The defence investment plan sets out the UK government’s funding choices for the British armed forces. Over a year late, it allocates an additional £15 billion to the ministry of defence.

Its priorities are the nuclear deterrent and submarine programmes, a sixth generation fighter jet and an expansion of autonomous systems and guided weapons.

Across land, sea and air, the defence investment plan points towards a force that depends more on space-based systems, not less. So it is disappointing that the new plan is unclear on its long-term plan for space.

Both the 2025 strategic defence review and the 2026 defence investment plan tend to speak of space-based capabilities in the broadest terms, providing no clear sense of direction in many areas.

The newest planp is following the tradition of past defence reviews by approaching space as a list-making exercise, where generic capability categories are listed as desirable and important but no prioritisation is made. The DIP does not offer any rationale for which specific capabilities the UK military should develop first.

Some space-based capabilities remain sovereign – operationally controlled by the UK. Others are acquired from external providers: allied countries such as the US, or commercial entities.

Limited defence budgets mean that many space services rely on a mixture of sovereign and external systems. These include satellite communications, space control (ensuring freedom of action in space and denying it to others) and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. This is a broad category and includes many different kinds of imagery and other data gathered from spy satellites.

Political leaders have a responsibility to explain the trade-offs and why they are made. But the defence investment plan does not explain which specific space services the UK armed forces will demand from its allies and from commercial third parties, or how the rest of the force will operate within those constraints.

High-intensity warfare

The headline treatment of space – across one and a half pages – appears positive. Space is recognised as “critical national infrastructure” by the UK government, in line with years of established policy.

Space infrastructure is seen in the defence investment plan as “the central nervous system of modern, high-intensity warfare”. The defence investment plan allocates £3.2 billion to space capabilities up to 2030 and promises at least £9 billion more between 2030 and 2035.

But most near-term spending remains concentrated in satellite communications, with £2.3 billion allocated to the Skynet satellite system, which provides secure communications to the British military. Delayed by two years, the Skynet 6A satellite is scheduled for launch in 2027.

Plans were underway for Skynet satellite systems that would cover the wideband and narrowband frequency ranges respectively. The narrowband system has now been cancelled, but the defence investment plan does not explain the operational consequences of this move, or what will replace it.

The planned Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (Darc), along with Skynet, is one of the few specific space related programmes named in the plan. It will provide radar coverage of the geostationary belt, a region of space where satellites orbit at the exact speed of the planet’s rotation.

Darc will monitor satellites, space debris and potential space-based threats from other nations. Based in Wales, Darc will be networked with similar installations in the United States and Australia to provide global coverage.

A worrying omission in the defence investment plan is the relationship between its £880m allocation for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and space control and the existing Istari programme. Istari is described as a £970 million multi-satellite programme to support global surveillance and intelligence for military operations.

One of the satellites under the Istari programme, Tyche, launched on August 16 2024. Tyche is the ministry of defence’s first sovereign optical imagery satellite. Another Istari satellite programme, called Oberon, is expected to provide two synthetic aperture radar satellites for day and night, all-weather 3D radar imagery.

Yet the defence investment plan does not clarify whether the £880 million allocated for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in the plan continues, replaces, or accelerates specific capability types within Istari – or whether it will go to services acquired from external providers.

New or old?

It remains unclear how much of the £3.2 billion for space represents new spending or restates earlier commitments in the 2021 integrated review, the 2021 national space strategy, the 2022 defence space strategy and the 2023 national space strategy in action.

The UK requires a much clearer account of what space services its future force assumes responsibility for, which of those services it must own or control, and which it is willing to access through allies or its commercial providers.

Much of the defence investment plan’s wider logic amounts to a rediscovered faith in old 1980s-era reconnaissance-strike battle doctrines. It prioritises finding and neutralising the enemy’s command and control, logistics, and reconnaissance capabilities using long-range precise weaponry.

The issue is not that this model is the wrong way to organise combat forces, but that it is highly dependent on space infrastructure. This will require multiple integrated technologies that are able to convert raw operational data into actionable intelligence, not least from space.

The defence investment plan recognises this in rhetoric but does not explain how the UK will secure access to the required space infrastructure.

The consequence is that British military operations will continue to depend on a “central nervous system” that is not sovereign. That places greater weight on UK diplomacy, foreign policy, and contracting mechanisms to ensure continued access to US, European, and transnational commercial space infrastructure.

