Hi, Lucy here. Just to let you know that this episode was recorded on Thursday evening, just as the story about Peter Mandelson's vetting saga was unfolding and before the resignation of Ollie Robbins.

And to remind you that on Monday, May the 11th, we'll have a Political Fix Q&A special, so do send in your questions to our panel at political fix atft.com.

Under pressure abroad, under fire at home,

Labor's defence strategy is under attack from all sides.

Welcome to Political Fix from the Financial Times with me, Lucy Fisher.

This week, a former head of NATO, no less, Lord George Robertson, put the booted to

Kyrgyr-Stama over what he complained was corrosive complacency regarding the Prime

Minister's backing for defence. The long-delayed 10-year plan on funding the British military

is stuck in deadlock

between number 10, the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. And all that as Scottish Welsh and

English council elections loom around the corner. To discuss it all, I'm joined by my FT colleagues,

Chief Political Commentator Robert Schimmsley. Hi Robert. Hello, Lucy. Deputy political editor Jim Pickard.ley, Hi Robert. Hello Lucy.

Deputy political editor Jim Pickard.

Hi, Jim.

Hi, Lucy.

And political columnist and writer of the Inside Politics newsletter, Stephen Bush.

Hi, Stephen.

Hi, Lucy.

So, this week, Robertson has fired an exoset missile at the government, to use a military analogy, over its failure to properly fund defence, and very pleased he did it with us in the FT. Robert, give us a bit more on what he said and why it's significant. Well, it was a top scoop that was yours, in fact, Lucy. I think we should give you the full credit for it because it's very rare the defence chiefs give their exorcets to us.

They would often like to place them in the Times or the Telegraphs. It was a real win. And by the way, there is nobody better than the defence establishment talking up their case when it's money issue. But on the other hand, they're right about this. they've been pushing for a long time about the need for Britain to spend significant amounts of money to rearm in the face of what is obviously a completely new and challenging

world order. And the government having paid lip service to this and made a first step with

their commitment to get spending up to 2.5% of GDP by the end of this parliament and spending up to that number, have then just pushed it all into the long grass and we're waiting to see what's happened. And there are serious questions to whether doing it as a percentage of GDP is a smart way of deciding how much you should spend. But the point is we've got to spend more. And it's stuck. It's stuck because the Treasury hasn't got the money. And the fundamental issue in a tussle between the MOD and the Treasury, and this is a decades-old tussle that we get, is that it is normally settled by the Prime Minister. And I think the issue is that on this matter, we don't appear to have one. And so the fundamental problem is, defence establishment is saying, we've got to have

...