The UK Government has reaffirmed its commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, with a target to outline the path to this goal in the coming months.
The timeline for the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) also came under scrutiny during a parliamentary session, with Defence Secretary John Healey defending the Government’s approach.
Patrick Spencer, Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, asked about the target date for achieving the 2.5% defence spending commitment. Healey responded, “The Government are delivering for defence by increasing defence spending. There is already £3 billion extra for next year, and a commitment to setting a path to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.”
Spencer raised concerns about ensuring the spending is allocated effectively, stating, “It is all very well spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we have to spend it on the right kit.” He urged investment in technologies such as surface-to-air missiles, hypersonic missile systems, and counter-drone technology to maintain the British Army’s technological edge.
Healey reassured Spencer, highlighting the UK’s longstanding position as one of NATO’s highest defence spenders and noting that “the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under the previous Labour Government—a level of defence spending that was not matched once during the 14 years in which his party was in government.”
James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, sought clarity on the timing of the SDR’s publication, noting discrepancies in earlier statements. He pointed out that while Healey had previously committed to a spring timeline, a written answer suggested the report would be presented to Parliament in the second half of 2025.
Healey denied any delay, stating, “I have not done that. The work of the reviewers leading the strategic defence review is thorough and flat out. The review has been widely contributed to and is the first of its kind in this country, allowing fresh thinking in defence planning. On the 2.5% commitment, as we said in the plan for change, we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. The Government are delivering on defence and defence reform; we will deliver on defence funding, too.”
Cartlidge pressed further, arguing that the timeline effectively pushes parliamentary reporting to the second half of the year. Healey dismissed the concern, saying, “We are dancing on the head of a pin here—the spring is in the first half of the year. The strategic defence review will report in the spring. It will report directly to the Prime Minister, to the Chancellor and to me, and I will update the House directly.”
Where’s it going to come from? With gilt yields at multi decade highs and a record over £290bn in planned issuance this year already, borrowing is out. Cuts has to be the answer to start the extremely late project of rebuilding this country’s military in the face of extremely bellicose countries in China, the US and Russia. Kill the state pension, kill foreign aid, slash welfare before it is too late and we fall victim to the same economic constraints as the Peronists
It’s pretty easy, we just need to raise basic income tax, national insurance and VAT. Stick a penny on each. The problem is governments pretending they can pay for stuff by magically growing the economy or getting some other person to pay more tax while everyone else’s tax stays the same.
Other than borrowing more money no government can have much impact in growing an advanced industrial economy. It’s factors like global demand technological progress and demographics that change growth rates. It’s no accident that all the G7 countries have very similar GDP (PPP)
I do not think for one second that a 1% tax rise is going to be sufficient to plug the deficit as well as meet further spending requirements. Dramatic change is required for state spending policy
If you put 1% on income tax, NI and VAT you can plug the holes in defence spending not fix the deficit. You need a fair bit more to do that. About 2% of GDP.
You appear to have a thing for dumping the State Pension. There was a reason why it was brought in way back in 1909. You cannot stop in straight away. Despite company pensions being mandatory from 2012, there is still a huge hole. Over a third of the population have no private pension provision. If you stop pensions, you will consign seven million people into destitution. What will they do? I know a few people who have been building site labourers for their entire working life. When they hit circa 55 years old, they have to give up work as their bodies are worn out. How will those people eat, keep a roof over their heads and keep warm?
I am sorry, but if you are going to stop the state pension, I am afraid you will have to do it for those currently aged under 30, giving everyone 40 years advanced notice.
As unpalatable as it is, we will have to return to the tax rates we had pre-1991 when the Armed Forces were much better funded.
For the most part I agree, the state pension should be axed for those with enough time left in their careers to manage their own savings.
That said though, my sympathy for those that had an entire career to save for retirement and refused to take the responsibility to do so is limited, especially when markets and property prices have been as kind to people in that age demographic as they have been. I don’t love the idea of subsidising those people’s ineptitude to the tune of tens of billions of pounds.
