LONDON — Defense and worries about Russia rank among the top concerns of British voters, but Reform UK has spent more than two years without a dedicated spokesperson and still has no detailed military policy.

Without that, the right-wing party is on the back foot on policy to deter Moscow and has lacked a compelling alternative to the defense spending surge that is one of the Labour government’s biggest priorities. It has also encountered difficulties reaching out to the arms industry.

Now, Reform is moving to correct that. On Thursday, the party announced Angus MacIntyre as its new defense spokesperson. He will help the party develop a defense policy ahead of the next election.

“We want to come into government with a comprehensive program that we can deliver to the machine, rather than have a flimsy manifesto with a few headline commitments and ask them to work out how to deliver it,” a senior party official told POLITICO. Like others in this article, they were granted anonymity to discuss policy issues.

MacIntyre served in the military for 40 years and retired as a wing commander in the Royal Air Force last week to take up the role.

“Having someone of Angus’ stature and calibre speak for us on defence shows how seriously Reform UK takes protecting the interests of Britain’s military,” party leader Nigel Farage said ahead of the announcement.

MacIntyre blamed successive Conservative and Labour governments for underfunding the military.

“Neither can be trusted. Only Reform UK can fix and rebuild our armed forces,” he said in the statement.

But the announcement comes more than two years after the last election. Since then, the party surged in opinion polls, leading for many months before recently falling behind Labour after Andy Burnham became prime minister.

Senior party officials blamed the delay in setting out a defense policy on a desire to “get it right,” rather than put out piecemeal ideas which could be attacked by political opponents.

Farage’s Kremlin problem

The U.K.’s ongoing defense buildup is aimed at deterring Russia, which has created problems for Farage.

He has been haunted by comments made in 2014, when he said he “admired” Russian President Vladimir Putin as an “operator.” Farage has tried to distance himself from such statements by calling Putin “a very bad dude” and saying the U.K. should shoot down Russian jets in British airspace.

However, any attempt to put the party on a solidly pro-Ukraine footing has been mixed: he called Kyiv “corrupt” and has promised to review Britain’s military aid to Ukraine.

One British defense industry representative said Farage’s comments on Ukraine were unhelpful. “A lot of money for the defense industry does come from contracts with Ukraine, and it’s also that moral thing with the defense industry — they want to support Ukraine.”

Farage’s lack of success in distancing himself from his past pro-Putin and pro-Russia comments puts him at odds with many U.K. voters.

A YouGov poll last month found that Russia was by far the biggest threat for British voters, easily outpacing out-of-control AI.

Sophia Gaston, a British foreign policy researcher who wrote a report to be published Thursday on public attitudes to defense, said 83% of Reform backers favored more defense spending, higher than for any other party.

“While there has been a lot of attention on Nigel Farage’s somewhat mixed feelings towards Ukraine and NATO more generally, he must tread a careful line as that does not necessarily reflect the views of his voters, of whom 92% regard Russia as a threat to global peace,” she said.

“All in all, Reform voters remain Eurosceptic, Atlanticist, hawkish towards authoritarian nations, and in favour of a more defensive state,” said Gaston.

The policies Reform does have on defense are mainly skewed toward its core voter concerns — cracking down on immigration and boosting benefits for armed forces personnel.

These include calls to deploy the Royal Navy to combat small-boat crossings in the Channel, ending diversity initiatives in the armed forces and cadets, granting the armed forces immunity from prosecution for actions taken in combat operations and giving priority to veterans for social housing.

Reform backs increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 and NATO’s 3.5% target by 2035 — in line with the governing Labour Party. It says it would pay for the higher spending through £45 billion of cuts to other areas such as welfare.

While the party is still developing a comprehensive defense policy, Reform MP Danny Kruger this summer called for the U.K. to “become a great power once again.” He also spelled out the importance of NATO, defending the U.K. and a stronger response to Russian hybrid interference.

“That means moving from a regional heavyweight to being the leading economic, technological, diplomatic and security power in Europe,” he said.

He also called for “a total reform of procurement,” including possibly removing it from the Ministry of Defence.

Industry struggling to engage

The lack of a defense spokesperson has made it difficult for industry to engage with Reform.

“They don’t have any defense policy, and they’re therefore not asking any questions, and have no person to engage with,” said the defense industry representative. “Their only policy really on defense is: ‘Well, we want to spend more money, and we’re not going to tell you what and when, and also we want to get the woke out of the military.’”

Another defense sector representative underlined the negative signal sent by the party’s delay in appointing someone to oversee the issue.

“There has been nothing significant on defense which, in addition to a lack of defense spokesperson, is baffling given the geopolitical environment we are facing,” they said.

Following MacIntyre’s appointment, the party will now look to publish detailed policy documents on defense, as it has done in recent months on topics such as immigration and the economy.

Reform plans to build out its foreign policy team over the next year, said a senior Reform adviser.

LONDON — MPs are moving toward a vote next month on the first step in a major restoration of Britain’s crumbling Houses of Parliament, after Andy Burnham’s government lent fresh impetus to the long-stalled project.

