Defence spending: Too little, too much
Britain's hubristic claim to be able to support global military status on the cheap is being exposed
- The Guardian,
Thursday 22 July 2010 - Article history
Two
people are pulling on a piece of string. At one end George Osborne is
tugging hard to cut defence spending. He wants savings of up to 20% and
hopes to shunt the immense cost of Trident
replacement on to the Ministry of Defence's books. At the other end
Liam Fox, the defence secretary, is pulling vigorously to protect his
department's pet schemes – new jets, new ships, new vehicles and
capabilities in space and cyber warfare. This summer Mr Osborne is
drawing up his spending review. Mr Fox is working on the strategic
defence review. These two projects are in contradiction, yet taking
place at the same time. One aims to save money, the other to spend it.
One will count the cash, and then offer to fund only what is
affordable. The other will decide what is needed, and then ask for the
money to do it.
Britain's hubristic claim to be able to support global military status on the cheap is being exposed. Something will have to give. As Mr Fox told the Commons defence committee
yesterday, "we have to match our resources with our commitments, limit
what we ask them to do or increase funding. It is very clear in the
short term at least there will be no increase in funding." So there
will, instead, be less defence.
This is no bad thing. Britain
spends too much money – £40bn a year – on defence. A smaller budget and
smaller ambitions could be good for the country, if managed in the
right way and co-ordinated with allies, especially in Europe. Britain's
defence budget has been bust for years, cut by a third after the cold
war, yet is expected to sustain a series of wars and expeditions and
the paraphernalia of a semi-superpower, such as Trident. The prospect
of cuts is forcing debate about what equipment Britain needs, the role
it should play and the threats the country might face.
Labour, in power, ignored these questions; the last strategic defence review
was in 1998, before Iraq and Afghanistan changed priorities. After
that, Labour lavished promises on the military without a strategy to
support them. It backed immensely expensive re-equipment programmes,
including Trident, the Joint Strike Fighter and two aircraft carriers
that dwarf anything in British naval history, and signed a series of
other questionable deals just before the election, without providing
the money. This week's shocking National Audit Office report
into the financial management of defence procurement suggests the gap
between what was purchased and what can be paid for may reach £36bn
over the next 10 years. In 2009 the MoD was £700m over budget. This
year it will be £500m. Add in Trident, as the Treasury is right to want
to do, and the shortfall is even more pressing. And that is before cuts.
One
option – the wrong one – would be to slice 10% off everything. The
delivery of aircraft carriers could be delayed a second time, the cost
spread over a longer period. The JSF fleet could be reduced to 50
(though each plane will still cost as much as the cancelled loan to
Sheffield Forgemasters). A better answer is to axe some projects and
capabilities entirely. Mr Fox agreed with this yesterday but he remains
wedded to Trident replacement, the most pointless and expensive project
of all, and excluded from the defence review.
There is a chance, though, that the Treasury will succeed where CND
failed: cancelling the next generation of nuclear weapons and cutting
back on the one Britain already has. Note that the coalition agreement
does not guarantee Trident renewal.
Even this would not be
enough. The army, facing the loss of up to three of its eight brigades,
thinks the navy should take the pain, cutting aircraft carriers. The
RAF will lose jets. This opens the way to a bolder military
reconstruction: there are too many bureaucrats, generals and admirals
across three rival services. A single combined force would cost less
and do more. But would any Tory prime minister dare abolish the Royal
Navy and the RAF?
Comments