@ Levi
In the end I’ve paid around 200-4000 a year into national insurance contributions for 35 years give or take that’s a £100,000 my wife has paid about the same, yes I know the government did not invest it but it was given on a promise of a state pension..if they drop the state pension then I needed my money basic please….
Maybe we change the whole system, get rid off all our stealth taxs. We could just pay income tax at a higher rate then get rid of all the complex systems.
Also disability payments only for those completely unable to function.Not for silly payments for £20 a week here and there. Our systems are just too complex and creaking
We are currently building one of the largest ‘white elephant’ infrastructure projects in our history, costs that are estimated to pass 100 million GBP (and counting) which has in effect been rendered useless already, overtaken by ‘working from home’ and conference calls. This is still a wealthy country. There are ample supplies of fossil fuels we could tap if the hare brained Net Zero policy was dropped. (China produces more CO2 than all the rest of the advanced economies combined. Greta take note.)
As I have said here before, we are at a ‘Gunpowder’ stage revolution in military technology. It is almost certain that the military hardware we produce today is already obsolete. Rapid prototyping and autonomy are here already. The future is staring us in the face but we cling to obsolesce. In cyber terms we are at war with China, Iran and Russia already.
Our defence policy should be akin to two other medium military powers, Japan and Israel. Buy abroad for speed whilst doing advanced R & D – at which we have been at the forefront for decades.
Yeah let’s burn coal in the UK and tell China they need to fix the global warming.
Think I have a few kids somewhere we can send down a mine.
Let’s make Britain Great Again 😀
Or maybe you just want to import more Oil from Saudi and Iran?
As always the answer of a socialist, social democrat when faced with results of own ideology is to increase taxes not cut the absurd size of the state buraucracy they build.
Redirect government expenditure away from “nice to haves” like foreign aid, diversity and Net Zero. If you pushed Net Zero targets back 10 years you’d reduce energy prices across both private and public sectors and probably get some of the way there just through reduced energy costs to government departments and increased economic growth.
Right now cheap energy is more important than green energy.
It’s not hard it’s just a political choice.
I think this fundamentally misunderestimates the scale of the issue in government finances. Besides which, given employer pensions have been mandatory for decades now, the state pension also falls under the “nice-to-haves”.
I think you vastly over estimate people’s work place pensions. Very few workplace pensions give an adequate standard of living in retirement. They are considered a top up to the state pension.
One of the biggest drains on the government finance is servicing the national debt, which has reached crippling levels.
I for one do not object to paying additional tax if it means that the money is there to fund the nations defence, health and social security.
And Starmer needs to plan for 3% not 2.5 and I agree , as much as I consider climate change to be valid , making the country vulnerable and heading for bankruptcy will not solve the situation.
When taking into account the compounding effects of returns and assuming a 5-8% annualised return, there is no reason why anybody should have an inadequate standard of living in retirement given the timeframes they invest over. At some point people will need to take responsibility for managing their own money, as the state simply cannot afford to compensate for a lack of financial literacy.
You may not object to paying more tax, but increasing taxes has diminishing returns. Make it prohibitively uncompetitive to do business here relative to our peers is not a sustainable long-term plan.
What we’re talking about is essentially following the Peronist economic model. Look how well that turned out for Argentina. State spending must be slashed and slashed again
In the end the US can afford to fund a government run universal pension plan ( the U.S government pays around 680 million dollars on pensions) as well as plowing more government money per person on healthcare than the Uk government does..the US federal government spends around 1.8 trillion dollars on healthcare which is around 6000 dollars per person then private individuals spend another 10,000 dollars per person for 4.9 trillion dollars or 17.6% of the US GDP just on healthcare..the UK government spends in total only 3000 pounds per person on healthcare..the U.S the w burns well over 3% GPD on defence…
There is a specific issue with UK fiscal policy..we are a rich nation there is no reason why we cannot be spending 4000-5000 per person on healthcare ( the amount needed to actually run a modern system..not to ridiculous and pathetic funding the NHS gets), have a responsibility safetynet pension and spend 3+% GPD on defence..
