic, underwhelming European economic growth, a populist push towards isolationism, and the advent of a third nuclear age - yet worryingly we appear to be numb to the danger. Under pressure from Donald Trump before the last NATO Summit, the Prime Minister pledged to raise Defence spending to 3.5% of GDP - by 2035. I find that quite extraordinary. It is akin to saying to Hitler in 1935, please don’t attack us until 1945 as we are not ready! 

But in a violent and ever-more unpredictable world, now is the time to look to our predecessors and learn from those who forged the foundations of our strength and security eight decades ago. I believe this lecture series is an invaluable opportunity to do just that.

 One such individual was Ernest Bevin, whose lasting influence on British politics and our position in the world has seen him described as ‘Labour’s Churchill’. It is no coincidence that in the famous photograph of Winston Churchill waving to the crowd in Whitehall on VE Day, it was Ernest Bevin who was by his side. Three-quarters of a century since Bevin’s death, the UK now faces different but similarly complex challenges. Where are the Churchills and the Bevins?

Public finances have been stretched to their absolute limit since the pandemic. Whitehall departments are pitted against each other as the Government tries to shore up budgets. In this increasingly fractious landscape, there has never been a more appropriate time to spotlight Bevin’s unique politics. His legacy offers a valuable reminder of the importance of an outward-looking foreign policy, even in the most challenging of times.

Unlike his contemporary, Churchill, Bevin came from very humble beginnings. Born into poverty in 1881, he was an orphan by the age of six and left school at a young age to find work as a farm labourer. 

Later he became a lorry driver to Bristol where he joined the British Socialist Society. In 1910 he became secretary of the Bristol branch of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ Union and in 1914 he became a national organiser for the Union. From these beginnings, was his long association with the trade unions that would propel him to the highest levels of the British state.

As a member of the general council of the Trade Unions Congress, and wary of a burgeoning fascist movement spreading across Europe, he campaigned throughout the 1930s for a tough British response to the escalating situation in Germany, so much so that Churchill, impressed by his work ethic and anomalous disdain for pacifism, appointed him as Minister of Labour in the wartime coalition government. Churchill’s Cabinet was akin to a Tudor Court - he appointed who he wanted to get things done. 

Following Labour's successful post-war election in 1945, Bevin was appointed Foreign Secretary by Clement Attlee, who believed his charisma, intelligence, and perhaps even combativeness, would serve Britain well on the world stage. This is an extraordinary achievement for a man who had left school at eleven!

However, as Foreign Secretary, Bevin was one of the first leaders who recognised Stalin as the brutal authoritarian he was. As the Soviet Union transformed Eastern Europe into a series of satellite states, Bevin, a skillful negotiator and dedicated multilateralist, threw himself into forging meaningful international partnerships. He played a significant role in guiding the Marshall Plan proposals across the line to guarantee Europe’s collective recovery, before executing his vision for a collective security system by spearheading the formation of NATO.

Connecting domestic concerns with foreign affairs, Bevin was the bridge between two traditionally distinct spheres. Despite hardship and rationing at home, he was uniquely capable of rallying popular support to rebuild Europe as a means of assuring Britain’s own safety, interests and prosperity. Like his wartime leader who spoke of the United states of Europe, Bevin believed this was for them not for us - Great Britain stood as the bridge between Europe and America. 

The security enjoyed by all of us since then, however, relied on a rules-based international system that now appears to be broken - possibly beyond repair if anything like the current peace proposals for Ukraine are accepted - and we will face a dire security environment that we are woefully unprepared to deal with.

 Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine has raged on now for nearly four years. Casualties on both sides are unprecedented since the Second World War - the Russians are estimated to have 1.15 million killed and wounded since February 2022 - while daily missile and drone attacks against Ukraine have also crippled basic infrastructure, cut supply chains, and depleted crucial services across the country.

 We must be prepared for Putin to test NATO’s resolve in the coming years, across every theatre and domain. Scrape him to the core, and Putin is an unreconstructed KGB Colonel who would love nothing more than to shatter the cohesion of our alliance, and our current inability to deter him will only embolden him. Thinking back to the red carpet rolled out for Putin when he met President Trump in Alaska a few months ago, it is hard to think of a time when that cohesion has been so imperiled.

