The United Kingdom, it appears, has trimmed its defence budget.
Despite the ongoing war in Europe and rising global tensions, the UK’s financial blueprint for the upcoming year has conspicuously left out additional funding for its armed forces in order to impact concerns like inflation.
This decision has sparked concerns over the potential weakening of the nation’s military capabilities and its stance alongside allies.
The official budget documents disclosed on Wednesday show that defence spending in the UK is expected to witness a decrease of £2.5 billion in the financial year ending March 2025 compared to the prior 12 months. This development is alarming, especially as the Defence Secretary has issued stark warnings that the UK is navigating a “pre-war world”, with both adversaries and allies boosting their defence expenditures. Nevertheless, the Treasury’s latest budget seems to neglect the urgent necessity for enhanced military funding.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has attempted to mitigate concerns by stating that the apparent reduction does not reflect additional funding allocated last autumn, as well as ongoing support to Ukraine.
Nonetheless, the lack of new defence spending initiatives has elicited criticisms, with Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), pointing out the UK’s deviation from the defence strategies of its allies.
Chalmers stated, “One of the striking things in a comparative perspective is that the UK is just about the only major European country which is not increasing its defence budget in real terms, and one of the few European countries which is also not increasing its military assistance to Ukraine much in real terms. But the fact is that now, after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many European countries are increasing their defence budgets rapidly, including Germany, the Scandinavian countries, the exposed eastern countries and quite a number of others as well.”
A MoD spokesperson has contended that the defence budget is projected to grow by 0.9% in the year ending March 2025, yet critics maintain that the plans effectively amount to a cut in essential defence spending. This contention is further complicated by ambiguities in the budget documents, including unclear accountancy adjustments and the contentious inclusion of Ukraine aid within the UK’s defence budget figures.
The breakdown by department of government spending indicates a reduction in the Ministry of Defence’s day-to-day running costs and other resource-related expenditures (Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit, or RDEL) from £35 billion this financial year to £32.8 billion for the year to March 2025. Similarly, capital expenditure (Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit, or CDEL) is forecasted to diminish from £19.2 billion to £18.9 billion over the same period.
Despite these adjustments, which include £2.5 billion in new assistance to Ukraine as well as other funding announced in the Autumn Statement, the core MoD budget evidently faces a reduction.
This is especially contentious amid the current conflict in Europe, with critics arguing that it reflects a misjudgement in resource allocation. While the UK’s aid to Ukraine is welcomed by most in defence, the decrease in the MoD’s RDEL and CDEL highlights a troubling direction. Less cash is available to already underfunded forces.
This is in stark contrast to many of the UK’s NATO allies, who are actively increasing their defence budgets.
I’m not looking forward to the day when we are so poor that we have to choose between the Nuclear Deterrent or the NHS.
We have been increasing the NHS budget at a consistently faster rate than our economy has been growing ever since the former’s inception. We obviously can’t afford to keep doing that, and the unwillingness to face reality up to this point is a major reason why practically every other area of necessary government spending is being short-changed.
Unfortunately you’re absolutely right. Someone has to have a serious look at making the NHS viable, or will literally bankrupt us eventually
The costs of the nuclear deterrent should also be looked at too. Does anyone check why it all costs so much and if any of it could be done cheaper?
Would help if governments didn’t delay submarine replacement resulting in 500 million refit costs for old boats.
Design AUKUS subs with vertical launch tubes. Add a nuclear tipped FCAS option. Field a single fleet of 12 AUKUS subs on premises 3 are at sea at any one time each with 6 x nuc tipped FCAS. Economies of scale on sub fleet, more than 1 x basket for the eggs and enough punch to make anyone think twice.
Same FCAS can then also be launched from RAF fleet…strike and P8.
The reason we don’t do that is that the SSBNs need to go and hide in the deep water away from any real possibility of detection in order to guarantee the second strike capability, while the SSNs are tasked with anti-ship and land attack missions in the littoral that imply an acceptance that they are potentially in harm’s way.