The UK already spends just under 5k per head on healthcare. The total was £292 billion in 2023 – stats from the ONS.
We already spent the foreign aid budget and the government doesn’t spend any money on Net Zero that’s utility companies.
It is notable that money can always seemingly be found for Ministers’ pet projects, even when those pet projects are themselves economically destructive. Fiscal ‘black holes’ only get mentioned when they’re asked to do something that’s genuinely necessary and sensible.
We should start drilling for more oil of the Scottish coast but Labour banned it. Reversing it would bring in much needed revenue. Isn’t there a decent oil reserve near the Falklands aswell?
kill the state pension? think that would lead to riots on the streets. Not fair I think when people have contributed NI and tax all their life.
Restart Oil and Gas drilling by a Nationalised company.
I agree with cutting benefits, our sickness claims are one of the highest in the west.
Why would there be riots? People have had workplace pensions for decades now. The state pension is nothing more than a vestigial welfare payment. The only people that depend on it are people that had a whole career to save and seemingly refused to. Not worth subsidising to the tune of tens of billions
I have paid into an NHS pension for 35 year..10-12% of my total salary..that’s a huge amount of money saved, so I have been responsibility saved for my retirement. But that will only give me 20k a year pension…I have also handed over around 10% for everything over 12k to the threshold or well over 100,000 pounds in NI payments in the expectation of a state pension to support that NHS pension…so yes I would have something to say about it.
” The state pension is nothing more than a vestigial welfare payment”
If you paid for it, it is not welfare.
you didn’t pay for it, you paid for somebody else’s, and somebody else will pay for yours.
They are relying on growth. Which might happen if we follow through with our plans to better align with europe. Brexit has caused a real term significant hit to exports and massive increase in costs related to them / red tape, both to business and civil service. If some of that is reduced through better alignment then there will be more tax revenue.
Enough to cover the extra % is a whole different question but with economics estimating a perm 5-10% hit to the countries gdp maybe.
There’d be riots because people have been paying into the system for years or decades, for which you’re then proposing they get nothing for it.
I’d imagine that spending more on defence – and making sure that most of the additional equipment is bought from UK suppliers – would also help (in a small way) grow the economy as well. Create more jobs and boost local economies around the country. It’s a drop in the ocean but it all adds up.
See my response to John below
Yes it’s a tax, but it’s a tax paid for the specific purpose of funding state pensions. It’s still people paying into the system, on the premise that they’ll be looked after in their old age.
Workplace pensions aren’t there to replace the state pension. For example, based on my current salary and pension contributions, my own workplace pension will be worth around £13-14K a year when I retire (I’m 39 so looking at least 30 years away). Alongside state pension I’ll probably have a comfortable retirement – my mortgage will be paid off when I’m 61, so I won’t have that to worry about.
But on its own that’s peanuts and I’d be looking at a meagre existence. I, like most people, can’t afford to invest any extra money or start up a second, private pension.
That’s the issue. I think you assume all these people have just been spaffing their money away for decades, but most people just simply can’t afford to put much away, once the essentials such as rent/mortgage, bills, car, food, paying for kids etc comes out. My wife and I are pretty frugal and we save up for a lot of things e.g new car, emergency fund etc, but we have no money to invest or start up private pensions. So a combination of state and workplace pension is absolutely necessary – as it is for most people.
Or you could put a 29% tariff on Chinese EVs to level the playing field. Cut the 40/45% pension rebate for higher earners to 35%. Reduce the size of the civil service to pre 2019 levels. Halve the number of diversity jobs in the public sector. Not pay Mauritius £ 9 billion+. Not pay £20 billion + for a hole in the ground (so called carbon capture). Clamp down on multi nationals dodging corporation tax by buying basic supplies at inflated prices from tax havens. Also their overpaying of royalties/logos in order to dodge corporation tax.
