An RAF jet carrying Defence Secretary John Healey came under electronic attack when heading home from Estonia on Thursday.

The official line is that neither plane nor passengers were in danger when the satellite signal was knocked out.

But the jet’s GPS was disabled for the three-hour flight, and laptops and phones wouldn’t connect to the internet, with the pilot resorting to old-fashioned means of navigation. Even the cockpit dashboard malfunctioned.

The jet is also used by the King. So official assurances are not entirely reassuring.

British military intelligence is in little doubt Russia was behind the jamming. Healey was visiting British soldiers in Estonia as part of a Nato deployment on its frontline.

It would be par for the course for the Kremlin, which now launches hostile attacks on British assets so regularly that it’s as if president Putin is trolling us. The lack of a robust British response may even be encouraging him.

Last month, two Russian warplanes ‘repeatedly and dangerously’ intercepted an unarmed RAF plane in international airspace over the Black Sea. One Russian warplane came close enough to the Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to trigger its emergency systems, disabling its autopilot. Another made six passes in front of the RAF plane, getting as close as 20 ft from its nose. The risk of a fatal accident from such cavalier behaviour is clear.

Everywhere you look Russian aggression against Britain is on the rise. Hostile incursions into our air and sea space are now common. Britain and its Nato allies recently tracked a month-long covert operation involving three Russian submarines in and around UK waters where there is critical underwater infrastructure, including vital data links.

Our cyber defence systems are now subject to constant attacks – about 90,000 in recent years, in which Russia is by far the biggest belligerent. Jaguar Land Rover was brought to its knees last autumn when a sophisticated cyber attack forced the shutdown of its big UK factories. Russia is the prime suspect.

Warehouses in the UK supplying Ukraine have been the target of arson attacks by Russian-financed spy rings, in which we seem to be awash. Last year Russian-linked Bulgarian spies were given prison sentences totalling 50 years.

Add in the growing threat from Chinese espionage and Iranian terrorist activity – plus the fact the Islamist danger has not gone away – and you might think defence and intelligence would be at the top of the political agenda, especially as we can no longer count on America under Donald Trump to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in an increasingly dangerous world.

You might even think that Andy Burnham, who wants to be our next prime minister, would be making stronger defence one of his pitches in the Makerfield by-election, a Lancashire constituency full of working-class patriots.

You might think all that – but you would be wrong.

Wars rage in Ukraine and in the Gulf, our European allies are scrambling to re-arm, Russian and Chinese hybrid warfare threatens us on all fronts, British military power languishes, hollowed out and undernourished, but Our Andy has had nary a word to say on the defence of the realm.

Well, that’s not quite true. He did say something. Then U-turned. Which would seem to be his modus operandi.

Last month he proposed excluding defence spending from the current fiscal rules. This month he pledged to stay within existing rules with no exemption for defence. Since then – not a dickie bird.

Not a word of criticism of the appalling defence record of Sir Keir Starmer, the man he would replace as our PM. Starmer has talked big about defence after years of Tory neglect. But he’s done next to nothing to make up for it. Defence spending is stuck at 2.4 per cent of GDP (and even that involves some fiddling of the figures). It is scheduled to reach 2.5 per cent by 2027.

That poverty of ambition is bad enough. But Starmer has given no hint of how or when we’d get to 3 per cent (a vague ambition despite being the bare minimum in today’s world) – let alone 3.5 per cent (an even vaguer ambition).

In June last year George Robertson, former Labour defence minister and secretary-general of Nato, presented Starmer with a new blueprint to rearm Britain. Starmer accepted it without cavil and promised to come up with a new defence budget to finance it by last autumn.

Next Tuesday will be the anniversary of the report’s publication. But we’re still waiting on Starmer to come up with the cash, even though there is a £30 billion shortfall in defence spending plans over the next four years.

Robertson has spoken out in frustration at Starmer’s ‘corrosive complacency’ on defence. But Burnham, who could soon be in a position to do something about it, has said nothing. Perhaps he knows nothing about defence. Perhaps he doesn’t care.

Or perhaps there’s a more cynical, more likely explanation: He knows that in today’s Labour Party there are no votes in defence. Yes, the good people of Makerfield would almost certainly want more for defence. But that is not a popular sentiment among Labour activists – and it’s their support Burnham needs to topple Starmer.

I suspect it also explains why Starmer has been so negligent in rearming the country. He’s fighting to save his skin as Labour Leader – and calculated he’s not going to do that by increasing defence spending. The self-styled King of the North has come to a similar conclusion: He won’t steal Starmer’s crown with a pro-defence agenda.

Not that long ago Starmer boasted he would always put country ahead of party. Of course, he’s done the opposite – in fact, he’s put himself ahead of party and country. So have those who would replace him. British politics has been hijacked by Labour politicians whose ambitions outrun their talents and by the priorities of Labour’s Left, to which Starmer kowtows and Burnham and other aspirants pander.

So defence barely gets a look in. But, suddenly, the Labour air is thick with talk of rejoining the European Union, because that is popular with the Left. It is, of course, irrelevant to confronting our current woes.

First, it’s hardly going to happen soon. Second, it’s not immediately clear to me how you pep up the UK economy by rejoining the globe’s most stagnant economic bloc.

But this is not about the priorities of the nation. This is about Labour priorities. So EU good, defence not so much. More taxes good, especially on the affluent (even though they’re already leaving the country in droves), more welfare, even better! More Net Zero? Why of course, even as other rich nations step away from it. The Left loves a policy that involves more public spending and state intervention.

I’m starting to wonder if Labour changing prime minister will change anything for the rest of us. True, with Burnham you’ll get someone who speaks human (unlike the nasal knight) and can claim a certain authenticity. But would there be any big policy changes; any fresh thinking? I doubt it. More tax to pay for more welfare is probably all you can bank on.

A while back Starmer promised to intercept the illegal ‘shadow fleet’ of oil tankers carrying Russian oil through the Channel to all manner of sanctions-busting regimes.

He then found he didn’t have a Navy that could do anything about it. I fear these tankers will still enjoy safe passage under Andy Burnham.