1 x ssn can do that with a heavier nuc load out while 2 are playing SSN in littoral..
Current SSBN systems don’t ‘guarantee’. 2 x Ballistic launch failures over 8 years and everyone is pursuing anti ballistic capabilities. …Where will those capabilities be in 25 years
SSNs don’t have a ‘nuc load out’.
Did you read the trail…..might help
Thats not really helping! SSNs do not have nuclear weapons.
Again.. did you not read the thread. Please try to keep up..hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer that might bring economies of scale, adequate effectiveness and redundancy allowing increased conventional spending in other areas
…..meanwhile the UK keeps sliding into pool of incapability and irrelevance
I might give up trying to keep up. I did read the thread. I still do not know why you said ‘1 x ssn can do that with a heavier nuc load out…’ and you still have not explained why you think a SSN has nuclear missiles.
They don’t have today. We all know that. The thread started with concept of could FCASh having a Nuc warhead as an option. Vreat AUKUS subs with vertical launch tubes ( As US does already with their SSN) and operate a larger interchangeable fleet of 12 boats rather than two very distinct classes with all the pressure smaller fleets being on maintenance v availability etc. The same FCAS can then be an option for frontline combat aircraft. Redundancy Economies of scale Reliability And with a punch that, while it does not represent Armageddon for the planet, is sufficient to cripple… Read more »
OK, thanks. I regret the demise of tac nukes in the UK inventory. We had these in the Cold War, even when our conventional forces were ‘strong’. I served in BAOR many times. We fully expected the Warsaw Pact to roll us up if the war went hot. To know that we could use tac nukes in extremis to stem the tide was (bizarrely) reassuring. I agree that the weakness of our strategic system comprising one at-sea bomber boat with a reduced number of tubes and warheads and with 2 failed test launches in a row – is very alarming.… Read more »
I agree. We need regrettably to get back into the tactical nuke business yesterday.
The Russians never lost their tactical N ability. We are so negligent in what we do. I’m thinking it might be better to scrap the strategic deterrent and go all in with tactical and semi strategic! Destroying the world is not an option but flattening 1000 acres of central Moscow might be a useful idea especially if Putin is there with his chums.
Jonno, I think you are right on all counts. But, so hard politically to increase our nuclear capability when HMG was progressively reducing our (strategic) warhead count. Which major party will put that in this years election manifesto!
Always harder to get that genie back in the bottle.
It was perhaps also a mistake to disband UKMWO, the ROC and to sell off all of the nuclear bunkers meant for continuance of Government. We have zero Civil Defence now, to go with zero ABM protection.
Strategically & tactically, deploying nuclear weapons on the Hunter-Killers will impinge on the Hunter-Killers primary roles while reducing any of the sub-optimal deterrent effect of the FCAS missile, considering range, payload and probability of interception (in comparison to a SLBM). Agree the present fleet size given the eastern threats to the West, a much larger (by a factor of 3-4 times) could easily be justifiable (and needed). In the event of a potential conflict requiring the release of nuclear weapons, the SSBNs could deploy two SSBNs and even the third could have a role, depending on the number of actual… Read more »
Day 1 Faslane is hit by saturation cruise missile attack. There are probably no boats 2, 3 or 4 to follow. It’s 1 x basket. Having, a fleet of 12 SSN allows a couple of those boats to be designated detterent boats at any 1 time with all 12 rotating the role. Stops the maintenance pressure on an aging fleet of 4. Same weapon can be deployed via strike aircraft. Discussion is not about is SSN a better weapon. Discussion was …can an effective deterrent be fielded for less capex / opex facilitating improved capability funding in conventional areas. Russian… Read more »
You fail to understand that a SLBM vs cruise missile discussion is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight. Indulging the ill-conceived scenario: The SSBNs won’t be in port, as they will be surged to sea during the beginning of heightened tensions. Fact. Effective deterrent 🤣, a future cruise missile is not an effective replacement for a SLBM. Fact. The UK does not have a nuclear Triad, supporting a minimum viable nuclear deterrent, which is based on the most survivable platform, the SSBN. Fact. The UK lacks a suitable strategic strike bomber (the whole Triad thing, read above).… Read more »
You are talking sense. We need things that we can afford and are ready at 48 hours notice. The Carriers should be redeployed to Portland, Invergordon, Loch Ewe or even Scapa and the Clyde. Parking them in Portsmouth is becoming highly problematic. Its impractical to take so long to get out into the Solent. They should be Parked facing seaward at 2 hours notice. We are in a Cold war situation and we should be ready like in the 1960-1980’s.