With the economy not growing that does make the target amount less. That raises its own issues in that there is less new money coming in.
With pensions costing £250billion this year never mind all the other costs associated with elderly people, the NHS budget there isn’t much else to save on to fund other departments.
The NHS may have to scale back on non core care. Places like quangos, could take a hit. Do we really need £100’s millions for research papers to tell us smoking is Bad or the correlation between poverty and smoking rates.
Defence is perhaps the number 1 priority just now. It won’t be like that for ever and defence was on the back burner for 30 years.
It’s not even permanent budget increases that are needed. More important is boosts of new money for specific projects
The NHS has already massively scaled back on non-core care, there isn’t much further they can go. The issue is overspending on private contractors who rob the system for everything they can.
The NHS brand is indeed the trough which feeds many snouts. That said, the real problem is why are we such a sick nation?
A lot of it is because we’re an ageing nation with high rates of obesity.
Things can be done about obesity but it’s hard to stop the decline in birth rates – around 1.4 per woman, which is far below the replacement rate of 2.1. This means that more and more people are living longer, and old people need more medical care. The elderly are the biggest drain on the NHS. Of every £10, £4 is used to treat the elderly.
There’s no easy way to solve that problem.
If you look at what we pay the NHS it’s a pittance compared to what other comparable nations pay for their healthcare systems. We have underpaid for our healthcare by 30-40 billion a year in todays money for the last 80 years… just as an example we pay the NHS around £5000 for a knee replacement..in the open market in Europe and the Uk that surgery costs £15,000 in the US it’s around £25,000.
The Free Welfare State is killing the UK and is unaffordable. A total revision of how we spend the money that comes in and pay out on what is actually needed. Too many free loaders getting lots when those that have contributed get little. State Pension, pay it at a real level and reduce the need for the supplements to the basic rate, actually would save money over all as a lot less admin needed. Stop the WOKE liberials asking for all the crasy stuff that helps so few if any but just wastes money. The States first duty is to protect its PEOPLE, not others wanting to spong on the UK’s funds when they have put nothing in. Sorry Got to be tuff and look after our home. Charity begins at HOME. The UK armed Forces are way to small to ensure the safety of the UK into days MAD WORLD. Common sence has long gone and the future is certanily far from bright. We need a STRONG Team to look after the the UK and do what is RIGHT.
Any specific suggestions there? It sounds a lot like just soundbites.
I could think of £8m a day savings quite easily🤔
The IFS reports that 4.2M people of working age are now claiming health related benefits. This number has risen steeply since 2019 and is forecast to increase. Other countries are not experiencing similar increase. What is going on?
It’s a huge issue sinking the nation, which is why Defence was robbed for decades as it’s less likely to cause headlines until now. 6.9 million people in Britain are receiving an extra-costs disability benefit, which is 10.4% of the total population. This number has been increasing over time, rising from 3.9 million in May 2002. In Addition 12.9million people are on state pension. Add those 2 up plus the huge amount given on housing benefit, is your problem. Then add the 90billion plus on debt interest payment and NHS wastage and all the litigation pay outs, from 10s millions for gay people who were persecuted in the past now wanting pay out, plus blood scandals, plus the PO and many more. The government hate the fact that defence is rearing its head as that was slated for more hollowing to pay out on other things, now they are not sure what to do whilst the SdSR is published.
The ‘Mental Health’ bandwagon, it’s replaced the ubiquitous ‘ bad back’ since Covid.
I am told that ‘sickfluencers’ on the tinterweb will coach you how to get the magic ticket.
Where we used to get on with ‘feeling a little pissed’ off on Monday morning, this is now diagnosed as a mental condition of some sort.
A whole industry thrives on diagnosis of mental conditions, it seems that every child is diagnosed with something these days.
