John Healey MP and Al Carns MP have shown themselves to be that rare thing in current UK politics: politicians with a conscience and with values. They showed that when they resigned from their respective positions in the UK Ministry of Defence over the complete mess the UK Defence Investment Plan (DIP) is turning into.
I’m not going to go into detail about the DIP and the back and forth on it. There are plenty other people doing that. I would, however, like to focus on the broader point of where the UK wants to be (and is) when it comes to leadership on defence matters.
In short, the UK needs to decide one way or the other. The time of fudging and pretending through smoke and mirrors has gone. We are in a world where we need to make a choice. A difficult choice at that. Are we a leader or a follower?
The UK likes to see itself as a ‘soft power’ leader. Look at the focus on Net Zero and climate change for example. It allows us to take the moral high ground and, sometimes to be frank, be seen as preachy. So it’s leadership that is not always effective. However, it is the sort of leadership that doesn’t really cost a lot in terms of capital and other expenditure. Ultimately though soft power might be good, it doesn’t physically defend and protect the UK.
Which leads us to the fact that the current Government (and its predecessors) still want the UK to be seen as a reliable and effective partner in defence. Something which has, arguably, been reducing ever since the end of the Cold War, and certainly in the last ten years.
But if we are to be taken seriously then we need to spend cold hard cash, and that means we have to decide where that money comes from. There are always myriad demands on Government. That’s why it is tough to govern. But ultimately it needs to decide what the priorities are and what it wants to UK to be: a leader or a follower.
The first role of a government is to defend its citizens. There are, of course, significant differences as to the levels you might want to do this to. But if the UK continues to want to be seen as a strong and leading partner then the reality is the cost will be more.
If the Government is happy to sit back and let others take the lead then we can spend less. But, if that is the case, then we need to accept that we are no longer the power Government claims we are, or indeed the population seems to think we are. The bottom line is we can no longer rely on, or hide behind, the US when it comes to defence. President Trump has, rightly, called all of us out on our failure to spend enough on defence. If he has only been right on one thing it is this. NATO countries (including the UK) have not paid their way. And, as I’ve said before, the ‘Special Relationship’ really isn’t that special to the US.
What this all means is that we therefore need to team up with like-minded partners such as members of the EU, Canada (which has launched a large defence spending process), Australia and New Zealand.
But whereas before we could sit behind the US and not spend as much as we should have done, if we are to play a role in this modern era and alliance then we will not be able to do that. It is going to cost us money, and significant amounts of it. We can no longer freeload. The question is are we willing to pay that money and, if so, what are we going to stop spending on instead?
There are many different views and comments on this. Some based more on reality than others. But people like Lord Robertson and Tony Blair have made some extremely good points which need to be considered and which cannot be ignored. Well, they can be ignored, if the UK accepts that is no longer the power it thinks it is or seemingly wants to be.
So, if we want to be taken seriously we need to pony up the cash. Are our politicians willing to do that? Are they willing to take the flak from other areas where spending has been reduced? Or are they happy with the idea that we should play second fiddle to other countries such as France?
Because whether you like it or not that is the reality: we either spend and lead, or don’t and follow.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
I don’t buy the statement “politicians with a conscience and with values”.
Time will tell, but my money is on them already looking to jump ahead of Burnham getting voted in, so they could be considered for his governmental roles, and took the opportunity to do so. I don’t buy they weren’t aware of the value before last week, as it’s been discussed for months. I suspect it Starmer was more secure in his role they would have stayed .
Saying that they have avoided making a big scene out of it and mainly played it professionally so some credit to them. Plus if the reporting is true the amount is insufficient to achieve the SDSR targets.
Unfortunately Labour winning in Makersfield is far from a far gone conclusion. The may have just gifted Reform a seat and a lot of momentum .
Either way Starmer needs to go , defence coming a distant second to net zero, hS2 and an out of control welfare budget is naive to say the least.
Seems highly likely they will win, the reform candidate choice was a big mistake, too much negative baggage. Not the first time this has happened. Plus restore is splitting their vote. If for some strange reason they don’t win, then rainer will no doubt challenge Starmer before the year is out. Either way his days are numbered unless something major happens.
You might end up with a lurch to the left if Starmer vacates.
The inability to reform welfare as a back-to-work vehicle to pay for defence is very telling about the party as a whole and its inability to understand that multi generational benefits are deeply damaging as are the cultures around housing benefit spending.