Because HMG like their friends in the UK Defence industry to have their snouts nicely in the trough.
Exactly that. Same as in every area of government. Record profits & bonuses, oay rises for their clique, but record taxes & poverty, dismal services for the rest of us. Corrupt.
The Lib Dems, when in coalition, looked at whether CASD could be done with 3 boats and concluded that it could not.
Wasn’t that looking to do it with 3 SSBN’s though, the OP is suggesting having 12 SSN’s with CASD capabilities with 3 boats at sea at any one time.
Yes. CASD uses SSBNs. The Lib Dems looked at whether it could be done with 3 boats rather than 4. There was no discussion by them on SSNs.
Not sure how you can build CASD capabilities into an SSN (ie convert a SSN to be a SSBN). That does not sound possible or affordable.
Even Labour have said NHS % of day to day spending can’t keep rising.
It is at a point where it is strangling everything else that is wealth creating like education.
The other big one is social care which is also out of control.
Too many old people, what to do?
Well, you could increase National Insurance a little bit to cover the escalating costs of looking after the increasingly elderly population…Oh stupid me, they need to cut that to try to bribe voters.
National insurance is just a tax like income tax, the money raised by NI goes into the same pool as income tax it is not hypothecated as the name indicates.
Too many Sick people.
The West went in to the Great Financial Crisis 2008 about 1 year after the US working age population went into contraction, this represented a paradigmatic shift. As this cohort grows the economy grows with it. As it shrinks so does the economy and this growth or shrinkage compounds over the years. This is why we are all about £12k poorer in the post-GFC paradigm than before it. The working age population is going to keep shrinking for decades while retirees grow. The population pyramid is upside down and over the next decades its going to get substantially worse. It… Read more »
Unfortunately it’s not the NHS, it’s the western demand for healthcare every system in the west is becoming more and more costly…it’s the fault of the population I’m afraid…a population that is proudly unhealthy yet through medical intervention lives to an average of 82…the only way to sustain that is throw more and more money…we either die younger or live far healthier lives that’s the only way to reduce costs in a meaningful way.
Actually dying abruptly from something like a massive and unexpected heart attack with few prior symptoms would be the most cost-effective outcome from the NHS standpoint. Maybe it should be prescribing cigarettes, alcohol and stress.
Ian sorry mate but a bad lifestyle does not generally lead to an abrupt sudden end..smoking and drinking and eating to much ultra processed foods generally gives you years and years of suffering from long term conditions….The really healthy older people are the ones that suddenly peg it from a catastrophic event.
I’m Ex Forces and 61. I drink and smoke but feel It is a good idea to have enough mass in military terms to feel save that all our liberties can have a credible defence. When I left the R.A.F. in 1989 it had over 85000 personnel.
I probably won’t get to 70 and have a bad knee that our NHS say is fine! All that happy clapping the NHS during COVID makes me angry. It is their JOB!!!!