 In managing this increasingly volatile and unpredictable global environment, I believe Britain needs three things: formidable political leadership; a highly-trained and well-funded Armed Forces; and hard-earned and hard-headed soft power.

 I suspect I speak for many when I say that political leadership, especially that provided by the President of the United States, has left much to be desired, even if we can somehow hang on to its constantly moving coat tails! I do credit our Prime Minister for his willingness to stand firm in defence of Ukraine, while working hard to maintain a strong relationship with the mercurial occupant of the White House. His positioning on the world stage, however, must be backed up by respected political leadership back home and a credible military capability.

 While our ability to influence the whims of President Trump, indeed any US administration, has merits, it also has limits. Fortunately, the state of our Armed Forces is our responsibility and within our control. It is the Government alone that can ensure our Armed Forces are properly funded to meet the threats Britain faces. Back to my earlier comment, it does seem that the Prime Minister has forgotten, or worse ignored, that his first duty is the defence of the nation.

 As I said earlier, the pledge to increase core defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 is a welcome step in the right direction, but we cannot pretend that we will deter his tanks with timetables alone. And that is, if the commitment survives the minimum of two General Elections we will hold before then.

 Recent intelligence assessments have warned that Russia could reconstitute its forces and be ready to attack NATO before the end of this decade. And a ceasefire in Ukraine, as welcome as that might be on the one hand, is a threat to our security on the other. It will give the chance for the Russians to reconstitute and refurbish their Armed Forces. If the Government persists with their current plans, we risk preparing the nation to fight a war in ten years that could come within five. At best it is folly, at worst it could be fatal.

 In 1948, Bevin addressed Parliament on the Soviet threat: “We must face the facts as they are. Our task is not to make spectacular declarations…but to proceed swiftly and resolutely with the steps we consider necessary to meet the situation which now confronts the world.”

It is a lesson this government, indeed all governments, would do well to note. The Prime Minister has rightly placed Britain at the heart of the Coalition of the Willing, but I don’t yet see a Coalition of the Ready - far from it. 

So the question then hangs - how, then, can Britain be safeguarded, not just from Russia, but from a threat picture as complex and dangerous as any I have seen in my lifetime?

It is here that I turn to my third point, that of Britain’s hard-earned and hard-headed soft power. If the rules-based system is over, then leaders and societies around the world will need to find new ways of tackling the threats to our nation and reducing the burden on our Armed Forces.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Government’s devastating cuts to international aid. And I cannot fathom why they have notionally done so to bolster our national security, by linking the decision to increased defence spending.

Defence and development are not competing priorities; they are interdependent pillars in any coherent national security strategy. The idea that we must weaken one, to strengthen the other is not just deeply misguided but dangerous. A lack of investment in development will only fuel greater instability, increase security threats, embolden our adversaries, and place a heavier burden on our under-resourced Armed Forces.

Ernest Bevin understood this. He did not just champion the formation of NATO, he was also integral to the development of the Marshall Plan - the ultimate Development Plan. Despite the dire economic position Britain found itself in following the Second World War, he knew supporting Europe was critical if it wasn’t to fall in its entirety into the hands of the Kremlin.

The tremendous will of the British people back then to support Europe’s recovery and security is exactly the same spirit we need to foster now.

So I say again, cutting aid is a fundamental strategic error that risks making us weaker, not stronger. Having soldiered for nearly forty years across the globe, I say with some authority that Britain’s national security and influence on the world stage depends on a balanced approach - one that integrates our military strength with our diplomatic skills and a properly funded development budget. 

Reducing aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income in 2021 was a mistake, weakening Britain’s standing and reducing our ability to shape global events. This government’s decision to slash it further is not only shortsighted but an exercise in self-sabotage. We have seen time and again that failing to invest in stability abroad only leads to greater costs down the line, borne by British taxpayers and in British lives.

We must learn from our past mistakes. Weak states become breeding grounds for terrorism, organised crime, and mass migration. Consider Afghanistan, where inadequate international engagement in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s withdrawal in 1989 allowed instability to flourish and the Taliban to seize power.

Subsequent UK operations in Afghanistan cost just shy of £33 billion in today’s money, as well as the lives of 457 British troops, many of whom I had the privilege to command.