More spending on space is not always the answer given other pressing needs. Rather, detail is lacking about what the UK military intends to invest in with its existing funding. It is also unclear whether UK government understands the strategic consequences of Britain’s reliance on allies and commercial third parties for essential military space infrastructure.

The defence investment plan was a moment in which the government could have converted five years of strategy documents into a modestly funded order of clear, specific capability development priorities. The government declined to do so.

Until it can, the £3.2 billion buys continuity rather than direction: a communications programme, a new ground radar, a small down payment on divergent types of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and another list. Admitting the limitations would set a more grounded foundation for public and professional debate on British defence policy in the space age.

Readers of the Mail titles, and the journalists working for them, have cause for great celebration following Mr Justice Nicklin’s judgment yesterday in the High Court.

Every claim against the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday – including extremely damaging ones made in the full glare of publicity by Prince Harry – was dismissed. There were no caveats. No exceptions. This was a triumph for both newspapers, and their journalists.

For the case against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the two titles, amounted to nothing less than a conspiracy to blacken the papers on the altar of public opinion – and if possible to close them down.

The 436-page written judgment is therefore also a triumph for the entire free Press and the right of newspapers to report on the goings-on of the rich and powerful, so long as they do so within the law.

Those who challenge that right – as well as those who bend the rules or indulge in illegality – will sleep a little less easily in their beds as a result of what happened yesterday.

The whole printed Press has suffered from circulation decline over the past two decades, and some titles have found it difficult to adjust to the digital age. This judgment will give every newspaper, and all the journalists who work for them, a hugely welcome boost.

But, triumph though it undoubtedly is, no one should think that it has been easily achieved. For one thing, the cost of the case on both sides has been enormous – more than £50million, of which Associated Newspapers has so far paid over half. The judge is yet to make a determination over costs.

No less serious has been the stress which the case has brought to almost everyone who works for Associated. Particularly under the cosh were the 40-odd journalists required to give an account of themselves in court.

Mr Justice Nicklin singled out a number of Mail journalists for being ‘honest’ and ‘impressive’ witnesses

It is cheering, of course, that Mr Justice Nicklin should have been impressed by the integrity of these witnesses, a number of whom were singled out by him for being ‘honest’ and ‘impressive’ during the 11-week court hearing. This was a tribute to the quality of the journalists who have worked, and still work, for the Mail titles.

Among the seven claimants, by contrast, while the Judge accepted that the individual claimants were honest, they were found to have limited direct evidence in support of the claims. Only one witness – David Furnish, husband of Sir Elton John – was deemed impressive.

In fact, after the claimants’ key witness, former private investigator Gavin Burrows, withdrew an earlier statement, they had no credible evidence at all, and were reduced to making unsubstantiated allegations.

But the paucity of the evidence did not dispel the anxiety consuming many Mail journalists. They were falsely accused of career-destroying activities. Reputations were at stake.

The journalist who had most to lose, and whose considerable achievements were called into question, was Paul Dacre, the Mail’s editor from 1992 until 2018.

Along with others, Mr Dacre was accused by the claimants of having lied to the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 when he stated that the Mail titles had never taken part in phone hacking. The judge found no truth in these baseless allegations.

Probably more painful to Mr Dacre were the accusations of Doreen Lawrence, whose son, Stephen, was murdered by thugs in south London in 1993. Almost four years later, after police attempts to charge the culprits had foundered, the Mail ran its famous front page with the single headline: ‘Murderers’.

Most of the political establishment and several newspapers immediately criticised the Mail, though Lord Denning, the legendary former Master of the Rolls, described it as a ‘marvellous piece of journalism’.

Former F1 president Max Mosely also tried to damage the Mail after it revealed he was the publisher of a racist election pamphlet used by his father Oswald

Advertisement

Baroness Doreen Lawrence outside at the High Court with friend and lawyer Imran Khan

Ex-Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris pictured outside court during the hearing 

It was a measure of Denning’s greatness that he could grasp that the Mail was fighting for truth and justice by standing up for a murdered black teenager whose unprivileged parents had been failed by the police and the prosecuting authorities.

So it was a bitter pill when, for reasons that are still not clear, Baroness Lawrence joined the ranks of the claimants, accusing the Mail of targeting her with unlawful information-gathering techniques. These allegations were entirely dismissed by the judge.

All this shows the intolerable strain under which many Mail journalists, past and present, have been living as they were subjected to groundless – and also potentially ruinous – claims.

