Integrated Defence Review Delayed

 

It seems likely that the Integrated Defence Spending Review will be delayed because the Chancellor has abandoned a planned multi-year spending review in favour of a one-year review at the end of next month. This is bad news for the Armed Forces because vital decisions on future capabilities and funding will relegated to the back burner.  Key decisions, such as the Future Combat Air System, will not now be taken leading to, potentially, years of planning uncertainty and additional expenditure because existing systems will have to be run on beyond their planned life expiry in order to plug capability gaps until new weapons and capabilities are produced.

We can anticipate the “line to take” briefing papers as Ministers are questioned about the most important role of Government, defence of the realm.  “Look,” they will say, “Covid has upset everything.”  “We are only delaying this important piece of work and this in no way betrays our lack of interest in defence.”  “We are one of the few NATO military powers that continues to spend 2% of GDP on defence (and so everything is, obviously, all right accordingly).”

We must not be seduced by such errant nonsense.  Quite apart from the obvious that 2% of GDP this year buys a lot less than last it is not true (although grandly virtue-signalled by those who should know better) that the UK will fulfil its defence obligations if only it should spend 2% of its GDP thereon.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Firstly, 2% is probably an entirely arbitrary figure dreamed up at NATO HQ to fulfil some historical goal or communique.  It is a political declaration most likely based upon what, despite their vulnerability, even the Belgians might grudgingly stump up to insure against being trampled over again. It has nothing to do with what we need to do the job. Historically we spent a lot more of our GDP on defence before being seduced into cashing in the peace dividend (several times over).  Secondly, we don’t actually spend all that money on people and kit and a significant percentage is made up through creative accounting, pensions, for example, to please the bean-counters.  Finally, and most significantly, the threat has not diminished since the peace dividend was cashed in.  Far from it and the diversity of things that could harm us is, if anything, is more concerning than the relative stability of the Cold War confrontation.  Just look at the recent threats to our merchant shipping in the Gulf and our impotent National response – not even our own maritime patrol surveillance aircraft never mind sophisticated overhead photography. Why should we feel, now, that 2% should be enough?

The problem is that our defence expenditure does not seem to be linked to what our foreign policy, such as it is articulated, might require us to undertake.  The arbitrary 2% may or may not be enough – take your pick and take your chance!  Incongruously, Conservative governments have not been very good at providing what the armed forces need, often quite the contrary.  Fortunately, when stretched, the armed forces have been able to “punch above their weight” but that convenience wore thin long ago.  Nowadays, we are told, we cannot even field and support a fighting Division – a parsimonious bottom line of Cameron’s defence butchery.  This is a truly a truly pathetic condition for a nuclear capable member of the Security Council and so-called principle ally to the USA for coalition operations, to find ourselves.  It really is simple: if we cannot afford the defences necessary to uphold our foreign policy then we need to change our foreign policy accordingly.  It is not a chicken and egg – the job of Government is to define the policy.  Then Government has the inescapable responsibility give the armed forces the tools they need and trust them to finish the job.

So, as the skirmishing of the new defence review continues let us hope that some sense of national priority prevails and that output will, once and for all, link defence posture to policy and fund it accordingly.  When it suits, governments can make grand commitments: climate change, overseas aid spending and pensions triple lock, for example.  So, talking of locks, why cannot we lock our defence posture to our foreign policy?  If it is politically convenient to make grand gestures on becoming carbon neutral surely, as the first duty of government, we can expect them to make a similar, but meaningful, long-term pledge on our future security?

 

BBC Roadkill

 

Congratulations to the BBC who, in their latest Sunday night offering, “Roadkill” exceeded their Conservative Innuendo Quota per broadcast minute by a substantial margin.  Of course, it helps to have such a scrupulous observer of character, David Hare, “thought is the wind and knowledge is the sail,” whatever that is supposed to mean,  writing the script.  Good old Sir David has form in never letting a good plot interfere with a lesson in politics and morality, as he sees things.  My only other criticism was the absence of the cheerful cherub, Maxine Peake, as the Barbara Castle trans-leaning and fearless Equalities Minister.  But perhaps that treat will appear in later episodes?

Farewell to Victor K2 XH 673 at RAF Marham

The Victor K2, the air-to-air refuelling conversion of the strategic bomber and reconnaissance aircraft, left RAF service in 1993.  One example was preserved as the "Gate Guardian" outside Station Headquarters at RAF Marham.  Sadly, the state of the airframe has to deteriorated and the RAF decided to dispose of this old warrior.  It looks likely to be scrapped but, hopefully, will provide some valuable training for aircraft recovery specialists on the way.  There was an opportunity to visit the aircraft for the last time on Saturday 10 October and we decided to incorporate nostalgic farewell with a weekend in Norfolk.

Thanks to RAF Marham for showing us round and to the Heritage Centre for an interesting tour afterwards.

It was rather sad to see that good old XH673 had deteriorated to such an extent.  Apparently, anything worth salvaging had long ago been removed, the cockpit was inaccessible and it was deemed dangerous to stand under the wings.  However, with a little help from the magic of Photoshop, I thought this was a rather flattering obituary:

 XH 673 - last flown by me on 17 October 1985