Yes but unfortunately there are more and more old people and thats costs more and more,,young people cost the nhs very little…old people cost a lot….yes it’s the NHS job but we have to pay them to do the job and I’m afraid mark the British public have underpaid for their health constantly….simply put you have to pay what it costs and we don’t….your new knee would cost you £15,000 anywhere…the government pays the NHS around £5,000 that’s why your waiting..if the government paid close to mark rates it would be done quicker… Also with knees, they are iffy things…I’m… Read more »
The biggest problem with the NHS is that it is seen as the catch all solution for all the other dumb decisions and bad practices we have in society and business. Two examples: 1. Build poor quality houses or badly maintain them and you get damp and mold which in turn leads to a huge bill for the treatment of lung and respiratory conditions; 2. Ultra processed food has been in the news this week as a paper was published in a UK medical journal (can’t remember which one) that reported the results of a review into a large number… Read more »
Indeed and bad health choices are baked into our society…food is a real issue…the truth is almost everything on our supermarket shelf’s are ultra processed…the food industry peddles poison as food simply because it makes more money…cheaper ingredients as well as increased shelf life….even your loaf of bread is full of ultra processed ingredients simply to make it feel fresh for 2 weeks..actual bread feels stale after a couple of days. The evidence base on ultra process foods is clear it’s profoundly bad and poisons every system in the body and is the cause of our long term conditions epidemic..which… Read more »
I’d be careful with that line of argument, if you’re arguing that high public spending is a western phenomenon, and simultaneously a problem. GDP (gross income, in effect), is the sum of all economic activity. In GDP terms the public sector is pary of the income generation formula. Public sector finances are usually taken as part of the reason *for* that level of income. Trivially, you can imagine a country with no health system, education, roads or sanitation. It would be extremely poor. Health care is no different. Keeping people healthy means keeping people at work. If you take the… Read more »
Thank you for this reasoned responses to a flood of extreme right wing politics. I would only add that both defence capability and health provision are extensively privatised, always have been, and that when unregulated profits and bonuses are taken out of an economy largely funded by taxation, a massive inefficiency is inevitably built in. And there is no assurance that privatised provision means better quality. £25m to repair a prop shaft, anyone? Both new carriers out of service at the same time, with two modern frigates decomissioned because of recruitment failures? What a waste. Meanwhile cost of a standard… Read more »
I did not say it’s a problem what I have said that to think you can have low spending on health is delusional…healthcare costs will rise exponentially and will be the dominant cost in our system because: 1) we are living longer and have a very large elderly population and the older you are the more expensive you are…young people cost the health services almost nothing…most of your healthcare bill is in the last decade of your life. 2) our population is profoundly unhealthy and this is driving up costs exponentially..we are living longer but far more unhealthy lives and… Read more »
It is the NHS culture and many “non profit” organisations, many of them that receive money from Goverment. For example: UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, a collaboration of several dozen health organizations which has received £110 million from the British government since 2017.(…) There are over 100000 activist organisations in UK with a growth in number of 27% over past decade. This is a huge economy sector which productivity is very low and live from taxpayers if even many of them have an agenda against most taxpayers. (data from fee.org) Another example is education. Why education is not much more… Read more »
Unfortunately we are all getting older and sicker…it’s either pay the money or suffer. Simple truth, I’ve worked for the NHS for 27 years, this is the year I leave as I will no longer be part of a system that is catastrophically failing. The primary reason it’s catastrophically failing is this country will not admit or accept how much healthcare costs….just because you don’t want it to cost what it costs will never make it any cheaper. The UK literally lives in a delusional state in regards to the cost of healthcare. The NHS gets paid around £4500 per… Read more »
I would be interested to know German and scandinavian healthcare costs as they seem to have more beds doctors and healthcare