These claims did not appear out of a clear blue sky – which is why I can confidently speak of a conspiracy. A number of individuals consciously set out to damage – and preferably destroy – the Mail.

One of them was Press-hating Max Mosley, famous for winning a libel case in 2008 against the now defunct News of the World, which had accused him of orchestrating a ‘Nazi-themed orgy.’ They were right about the orgy, where blood was shed, but couldn’t prove the Nazi bit.

In 2018 the Mail was able to prove that Mosley was the publisher of a squalid racist election pamphlet used by his father, the fascist Oswald Mosley, in 1961. This revelation only increased Mosley’s determination to damage the Mail.

Suffering from terminal cancer, he shot himself in May 2021, but not before he had used some of his enormous fortune (much of it inherited from his obnoxious father) to benefit Hacked Off – the group that campaigns for state oversight of the Press.

One of the beneficiaries was Graham Johnson, to whom Mosley gave at least £565,000, some of which was used to pay witnesses against the Mail. Another was Professor Brian Cathcart, a founder member of Hacked Off, who received generous funding from Mosley to write a book.

The exact role of Hacked Off in the campaign to bring down the Mail is for another day. Suffice to say now that one of those giving evidence on behalf of the claimants, the ex-Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris, was once an executive director of the group. He was described by the judge as having been ‘particularly prone to reconstruction’.

The Daily Mail has triumphantly seen off its enemies in this case, but let no one suppose that they will creep away from the battlefield never to cause trouble again.

Prince Harry, who has waged a seven-year war against the Press, admittedly winning against the publishers of the Sun and Daily Mirror, is likely now to desist, although he showed remarkable ill grace yesterday in describing the judgment as an ‘obvious whitewash‘.

But Hacked Off, and sympathetic voices on the Labour benches, won’t stop calling for so-called ‘Leveson Part Two’, whose objective, they hope, would be to curtail a free Press and institute some form of state control.

Indeed, Hacked Off responded to yesterday’s judgment by calling for a public inquiry. That takes some brass neck in the circumstances. However discredited the organisation and its cause may be, they won’t give up.

So vigilance should be our watchword. A decisive battle for a free Press has been won but the war will never be over. There will be other rich chancers such as Max Mosley who will want to muzzle the Press, and more celebrities who will make false accusations.

But for the moment let us be thankful to Mr Justice Nicklin for his good sense, and congratulate this newspaper’s journalists for holding the line in such trying circumstances. I am proud to be their colleague.

In The Mixer’s World Cup special

Everything you need to know about the World Cup – England updates, the games to watch and stories you missed – in five minutes, at 1pm, every day.

Officers are searching for Jamie Foster, 34, from Holgate, who was last seen in the Hob Moor area of Acomb at about 11pm on Sunday (July 5).

North Yorkshire Police on Tuesday night (July 7) said Mr Foster may be in the South Yorkshire area.

The force said Mr Foster is a “keen walker and may have travelled some distance from where he was last seen”.

Mr Foster is described as white, 185cm tall and of slim build. He has shoulder length brown hair and fair complexion.

He was last seen wearing a red long sleeved top, blue jeans and trainers and had a bandanna on his head.

But police said Mr Foster was carrying a backpack with clothing so “may have changed what he is wearing”.

A police spokesperson urged anyone who sees Mr Foster not to approach him directly and to phone 999.

“If you see Jamie, please do not approach him directly, but call 999 immediately,” they said.

“If you have any other information that could help us find him, please call us on 101 and select option one to speak to our control room.

“Please quote 12260126753 when sharing information.” 

A high-rise building in New York City under construction is structurally unstable after two of its support columns started buckling on Tuesday morning. The building was evacuated along with surrounding buildings after reports of falling bricks.

Video from inside the building shows the buckling beam.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a press conference that the building remains unstable.

Djokovic serves first and wins the opening point, 1-0. AA overcooks another backhand, 2-0, missing by a long way. AA gobbles up a loopy return to send down a forehand winner, 2-1 Djokovic. The Serb doesn’t get lucky this time with another net chord, instead the ball sits up perfectly for AS to engineer a backhand volley, 2-2.

Big return from AA to execute a fine angle on a forehand winner 2-3 AA. AA finds the net with a tame forehand effort 3-4. The Canadian strokes a sliced volley which Djokovic scampers towards but loops beyond the baseline. 4-3 AA, who then overcooks his return on Djokovic’s serve, 4-4. The Serb follows up with a superb backhand down the line to lead 5-4.  

