A former UK defence minister has called for members of the public to contribute £1.70 a day to strengthen Britain’s armed forces, arguing that new funding is needed to meet growing threats. Tobias Ellwood, a senior Conservative MP, said the daily sum would help equip the military with the tools and technology required to keep the country safe.
The appeal arrives as defence budgets face pressure from war in Ukraine, Red Sea disruptions, and cyber risks. It also comes amid debate over whether the UK should raise spending to 2.5 percent of GDP, above NATO’s 2 percent baseline. Ellwood’s proposal frames the issue as a shared national cost at a time of strained public finances and contested priorities.
The Proposal and Its Price Tag
Ellwood urged a clear commitment from the public, setting out a simple daily figure as a rallying point. He wrote:
Members of the public must be prepared to pay £1.70 a day to ensure our armed forces have the tools and technology they need to defend us all.
£1.70 a day equates to about £620 a year per person. Ellwood did not specify the collection method, but a per-person contribution implies a broad-based levy. The framing is designed to translate abstract budget lines into a tangible household cost. It also signals that any uplift would be ongoing, not a one-off surge.
Why Funding Pressures Are Rising
Western allies have restocked munitions and supplied Ukraine, exposing production gaps after decades of limited wartime demand. The UK has also faced recruitment and retention challenges, while major equipment programs have run over budget. Costs for missiles, drones, and electronic warfare systems are rising as threats evolve.
NATO members are expected to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defence. The UK has sat near or above that level in recent years, but ministers and military leaders have argued for higher spending to meet new challenges. The government has set ambitions to reach 2.5 percent, though delivery depends on economic conditions and political choices.
What New Money Might Buy
Ellwood’s case rests on the need to rearm and modernize. A daily levy, if enacted at scale, would steer billions of pounds to priorities such as:
- Stockpiles of artillery shells and air defence missiles
- Uncrewed systems across sea, air, and land
- Cyber defence and secure communications
- Ship protection and anti-drone capabilities
- Recruitment, training, and retention incentives
These areas align with lessons from Ukraine, where massed drones, electronic warfare, and deep munitions stockpiles have shaped the conflict. They also reflect the UK’s maritime commitments and need to protect trade routes.
Supporters See Clarity, Critics Warn of Strain
Supporters argue that a simple daily figure brings honesty to a complex debate. They say the cost is small compared with the risks of underinvestment. Advocates also note that the UK’s security relies on both deterrence and readiness, which require sustained funding.
Critics question the timing and fairness. A flat levy could hit low-income households hardest during a cost-of-living squeeze. Opponents prefer reprioritizing within existing budgets, finding efficiencies, or using targeted taxation on higher earners. Some also warn against tying defence to a headline figure without a detailed plan.
Defence economists say that cost controls matter as much as new money. Recent watchdog reports have highlighted delays and overruns in major programs. Any levy would likely come with demands for stronger procurement reform and transparent milestones.
How It Fits With NATO and Industry
Allies have pushed defence industries to expand capacity, but factories need firm orders to invest. A reliable funding stream could help lock in multi-year contracts and lower unit costs. It could also support collaboration with European and US suppliers on missiles and drones.
NATO leaders have called the 2 percent target a floor, not a ceiling. Several countries have moved higher since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ellwood’s proposal positions the UK to match that trend, while signalling intent to adversaries and reassurance to allies.
Still, experts caution that money alone will not fix bottlenecks. Skilled labour, raw materials, and testing capacity limit how fast production can grow. Spending plans must be matched with workforce and industry strategies.
Ellwood’s message is direct. He ties national security to a clear daily cost and asks the public to accept it. The debate now moves to whether party leaders back the figure, how a levy would be designed, and which programs would be funded first.
Voters can expect scrutiny of procurement reforms, industry capacity, and delivery timelines. The broad choice is between raising taxes, cutting elsewhere, or accepting slower rearmament. The next steps will show how far the country is willing to go to meet its defence ambitions.