Statements of the obvious I would have thought- but clearly beyond the wit of the current Cabinet. Realistically, the new Defence Secretary will shortly have to confront the same obstinacy as his predecessor (if Starmer was ever going to buck his ideas up he would have done so before the by-election), so it will be interesting to see if Jarvis will also have the necessary strength of character to resign rather than trying to sell more ‘smoke and mirrors’ to the public.
Dan ‘I’m going to get more money for defence’ Jarvis has already been told he isn’t getting it so where does that leave him?
It leaves him cutting things out of the DIP or pushing them far out to 2035 and beyond when we will supposedly reach 3.5%. It will be a fudge, but allow them to claim they are enacting the SDR and meeting NATO targets.
Don’t keep giving our money away and spend it on this country and the Defense of this Nation, because if we cannot stand up then everything else falls.
I thought the £18 billion was just to plug the existing MoD shortfall. Anything else like drones, space, ships, subs, cyber was going to have to be on top of that in the Defence Investment Plan.
Don’t see why the UK does not now bite the bullet and invest in UK owned industry to come up with the goodies, and that way keep spend in the UK to help revitalise the UK economy.
That does not always mean re-inventing the wheel – just get back some basic capabilities and keep costs down. For example new RAF jet training aircraft could be updated versions of the Jet Provost and Gnat. Both of which could also help “give mass” when things hit the fan if they are wired up for shooty things in the first place. I see Spain and the USM are getting rid of their Harriers. Now there is a quick win if the UK was minded to stick them on aircraft carriers and shore based facilities for QRA drone defence.
😳
I see a few issues, it’s never as easy as it sounds.
Our Carriers are designed for F35, not Harrier.
On UAV Defence:
What shore based facilities would you put them in?
Apart from any legacy knowledge remaining amongst our existing pilots, thats a new OCU, new training stream.
And wouldn’t it just be easier to buy lots of Rapid Sentry or a suitable AA gun system.
On the Dip, it’s not always noted that there is also the previously agreed yearly uplift.
Modern versions of the Folland Gnat and Jet Provost, just wow! RAF used the Provost when I started following matters but the Gnats before my time.
How about Hawker Hunter? Now there’s a plane.
Is it even possible to resurrect old types with new materials and they’d be airworthy?
I don’t know why people keep talking about resurrecting the Harrier. Production ended decades ago, and the only reason that a small number of them are still airworthy is because they’ve had a steady supply of spare parts available from all the other airframes being scrapped. They’re hard to fly, they’re underpowered, they lack modern sensors, avionics and weapons integration and are not remotely stealthy. They were brilliant platforms by the standards of 1982.
To have a genuine “soft power” in the world today you need hard power to back it up with at the moment we have neither. But I believe that we have the money in the UK to put into defence but it is tied up companies milking not just the Defence budget but all governmental departments stating that they are saving money but in reality are in most cases doubling the cost of the service that they are replacing as well as diminishing the end result. Companies like Capita who work directly for No 11 Downing street and charged with “saving money” in the DWP pay-outs, PIP payments, Veterans war pension payments, Civil service pensions all now taking on average 18 months to 2 years to sort out to the detriment of the people desperate to get the money due to them. With the average wage of the Capita staff being £50 to 60K/ year and the upper bands in the £100’s of K/ year. Saving money debatable. Running the defence training estates we have Landmarc who think nothing of charging the MoD £1.5 million to dig a slit trench taking 8 months to do, when the RE’s could have done the same thing in a week. Then there is the profit made by these companies vanishing overseas instead of being reinvested in UK infrastructure.
I’m 100% convinced that the money needed to give the armed forces what they need is within the government capability but they need to look at these companies entrenched in the governments department creaming off the system.
Why would the UK want to lead on defence? what’s the benefit to the guy in the street who is now to be told he can’t get his full basic state pension or has to wait two years for an operation.
Even if the UK guts every other budget and jacks up taxes we can’t get a budget that’s even the biggest in Europe and we will still be 10 times smaller than the US budget. How to we “lead” on defence on those terms?
I love the authors assertion that being a world leader on net zero doesn’t cost much 😀
Top quality journalism here 🤣😂
I think most people paying bills in the UK would disagree with you, our world leading reduction in CO2 cost a great deal, hundreds of billions of pounds.
It was the right thing to do because the threat posed by climate change is far great than any political instability or military challenge but it was not cheap in the short term although its savings us billions in the long term.
I think the author was talking about the relative cost of ‘soft power’ in general- it doesn’t cost anything because it doesn’t really mean anything.