I would put a stop to that bloody nonsense and get all the ‘ working from home’ dog walkers back into the office..
The problem in a nutshell seems to be that since Covid, people expect the government to look after them.
The discussion around NATO defence funding has gained renewed attention, particularly in light of President-Elect Trump’s remarks during a press conference on January 7th. He criticised other NATO member’s contributions, claiming they fall short relative to the U.S. investment. Trump asserted, “We have a thing called the ocean in between us, right? Why are we in for billions and billions of dollars more money than Europe?” He proposed an increase in NATO spending to 5% of GDP, rather than the 2% currently agreed upon.
For the UK and its NATO allies, the feasibility of achieving a 5% defence spending target poses several challenges. A primary concern is that a majority of this added expenditure be directed toward U.S. defence manufacturers, buying equipment such as F-35 and F-16 fighter jets, AH-64E Apache helicopters, High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and various vehicles like Stryker and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
Should the UK be compelled, along with its European NATO partners, to elevate defence spending, it becomes imperative that the UK government strategises effectively. As much of that extra 3% needs spending in UK-owned domestic defence industries. It would not only bolster the UK economy but also mitigate the economic implications of outsourcing major contracts to U.S. firms. Of course, the RAF/Royal Navy FAA will be able to buy more F35s. Once past the 80-F35B figure, surely the best place to buy would be the F35A?
It’s going to be interesting and worrying times ahead.
5% poses several challenges….a masterpiece of understatement; a Trump classic – the opening bid in what he sees as a ‘reset’ in relations with Europe. Completely agree that increases in UK defence spend should be directed at UK industry and jobs where possible. Agree this is a challenge with weapons like Apache, HIMARS and ABM missiles but Typhoon, CR3, Boxer, Aster, Leopard, Rafale, T26 are top drawer. I’ll bet Trump sees GCAP as a serious competitor to be strangled at birth.
I find it funny that Trump demands all NATO countries spend 5% of GDP on defence when the US doesn’t even do that. The nearest country to that is Poland.
I think all NATO countries should increase to 3% by 2030.
I find it funny that Trump demands all NATO countries spend 5% of GDP on defence when the US doesn’t even do that. The nearest country to that is Poland.
I think all NATO countries should increase to 3% within the next 5 years.
Yes and no..
The problem being this, if a substantial increase in funding was forthcoming, directing cash to domestic manufacturing, instead of off the shelf, would swallow it up, we would still have little to show for our money.
Our armed forces is so small, the requirements are in turn small, so designing and developing bespoke kit becomes extremely expensive.
I suggest, (with the caveat of submarines and warships), we only commission bespoke equipment with excellent export potential.
If an export market can’t be secured or a strong enough business case made, we buy off the shelf, or perhaps look at a UK final assembly option for foreign equipment…
Firstly, the £3 billion much talked about by Mr. Healey was budgeted for by he outgoing Tory government, so Labour have only cut defence to date. Secondly a percentage of GDP is meaningless if the economy, as forecast, is about to take a nose dive because of the Reeves budget. The net result I suspect is one group of indifferent politicians being followed by another lot.
“ … the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under the previous Labour Government—a level of defence spending that was not matched once during the 14 years in which his party was in government.”’
Bullseye.
You’re forgetting that we were involved in two pointless wars, thanks to B and B so 2.5 was actually very low by comparison.
GDP declines, defence spending stays level, GDP percentage goes up. Easy peasy!
The Chancellor has a cunning plan whereby, having raised the % GDP going to Defence, she’s going to shrink the economy so that she doesn’t have to spend any extra money.
Having read some comments about abolishing the state pension….which the majority have paid towards in a lifetimes NI contributions, and claim only for an average of eight years after retirement. I can proudly announce there are some real clowns who “contribute” to this site. A shame as the majority of commentators stick to defence issues and, in the main are thought provoking. Yup, clowns.