the German system in 2023 was £6200 per person, Norway £6000 per person Uk was £3085 so Germany and Norway spends around double, France spends £5100 around £US spends around four times the Uk spend. Even Italy spends more than we do at £3400 and they have a very very healthy population and a far more limited system..The only health services in Europe than spend less are either old eastern block countries…with low wages and almost second world systems and Spain as its system does not do a lot of stuff ( relatives are expected to provide the care for… Read more »
No, quite wrong if you’re trying to improve wealth generation, those eligible to pay taxes, and ultimately armed forces budgets. See also my post above. If you’re looking at financial sustainability, you need to look at *productivity*, and resolve the issue as to why UK productivity is so poor and still declining. Sick days are an important (very major) part of this. True, if one were to disregard care for the non productive (retirees for example), one would still need to improve health care for people of working age, and that means reducing waiting lists and waiting times. I say… Read more »
Productivity isn’t necessarily about getting more done. It can also be about getting the same amount done using fewer people. That drives down demand for labour and reduces wages. So you end up with fewer people in work earning less money and the money going to pay for tech to create the productivity increase and to repay those who lent the money to invest in the tech, and if you are really lucky going into retraining the unemployed. This is not a good thing in the short term. The trick is to increase demand alongside the technology investment to increase… Read more »
I wouldn’t disagree with much of what you’ve written here. The principal reason for high German productivity is investment per capita (I had the figures somewhere but can’t lay hands on). So, as you said, if you do the same amount with fewer people, or more with the same, productivity per head goes up, which means overheads as a proportion of sales goes down (or as one colleague succinctly puts it fewer bullshit jobs per capita). This is scarcely mentioned in the mainstream media, but is a crucial component, as it grows GDP whilst improving competitiveness. By comparison, private sector… Read more »
Taking into account inflation there is a real terms reduction on the last financial years NHS spending. But you can reduce your personal burden on the state and use private if you can afford to. Complex care for cancer etc costs a lot of money. The civil service even offer a healthcare plan now as the NHS has been cut to the bone. As a scary comparison, childbirth costs $14-$26k uninsured in the US. Diabetes alone costs approx $14k per head in the USA with an eyewatering $412b cost of diagnosed cases. Chucking money away on consortiums who evaporate when… Read more »
Stepped means testing is the way forward.
For instance if people are able to pay they should pay up to a certain amount say a reasonable cap depending on their circumstances and age. The very young and very old should get a free pass.
One of the problems is that large sections of the population are now very housebound and unfit by tradition etc.
People should try to keep fit esp if over 70.
I suspect that is what is behind Hunt’s ambition to eliminate NI. By implication he is taking aim at the NHS and State Benefits which originally were funded by NI.
You can only do so much by focussing on efficiency improvements. To control any budget you have to identify and focus on the cost drivers. The problem is that UK culture has successfully trained the population in behaviours which make them ill.
The NHS certainly needs to be reformed with a long term cross party plan along with social care.
Jonathan of this parish has discussed the issues with the NHS with great authority on many occasions.
These needs to be a cohesive 50 year plan for both, alas it will never happen when we have two parties that don’t give toss.
Electioneering, pandering to their core votes and one parliament 5 year plans is all they care about. Neither are fit for purpose.
The ‘massive’ bloated Social security budget is unaffordable and just keeps growing too…
I’m afraid not. The idea that it’s some sort if nice to have, lifestyle thing is for the birds.
The NHS is a crucial part of our national human logistics. It keeps people in work and keep the economy moving.
It is no more ‘cuttable’ than roads, rail, manufacturing, or staff training.
The truth is it’s failing to keep pace as numbers of chronic sick workers continues to rise.
I tend to agree. It sounds like many here(I hope I’m mistaken) would be happy to let sick, poor & old people die or go untreated & living in poverty so long as their lives are minimally troubled or taxed. Among the poor I don’t see this “all living longer” claim. I see friends looking forward to finally retiring for a less troubled life only to die 2 or 3 years before getting there, plus having the goal posts of retirement age moved further away.
We do live longer Frank and there are a lot more of us older types now..the big issue is that although we are extending life we are not extending health..we have a lot of people living for a long time with very poor health and that costs a lot of money.