HUGE serve from AA, 5-5. Just the slow 124 mph..a timely ace and eighth of this set. His subsequent serve is another quality one to pile the pressure on Djokovic, 6-5.

The Serb serves out wide to target AA’s weaker backhand and is rewarded… 6-6. Nothing to separate these two at the moment. AA overcooks his return on Djokovic’s second serve.. The Serb goes 7-6 up. AA’s forehand has just enough top spin to dip and tickle the baseline.. 7-7. Djokovic throws the kitchen sink at the Canadian on the next point – some great defence from AA – as Djokovic leaks a surprising unforced error with his forehand.

The Serb recovers by finding the line on his first serve, 8-8, before slipping again during the next rally. He gets away with it, as AA pushes a forehand effort behind the baseline, 9-8 to Djokovic.

Oh dear, Djokovic’s backhand return floats wide, 9-9. He mistimed that. AA strokes a forehand, 10-9. This is a monster tie-break.

Weird rally ensues.. Djokovic completely mishits his forehand, it swerves ridiculously but lands inside the court, before AA overcooks another forehand. AA returns long to hand Djokovic another set point.. And he has it! He takes the set after AA rips a long forehand winner. 

A marathon first set, which Djokovic take 7-6 (12-10). 

By CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, TV CRITIC

Published: 23:16 BST, 7 July 2026 | Updated: 01:42 BST, 8 July 2026

Ed Miliband’s Net Zero policies have failed to stop electricity costs soaring during heatwaves amid growing reliance on foreign energy imports.

As Britain faces another week of sweltering temperatures, analysis found electricity prices surged more than five-fold during last month’s heatwave.

This was because renewable sources were unable to produce enough energy to meet demand as households and offices turned on air conditioning units and fans to keep cool.

Instead, Britain had to rely on costly electricity imports from Europe as swathes of the UK’s gas power fleet were also unavailable.

Critics said it was yet more proof that Labour’s ban on new drilling in the North Sea was ‘madness’ as it means the UK will become more reliant on costly foreign energy imports.

The findings will renew pressure on Andy Burnham, who is said to be considering appointing Mr Miliband as his Chancellor.

Last week, senior officials in Donald Trump’s administration said promoting the Energy Secretary would be a mistake.

Renewable sources, such as wind turbines, were unable to produce enough energy to meet demand on June 26 as households and offices turned on air conditioning units and fans 

Renewable sources, such as solar panels, were unable to produce enough energy to meet demand on June 26 as households and offices turned on air conditioning units and fans 

The US President has repeatedly said failure to ban new drilling licences in the North Sea, as part of its Net Zero policies, was a ‘very big mistake’ of Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.

Tory shadow energy minister Greg Smith said: ‘The tunnel vision dogma of Ed Miliband is leaving the UK dangerously exposed to high power prices, at a time we desperately need cheap electricity to power cooling systems to enable work, school and transport to carry on as normal.

‘Labour need to pull the plug on the madness, get drilling in the North Sea and adapt to reality, not pretending they can make reality fit their narrative.’

The analysis found that on 26 June, the hottest day of the year, Britain had to rely heavily on electricity imports from Europe as households and offices turned on fans and air conditioning systems.

The result was a sharp spike in electricity prices. The average wholesale electricity price had been £83/MWh, but on 26 June they surged to £468/MWh – more than five times higher.

These costs can be passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills.

The study found that the highest prices coincided with rising imports through interconnectors and falling solar and wind production.

At one point that day, imports provided 22 per cent of Britain’s electricity. Later, between 11pm and 11.30pm, gas was providing up to 49 per cent of power, while solar was at zero as it got dark.

Across the heatwave from 22 to 27 June, gas supplied 35 per cent of generation, compared with 21 per cent from wind and 13 per cent from solar. At its peak, gas, which can be burned by power stations to produce energy, provided 58 per cent of Britain’s electricity.

Mr Smith said it showed that, when reliable domestic back-up is short, Britain can be forced to pay much higher prices on imports from the Continent and that storage during the summer months will become increasingly important to power air conditioning and fans as Britain’s climate heats up.

Worryingly, the analysis also found that if available gas capacity had been 1GW lower on 26 June, energy prices could have risen above £750/MWh.

If it had fallen by 5GW, prices could have reached £1,636/MWh – around 20 times the average price.