National Insurance is a tax, it is not akin to a funded pension scheme. The difference being your investment in a pension scheme is your property, your asset – the state pension is not. I reject the notion that the state pension is a god-given right because one has paid the same taxes everyone else has throughout their working lives, including those with the foresight to actually save for their retirement. Welfare bills and budgets are adjusted all the time regardless of your tax position and this is no different.
To be handing out this welfare to the tune of over £125bn every single year is outrageous when you think that the beneficiaries of it have had an entire career and lifetime to save for their retirements at a time where financial markets and property prices have been so historically fruitful for all those in the relevant age demographic, in a way that will never again be repeated.
Going forwards, this welfare bill is only going to keep rising as the population ages, despite the fact that all employees now have funded workplace pensions. In a sense, the state pension is an obsolete relic acting like a millstone around the Treasury.
It is my opinion that the state pension is therefore the most obvious place to make sweeping cuts, given the stark reality presented by the gilts market that we cannot afford to borrow or tax more than we already do. If you have another suggestion that makes economic sense I would love to hear it. Newsflash; no choices are going to be pleasant.
See if that provokes any thought for you, Captain Sanctimonious.
Yup, you are the chief clown.
The idea that we could be the only country in Europe to provide no state pension is frankly silly. No country funds future pensions by investing contributions and most provide larger payments from an earlier age. The overall cost is being managed by raising the retirement age. The state pension depends on contribution history so there is a quasi contractual entitlement to it. Seeing the unjustified anger of the WASPI women, what do you imagine the reaction would be to your suggestion?
More importantly, would it really deliver the savings you claim? Or would we see a huge rise in claims for other, needs based, benefits?
Britain obviously must spend public money more efficiently. Benefits paid to meet claimed needs are out of control and encourage fraud. We can’t afford to subsidise the housing costs of people in work nor provide the current wide range of additional payments that can make not working more profitable than employment.
Adding to UK borrowing to fund gifts to other countries is madness. So is the refusal to issue new gas and oil licences. Housing and feeding illegal immigrants who have arrived from safe countries is a gross misuse of taxpayers money
Change these and initiate a real efficiency drive across the public sector and that should deliver the necessary savings.
Or how about a middle ground – no state pension for people over a certain income?
People on £75k+ a year, for example, could definitely afford to fund their own retirements through workplace and private pensions.
Telling someone on minimum wage or even the average wage to fund their own retirement, however, is going to result in a lot of people being destitute.
Yep, selfish nasty pieces of work that don’t care about anyone else as long as they are ok. I’d love to know just how the millions on minimum wage are supposed to save a liveable pension. The majority of the country aren’t even earning close to what the “average” UK salary is. There aren’t remotely close to enough jobs out there paying high enough for everyone to build a pension sufficient to live off.
If only we could base an economy off your performative morality
Wars are colossal environmental and refugee disasters. To help both, funds should be diverted from overseas aid and the environment. This would save greater disaster by preventing war. Everyone wins, even the politicians.
In the end the UK needs to define exactly what it wants its armed forces to deliver and what it needs to achieve that, then it needs to find the funding to achieve that as efficiently as possible, The percentage gdp figure is really a red herring and restrictions to annual budgets to control cost just create inefficiencies in the system.
All I really want to see is a defence review that sets out the threats/risks, then the resources required to mitigate the threats/risks and finally the budget allocation required…I don’t really care what percentage that is gdp wise..if the UK has to burn 80 billion a year for a couple of years to fund a massive set of capital projects..then it drops down to 55 billion..I don’t care as long as the risk/threat is fully assessed and the needed resources to mitigate the risk are in place.
