Corruption and Arms Trade: The UK’s Enduring Dilemma


Will anything change in the government’s approach to weapons sales?

August 2026

We questioned the extent of help offered to arms companies in a previous post. The Farnborough show featured a range of such companies including Elbit Systems deeply implicated in the appalling death toll in Gaza. We noted the vast sums – around £3 trillion – of tax payers money underpinning the industry when they are not paid. We drew attention to the infamous ‘revolving door’ where senior military, civil service and government ministers sidle off into lucrative directorships or consultancies with arms firms when they retire using their contacts to secure yet more funding. A system so steeped in corruption it is amazing it is still allowed.

So we now have a new leader of the Labour party who was quick to say on July 9, that Labour “didn’t get it right” on Gaza. His video message also included a pledge to bar arms sales to Israel wherever weapons could be deployed in Gaza or the West Bank. Sounds good. So what happened?

The second time we saw our PM’s face on a video message discussing arms was a mere 11 days later. Beamed onto the big screen at Farnborough Air Show, he gleefully emboldened the arms industry, placing them as a core pillar of his ambition to re-industrialise’ the nation by working together with brilliant businesses, like those at Farnborough’ – Farnborough being an international arms fair hosting over 1,000 exhibitors, including the likes of BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Elbit Systems, Rafael, Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing.

Shortly after, his Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, took to the stage and announced a £708 million government contract with BAE. He remarked at ‘what an opportunity we have with this Prime Minister’ and ‘the enormous contribution that Defence [defense] can make to the Prime Minister’s vision for this country.”

It’s getting worse

Campaign Against the Arms Trade have analysed the current situation and if anything the situation is worse than previous administrations. A key element is Wes Streeting’s desire for speed in commissioning and delivering new systems. He is aware of the prolonged time scales, endless delays and cost overruns involved in arms procurement. He is against unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. Part of that bureaucracy is assessing risk and potential damage to human rights for those at the end of the arms sales. Putting speed above these assessments carry obvious risks.

He is also keen on joint ventures which makes it difficult for the UK to extract itself from sales where weapons are used by regimes bent on oppression or killing people. The F35 is a classic example which is being used by Israel to bomb Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. We cannot ban components made in the UK (around 15%) because they go off to the States.

Streeting ended his speech with a glowing rhetorical flourish: ‘It is not yet clear whether the 21st century will be defined by tyranny or freedom. But we need not let others define the answer to that question…. We know which side we are on.’ As CAAT argues ‘others’ does rather leave the door open to alternative interpretations. Streeting and Burnham were both members of governments who have engaged the UK in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine involving the deaths of a million people. Iraq led to instability and the creation of ISIS; Afghanistan has left the country in the hands of the Taliban with is draconian controls of women and a flourishing heroin trade, and Palestine has seen the wasting of Gaza and the death of 20,000 children.

Have they learned nothing?

You would think that they might have learned a thing or two about violence. Yet here they are, lauding the firms who make the weapons and hell bent on making things worse. Over and over we have argued that making and selling weapons with their ability to create jobs is put above moral or human rights considerations. Claims of a ‘robust policy’ on sales is no longer credible. Does ‘re-industrialising’ the nation have to involve selling weapons to awful regimes? Is that really what Andy Burnham and his new team really want?

We are grateful to CAAT for use of some of their text. No AI has been used.


Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