During the 2024 general election campaign, the Labour Party pledged to cut annual household energy bills by £300 by the year 2030, driven by their Clean Power Plan.

It also brought in a ban on granting new oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea shortly after winning the election.

An Energy department spokesman said: ‘The main driver of high energy costs are global gas prices, which have also pushed up electricity prices. More oil and gas production will not take a penny off bills. 

We need to go further and faster for clean, homegrown power we control.’

ATLANTA (AP) — For Mohamed Salah and Egypt, what could have been a glorious celebration turned ugly at the end.

On the cusp of upsetting the defending World Cup champion, the Pharaohs squandered a two-goal lead late in the game and fell to Lionel Messi and Argentina 3-2 in the round of 16 on Tuesday.

The winning tally came two minutes into stoppage time and set off a wild scene in front of the Egyptian bench. A red card was shown to goalkeeping coach Saafan Elsaghir, who had to be physically restrained from going after French referee Francois Letexier. Multiple yellow cards were doled out to those griping vehemently about Argentina’s final goal.

Egypt coach Hossam Hassan held up both arms in an “X” shape — the signal in soccer for calling out racial abuse — and stated flatly that his upstart squad was victimized by a soccer establishment that wanted Messi and Argentina to advance to the quarterfinals in their pursuit of a second straight title.

“We have been treated unfairly today,” Hassan said. “We have suffered injustice.”

In a tournament already marred by allegations that U.S. President Donald Trump influenced FIFA to overturn a one-game suspension for an American player, Egypt turned up the heat on soccer’s governing body.

“I just would like to say that we would have deserved to earn this win,” Hassan said, “but we are leaving with honor, with pride, regardless of this defeat.”

Hassan, who has been outspoken in his support of the Palestinians during the tournament, was upset that a potential second goal was overturned by a video review that showed a foul by Egypt at the start of an end-to-end play.

Egypt took a 2-0 lead anyway on Mostafa Zico’s goal in the 67th minute, but there was still enough time for Argentina to pull off a comeback for the ages in the stadium that is normally the home of NFL’s Atlanta Falcons.

Cristian Romero gave the champions hope in the 79th. Messi blasted in the tying goal off the crossbar just four minutes later. And Enzo Fernández won it for Argentina in the second minute of stoppage time — a play that began at the opposite end of the field with Salah being stripped of the ball as he tried to dribble into the penalty area, winding up face down on the turf.

Even retired NFL quarterback Tom Brady took note of the comeback, going on social media to point out this rivaled the one he pulled off against the Falcons in the Super Bowl on Feb. 5, 2017, when the New England Patriots rallied from a 28-3 deficit late in the third quarter to win 34-28 in overtime.

“Yeah so that might top 28-3,” Brady wrote on X.

Hassan couldn’t care less about what Brady had to say. The coach was still seething that the video assistant referee didn’t feel a need for Letexier to review what Egypt felt was a foul on Salah in the area, denying what could’ve been a penalty kick in the waning minutes.

“The effect of this outcome goes way beyond the defeat itself because we haven’t seen neither respect nor fair play,” Hassan said. “There has not been respect or fair play because a penalty was ruled out. A second ball that should have been called as a penalty for us was not even checked by the VAR.”

When Salah led a break out of the Egyptian zone that led to Zico’s goal, it appeared the African underdog — a team that had never won a World Cup game until this tournament — was headed to the quarterfinals.

Egypt fell into a defensive shell, looking to protect its seemingly safe lead, only to have Argentina pull off another wild escape. La Albiceleste needed extra time to beat Cape Verde 3-2 in the round of 32. This was an even closer call for Messi and company.

It was all too much for Hassan and his players to bear.

“What I told the referee was just that this is unfair,” the coach said. “I was saying maybe he’s carrying a scar, maybe he has something to hide. Whoever has something to hide sometimes fails to hide what he is hiding and this was exactly what I felt during that conversation.”

Argentina moved on to face Switzerland in the quarterfinals.

For Hassan, the tournament is over.

He has no intention of watching any more soccer.

“I promise you, from the moment I go back, I’m not going to continue following the matches of this FIFA World Cup,” he said. “This is my internal fight, my internal objection, my own way of speaking up and standing up.

“I am not going to watch, not a single match of this tournament.”

___

AP Soccer Writer James Robson contributed to this report.

___

See more of AP’s World Cup coverage here