Head line wise with the preset risks and commitments I think the UK needs to fund
ARMY
Deployable 2 Divisions
3 armoured brigades with full CS, CCS ( including enhanced long range fires and armoured cav): each with a modern MBTs reg, 2 Armoured infanty and 1 mech infantry battalion, 2 armoured cav regiments all vehicles with active protection. 1 armoured artillery regiment, 1 long range precision fires regiment
1 mech brigade with full CS,CCS ( including armoured fires and armoured cav)
2 infantry brigades with full CS, CCS ( one air Mobile and one protected infantry) all having access to protected infantry vehicles
1 none deployable division
2 infantry brigades of light infantry for enduring tasking, security support opps and UN.
Army air corps
6 attack helicopter squadrons
6 reconnaissance squadrons
2 special forces rotor squadrons
SF
3 SF regiments ( 2000-3000 personnel)
RAF
12 fast jet squadrons ( 8 typhoon 4 F35j : force levels of typhoon should be at 200+ and F35 with a plan for 100+
Strategic airlift to move and support 1 infantry brigade
Tactical airlift ( rotor) to support 2 infantry brigades
12 maritime patrol air craft
6 AEW aircraft
6 long range ISTR platforms
6 short range ISTR platforms ( in theatre)
GBAD regiments ( area defence capabilities to protect all key airfields, ports, infrastructure and core government )
ABM defences up to and including IRBM for core ( vital ) military and government infrastructure
RN
10- AAW destroyers/frigates
10 ASW frigates
10 GP/strike frigates
6 littoral strike vessels/ autonomous vessel motherships
12 patrol and mine warfare vessels
2 carriers
4 ballistic missile subs
9 SSNs
12 autonomous electric boats
1 commando brigade ( full CS,CCS)
RFA
6 fleet tankers/ fleet replenishment
3 fleet replenishment vessels
Strategic sea lift for 1 heavy brigade.
In the end with the modern world where it is and the immediate need to deter a world war, with the risk that a world war cannot be deterred and may need winning that is where the UK armed forces should be or have a really good plan on how to get to before 2030. We can all say it’s fantasy and we don’t have the manpower or budget ..but it does not stop it being the reality of the force level needed since 2014 when we entered a new Cold War and especially since 2020-22 when it became pretty obvious we had a real risk of a world war within the decade. If we and others had invested in force levels like that we would not be staring down the barrel of a potential world war that if it happens will shatter our and wider economies for a generation kill millions and cost 30-40% of GDP of all involved for years.
Yes and no..
The problem being this, if a substantial increase in funding was forthcoming, directing cash to domestic manufacturing, instead of off the shelf, would swallow it up, we would still have little to show for our money.
Our armed forces is so small, the requirements are in turn small, so designing and developing bespoke kit becomes extremely expensive.
I suggest, (with the caveat of submarines and warships), we only commission bespoke equipment with excellent export potential.
If an export market can’t be secured or a strong enough business case made, we buy off the shelf, or perhaps look at a UK final assembly option for foreign equipment…
That completely destroys British defence industries, though.
An argument in favour of spending it at home is that the money goes back into UK businesses, employs more people and supports local economies. A good section of the money spend flows back to the Treasury via tax on earnings, VAT spent by both businesses and staff etc. This helps boost local economies and the national one. “We’re spending an extra £20 billion a year on defence, but this will create thousands of new jobs and boost numerous local economies” is a much easier sell to the public than “We’re spending an extra £20 billion on defence and 90% of that money is going to foreign equipment purchases, never to be seen again.”
Look to buy British first, but if we can’t because doesn’t exist/too expensive etc, then look to buy off the shelf.
Buying off the shelf from, say, the US, means that that money spent is gone completely. It also makes us dependent on those foreign suppliers to keep spare parts coming, for upgrades etc. If we take a military action they don’t like – or even refuse to take part in an action they want us to – then these could be compromised. I’d rather keep as much of it in the UK as possible.
However, it needs to be made very clear that we don’t need everything gold-plated and bespoke, and design-to-manufacture lead times need to be sped up, and MoD keeping their noses out once a design has been finalised. Once it’s agreed on, just let the things be built rather than interfering or changing requirements – upgrades can come later.