Without well-targeted aid, instability in the Middle East and Africa will only worsen, leading to direct security dilemmas for Britain and Europe. Just as the Marshall Plan was designed to prevent the countries of Europe from falling into the orbit of the Soviet Union, a well-designed development budget today should ensure that the countries of the Global South do not fall under the thumb of malign regimes with interests contrary to our own.

And we mustn't be naive. These actors understand perfectly well, arguably far better than we do, the tangible value of soft power. Make no mistake: where we have stepped back, our adversaries have been quick to fill the void left behind - our short-sightedness is an own goal celebrated around the world.

In Kenya, for example, cuts to the BBC World Service in 2023 forced the closure of thirteen TV programmes and saw weekly audiences drop by 19% the following year. But worse still, Kenya’s national broadcaster has since had to turn to Xinhua, China’s state-run news agency, to fill the gaps we left behind. It is no coincidence that, earlier this year, China leapfrogged the UK on the Global Soft Power Index for the first time.

Shying away from this investment risks reduced influence, increased terrorist threats, more humanitarian emergencies, and greater pressure on our borders. Instability in Sudan today, puts people in small boats in the Channel tomorrow. The burden on Britain’s Armed Forces will only grow as we are forced to deploy military resources in areas where we could have mitigated instability through targeted development.

The overstretch of our forces is already evident, with successive governments having eyes bigger than their stomachs. Today, the army is at its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars, the navy is struggling to maintain a credible global presence, and the RAF is operating at capacity. If we do not take a comprehensive approach to security – one that includes aid – we risk overcommitting our forces and diminishing our overall defence capability.

We should also consider the moral imperative. Britain has long prided itself on being a force for good in the world. Helping to end the transatlantic slave trade, leading efforts to combat Ebola in Sierra Leone, coalescing military and diplomatic support for Ukraine, these are all good examples of British leadership. Turning our backs on the world’s most desperate people, those who rely on us for survival, is a failure of our values as much as it is a strategic mistake.

Leadership means making tough decisions. For too long, we have allowed and even expected the United States to underwrite the defence of Europe, trading in our organic military capabilities for the veneer of security offered by the White House. President Trump has laid bare the reality. Putin and Trump together have provided a wake up call to Europe to take a greater responsibility for our own defence. 

Tomorrow’s Budget is an opportunity to invest materially and sustainably in our defence, development and diplomatic capabilities before, and I do not say this lightly, it is too late. I believe we are in, or very close to drinking in the last chance saloon. 

This generation of leaders must go further and faster to meet the challenges we face, deter aggression, safeguard our interests, and maintain a credible global presence. Defence spending needs to reach 3.5% of GDP well-before the end of the next Parliament to constitute a credible deterrent. We should be investing in new technology, and must complement this with sufficient mass. As the front lines of Ukraine have shown, quantity matters just as much as new technology. 

Our own history shows us the risks - and costs - of inaction. In 1935, we spent less than 3% of GDP on defence, and failed to deter Hitler. In 1939, at the onset of war, that figure jumped to 19%. In 1940, when the very survival of our nation was at stake, we spent 46% of GDP on our defence. That is the awful cost of fighting a war - how much better to increase the insurance premium now and deter such a war. 

My warning to the Government is this: if national security remains the first duty of any government, then you must not let self-imposed fiscal rules stand in your way. The price of deterrence pales in comparison to the costs of war.

I know that will go down badly in many quarters. I accept that raising taxes or increasing borrowing has a knock-on effect for economic growth, and that it comes at a high political cost. But defending our country comes at a price, and we will all have to share the burden of doing so.

Ernest Bevin understood that too. Back in 1947, when the Cabinet debated Britain becoming a nuclear-armed power, he was adamant: “We’ve got to have this thing…whatever it costs.”

Passivity is dangerous, there is simply too much at stake. Our policymaking must reflect the reality we find ourselves in, and that means strengthening every tool at our disposal - each compromise is a step closer to appeasement. The Labour back bench rebellion on welfare cuts was music to Putin’s ears!

It is time to remember the lessons imparted by Ernest Bevin - a Labour Party man of vision, in his time and with national determination. We must rethink before we find ourselves paying a far higher price in the years to come.

GENERAL THE LORD DANNATT GCB CBE MC DL