Where the government assists Britain’s fight against terrorism and supports our forces we strongly support them, but the review represents a serious reduction in British defence capability. The Commons defence select committee, with a government majority, warned that the review’s speed would lead to mistakes, some serious. I hope they are wrong, but worry they may be right.

Harriers flown from our current carriers – Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal – have been used in almost every British intervention in recent years: Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, and humanitarian missions. The two new carriers offer flexibility wherever we need to deploy forces. So retaining and renewing aircraft carriers, but being unable to fly aircraft off them for 10 years, is absurd and eccentric.

It’s just as well that the prime minister and not Liam Fox made the formal statement to parliament, because the defence secretary’s policies have been ignored. He wanted a bigger army, navy and air force, but 17,000 service personnel will be cut. He wanted more helicopters, but is now halving the order. He considered the Nimrod reconnaissance planes vital to protect nuclear submarines, but is cancelling them. He promised support for troops, but is cutting £300 million from their operational allowances and extending tours of duty.

At least three areas of the review demand further scrutiny. First, I welcome the promise that nothing will undermine our forces in Afghanistan. All three services work seamlessly there. But a 7,000 cut in army personnel, with compulsory redundancies likely, is a real blow to morale.

Second, the security of our nation must be protected, so we support programmes to protect against cyberattacks. But almost every week the RAF musters jets to protect Britain’s sovereign airspace, and piracy through the Malacca Straits and Horn of Africa continues. The ability to resist such incursions is critical. That is why I want assurances about the specific advice given by each service chief on how the cuts impact.

Third, it is not in this nation’s nature, nor its interests, to become a second-rank power. It was disturbing to see a Liberal Democrat defence minister playing politics with the nuclear deterrent at his party conference. Claiming that the timing of a decision on renewing Trident will be deferred until after the next election to put pressure on Labour is schoolboy politics and I am surprised that the prime minister appears to have pandered to it.

Rather than delay, we need a government prepared to decide. Since George Osborne will no longer fund our deterrent separately, Trident should have been included in the review. We would then be close to resolving the big issues of how Britain can best maintain its deterrent. Instead, we have a government delaying choices and divided over the right approach.

One final point: Labour takes responsibility for decisions we made. There are, of course, lessons to be learned about defence procurement. But make no mistake: these are cuts caused by this government. Their plan to cut the deficit quicker than they should leads to short-term decisions.

The defence review should have been part of a strategic consideration of Britain’s role in the world. Instead, it has been reduced to part of an ill-considered deficit reduction plan. Sadly, and for years to come, this will be seen as a missed opportunity.