A Timely Bandwagon

Yesterday I appealed for members of principle to stand up for defence and expose the deceit of budget manipulation.  But principle may no longer be necessary to do the right thing!  In the nick of time, a brightly painted bandwagon has rolled up in the shape of a PwC survey, "Forces for Change."  Unsurprisingly, you may agree, 53% of us wish to see defence expenditure rise whilst a mere 6% want to see the budget cut.  Maybe there are votes in defence after all?

Defence Deceit

Armed Forces Day, a chance to show your support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces "community," is only a couple of weeks away.  How reassuring, meantime, to witness the splendour of Trooping the Colour or, perhaps, an early seasonal glimpse of the always excellent Red Arrows?

Indeed, in the Sunday Telegraph, an MOD spokesman is quoted:

"The Government is committed to spending 2 percent of GDP on defence this financial year.  Over the next decade we are committed to spending £163 billion on equipment and equipment support to keep Britain safe and right now we are deployed around the world on more than 20 operations."

How odd, therefore, that yet another collection of defence experts warn that "UK is feeble in the face of threats from around the world."  Parallels with the 1930s, when Britain failed to prepare for combat, are being drawn.  Actually, £16 billion a year on kit is not a great deal, particularly the way the cost of defence equipment is escalating (and if it includes Trident replacement).  Further, perhaps they should list the 20 overseas operations so that we might be able to judge the scale of involvement.  But, who can be right and, if it is the Government that is being economical with the truth, who in Westminster is calling them to account?

Let us first be clear about the concept of 2% of GDP.  Historically, we have seldom spent less than 2% of our GDP on defence.  Indeed, during the Cold War, we spent about 4% and who could argue that the security situation is any better today?  Also, we really need to be measuring defence outcomes (capability) not a pot of cash.  However, 2% is still a useful yardstick since it represents our membership fee to NATO, the organisation that guarantees our collective security.  The 2% is not, therefore, a target - it is a highly significant demonstration of our determination to defend ourselves and our interests properly - the premium we pay to insure our safety.  Today, through accounting smoke and mirrors, by adding in Armed Forces Pension payments and nuclear deterrent costs, for example, we may scrape over the line.  As the squeeze bites, matters become presentationally more difficult, hence the brilliant wheeze to include some overseas aid as defence expenditure.  But people in the know know that our defence expenditure as a share of GDP will fall to 1.7%, if not lower, if the present squeeze continues.  This will reduce or forces to ceremonial status.  We will be unable to field an independent fighting unit in coalition operations and our much vaunted carriers will be so vulnerable that they dare not be risked on operations, even if they should be effective with their small numbers of sub-optimal aircraft (if and when they are delivered).  Already, our US allies value the French contribution above ours and regularly seek their military council ahead of UKs.  Our international reputation does not match the Prime Minister's bluster.

It is inconceivable that the PM is not aware of the parlous state of our Armed Forces or the grave risks he is running in refusing to fund them adequately.  "Look," (have you noticed how politicians always preface a dodgy denial with "look") there are no votes in defence.  We ran a successful election campaign without mention defence once - the public don't care.  I can rob the defence budget to buy the votes of the people who really matter!"  There was, perhaps, a glimmer of hope when Rory Stewart was appointed chair of the Defence Select Committee.  However, realising how inconvenient his voice might have been, the Prime Minister has quickly moved him on to the Department of the Environment where, presumably, his potentially heretical views can be kept in check.

So who is going to stand up for defence?  Where are the MPs with principles (I don't mind from which side of the House)?  Who will expose the deceit behind the defence numbers?

I have said before that I do not wish to belong to a Conservative Party that does not believe in defence.