The Palace of Westminster has been in limbo for more than a decade, with MPs, peers and parliamentary authorities in disagreement over the best way to repair the 19th-century building, which is plagued by leaks, fires, asbestos and antiquated plumbing and wiring.

Successive governments have been reluctant to champion renovating parliament amid fears of a public backlash over the enormous cost. The main options on the table for refurbishment have been estimated to cost between £11 billion and £39 billion.

But signs suggest Burnham, who entered Downing Street in July, is sympathetic to calls to speed up the process.

Government whips have discussed holding a debate and vote on starting “preparatory works” for restoration in early December, according to three people with knowledge of the plans.

Alan Campbell, leader of the House of Commons, told MPs in October:  “The longer we postpone it, the more it costs not just to keep this place functioning, but to eventually get round to doing something about it.”

A government aide, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak candidly, said: “No-one wants to be holding the baby when disaster strikes.” But they also cited day-to-day concerns short of a full-scale disaster that could render the building inoperable.

They warned of a scenario in which the Palace could be certified as unsafe to enter due to fire or structural risk. That would see MPs and peers allowed in as normal but all other personnel — including office staff, caterers and reporters — blocked at the gates.

A parliamentary official briefed on internal discussions about restoration said Burnham’s senior advisers “appeared positive” about the opportunities provided by the project, which will call for specialist tradespeople and conservationists.

A December vote would allow contractors to begin a program of work, including procurement processes and building surveys, estimated to cost £3 billion over seven years. But it would not determine the final option for wholesale restoration, which will only be decided in 2030.

The eventual options will be a “full decant” where all MPs move to another building and a program known as “enhanced maintenance and improvement plus” which would allow the House of Commons to remain in the Palace throughout the works.

Two of the three people cited above said Conservative Party bosses intend to instruct their MPs to block preparatory works. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said earlier this year that restoration plans were “out of control” and had “turned into a basket case white elephant project.”

A report published Wednesday by the cross-party public accounts committee said: “Without action, at best the Palace will be in a process of managed decline. At worst, a catastrophic event could occur that endangers lives and interrupts the functioning of democracy in the U.K.”

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, a Tory MP who chairs the committee, told POLITICO they were “very keen that the government gets on, has this debate, has a vote, and phase one starts.”

Corridors in the Palace’s sprawling basement are currently so packed with gas lines, water pipes, electrical wiring and redundant infrastructure that workers can only walk down them in single file. It has a misting system to mitigate the risk of fire, and extra safety measures have been introduced in recent years to guard against falling masonry that has come loose on several occasions.

The costs of ad hoc maintenance and repairs reached £1.56 million a week in 2025, up from £1.45 million a week in 2023.

The Cabinet Office declined to comment.

A U.K. parliament spokesperson said: “Work is already happening across the parliamentary estate to ensure the ongoing safety of those working here and visiting,” adding: “The [restoration] proposals are expected to be debated by all Members of both Houses to decide a way forward.”

LONDON — Britain’s top finance minister on Wednesday promised an uplift in defense spending by 2030 to “set the direction” for meeting a crucial NATO target — but didn’t lay out how the government will get there.

John Healey quit as U.K. defense secretary in the dying days of Keir Starmer’s government in a row over funding. On Wednesday he gave his first budget as chancellor under new Prime Minister Andy Burnham, setting out the government’s tax and spending plans.

Healey committed for the first time to spending 3% of GDP on the nation’s defenses by 2030 — something he had called for when he quit Starmer’s administration. But he declined to say where he would find the money, a staging post on the way to meeting NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Instead, he said a broader review of government spending would address it next year.

Increasing spending would include “looking hard at public spending” and using “innovative financing,” including a joint procurement initiative with Finland, Poland, and the Netherlands, Healey vowed.

Healey’s more immediate task was to find £4.7 billion to plug gaps in the blueprint for developing the U.K.’s armed forces, the Defence Investment Plan, published earlier this year after long delays. The Treasury said £3 billion would come from “reprioritization of capital budgets” across the U.K. government, including £1.7 billion of cuts to the energy department.

The chancellor and prime minister both sought to show they had prioritized the U.K.’s security commitments in the budget, with Burnham and Healey speaking to Volodymyr Zelenskyy ahead of the statement and pledging £10 billion in additional economic and military support for Ukraine.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte posted on X: “I welcome this move to put [the U.K.] on a credible path towards meeting the commitment made by all NATO Allies in The Hague — to ensure we’re all investing what’s needed to remain ready [and] able to deter aggression and defend our freedom and security.”

However, the lack of detail did not go unnoticed in the budget’s immediate aftermath.

Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch responded to Healey’s speech: “You can’t have social security without national security… There are huge problems coming down the road but this Budget is simply trying to get through the day.”

Kelly Maddison of the manufacturers’ body Make UK Defence said work is needed “on how exactly it plans to reach 3% of GDP on defence by 2030” and “industry needs to know that the commitment to defence is there long term to strengthen business confidence to invest.”