PwC has argued that the Autumn Budget creates political space for a more assertive approach to defence spending and modernisation, following the Chancellor’s decision to reaffirm a rise in defence expenditure to 2.6 percent of GDP by April.
Ian Hillier, PwC UK’s defence lead, said the commitment lands at a moment when Parliament has been warned that the UK’s industrial base cannot yet support sustained collective defence. In his view, strong public backing for increased military strength provides “license to be bold in making continued investments.”
Hillier also drew attention to the Chancellor’s plan to overhaul venture capital schemes to boost high-growth companies.
He noted that the United States and Germany already use venture capital-style procurement models to speed the adoption of emerging defence technologies, suggesting similar approaches could give the UK an advantage. “If the adoption of alternative private financing schemes can be applied to the defence sector, there’s an opportunity to put the UK’s considerable financial muscle to better use in pursuit of national security,” he said.
PwC’s recent Forces for Change research underpins that argument. According to the firm, two-thirds of the public now support strengthening the armed forces and believe improvements to the industrial base are essential. The findings add further pressure on ministers to match rising rhetoric on resilience with practical investment and reform.
Further detail can be found in PwC’s Forces for Change report here https://www.pwc.co.uk/industries/defence/insights/uk-armed-forces-public-survey.html.
‘In his view, strong public backing for increased military strength provides “license to be bold in making continued investments.”’
Strong public backing exists so long as you don’t suggest cutting other bits of spending.
This is the case no matter the topic. The public have strong support for the NHS, as long as it doesn’t involve them personally paying more tax.
I want a strong defence and I also want to be treated for cancer in a reasonable amount of time.
Or them being the ones paying for it..or buying expensive things like aircraft carriers, warships and nuclear missiles.
Perhaps if a single politician had been honest and said “We need to bring more money in to rebuild our infrastructure, our healthcare system and our military” it would have gone down much better than saying “Of course we don’t need to increase taxes, inflation may be through the roof but everything’s free!” then immediately putting taxes up anyway.
With no war to fight in Ukraine, the Russian focus will change, and NATO members better watch out. The minute power lines are blown, and pipelines are disrupted, the public will be fully behind additional defence spending regardless of nationality.
Well that’s a surprise so can PwC kindly tell “Rachel from accounts” that they are proper professional accountants and she needs to pull her finger out and let Mr Healey have some extra pennies to buy some new kit ! Oh and don’t let GDLS anywhere near it !
She passed the extra pennies on, her path way now includes 3% of GDP spending by the end of the decade which is actually a lot of new money and the 2.6% increase for next year is also confirmed.
I have no idea however why the defence investment plan is so delayed or what’s holding it up but it does not appear to be Rachel from accounts or the Treasury (unless it’s value for money metrics they are imposing on service chiefs)
I hope we see it soon
What was said about 3%, any set date? 2030???
As far as it sounds like we are stuck at 2.6% from 2027-until 2030?
Jim, it may be a lot of money but the rampant waste, overinflated costs and urgent need to spend that money on every branch of service just to keep them running (let alone give them new ships and planes) while also being hidebound for the need for constant assessments, reviews and proposals… I reckon it won’t go far enough, not by a long way.
Combine this with the West’s need to have very small, very elite (and therefore complicated and expensive) amounts of hardware – because they can only AFFORD very small amounts of it – we simply are not getting enough bang for our buck. Or quid, in our case.
But will Labour be “more politically assertive” about defence?
There is a report in today’s Spectator that defence chiefs have written to Healey saying that, unless real money is forthcoming quickly, they cannot deliver the SDSR and that further force cuts will have to be made.
As the man said, “The heat is on.”
Money has been delivered.
I’m quite sceptical of the “service chiefs” especially if leaking letters to the spectators is their operating method.
Probably the same guys who said Ajax was fine.
Delivered where?
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the 2.6% also include money for the security services? If true, then no new money.