The truth is Andrew the NHS is not suffering under a burden of the sick working population ( that is actually not that expensive and a smaller group). The issue is we have a very large and growing older population, over 65 and over 80s…but the key issue is that we are extending life..but not extending health and that’s the big burden…a healthy 70 year old is not so expensive but a 70 year old with multiple long term conditions can be costing the health system 20-30k per year for a decade…and we only pay the NHS £3000 per year… Read more »
Yes and only because successive governments are not biting the bullet of defining actually what the NHS should do instead of allowing/encouraging it to do everything. Not helped by not actually creating a real Insurance scheme instead of adding it on as an income tax by another name. The real National Insurance scheme should be ring fenced and led by a not for profit agency independent of political interference. In effect individuals pay alongside employers, instead of to an insurance scheme into to Treasury. That is the only difference between what we do and what the Tories wish to emulate… Read more »
The NHS has been forced to accept millions of unskilled, uneducated and unhealthy people from 3rd world countries. It wasn’t designed for this level of demand.
It’s not a matter of defence or the NHS, not even education! It’s a matter of giving money/aid away to foreigners and illegal immigrants. The overseas aid budget should be terminated along with military aid to Ukraine. The later is not popular on this forum but it’s all money we need for ourselves. Charity begins at home.
As for going back on our word to defend Ukraine. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth but we did much worse to Poland during and after WWII. When the Poles were a far more deserving cause.
It’s not looking good. “The UK has no “credible” plan to buy all the weapons it needs after a huge jump in the cost of the nuclear deterrent helped to create a record funding gap, a group of MPs has warned. Inflation and a weak pound also contributed to the hole of at least £16.9bn in a rolling, 10-year plan to procure equipment for the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, the Public Accounts Committee said in a scathing report. The actual deficit is likely to be closer to £30bn if all the capabilities required by the Army –… Read more »
Actually the 10 year equipment plan looks realistic compared with those of the the 2010s with their vast and growing funding shortfalls.
The latest 10 year plan was not compiled in the same way as in previous years. The RN and RAF included estimated costs of all projects they thought necessary to deliver their interpretation of defence needs, not just the approved ones. So Type32, MRSS are included even though no one knows how they will be specified. The army only included the costs of approved programmes.
There is no equipment black hole- yet.
The army should have the same methodology as RAF and RN regarding the EP. Very baffling that they don’t. No black hole? Thats not what the article is saying. “The UK has no “credible” plan to buy all the weapons it needs after a huge jump in the cost of the nuclear deterrent helped to create a record funding gap, a group of MPs has warned. Inflation and a weak pound also contributed to the hole of at least £16.9bn in a rolling, 10-year plan to procure equipment for the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, the Public Accounts… Read more »
Simply, this year’s 10 year plan was compiled differently( by the RN and RAF) from all previous plans. There is no finalized design for MRSS or T32, but the RN has shoved in an estimate for the full cost. All previous plans covered spending on approved projects only. The NAO were quite critical of this lack of consistency. In essence, the RN in particular were using the exercise as a bidding war.
Frankly, most MPs haven’t got a clue and Sky News doesn’t seem to have journalists capable of proper analysis.
Read the full NAO report.
How can you have a credible plan to buy kit if you have insufficient budget? I have no credible plan to buy that Ferrari I have always wanted!
MoD needs a credible plan to get more budget.
“ and the contentious inclusion of Ukraine aid within the UK’s defence budget figures.”
So it is a cut.
Previously that would have come from Treasury reserve….
0.9% increase is also a cut as inflation is higher than that.
So actually it is quite a big cut.
You got to hope that the 🇬🇧 is not undermining itself Defence wise while others are muscling up.
It is a bit unbelievable TBH.
Yes, CASD and nuclear are swallowing large numbers and the ever changing accounting is masking a deteriorating picture….
Perhaps by design?
What did anyone truly expect from.these pair of…
The goal is approaching. Britain unarmed.
Ripe to bend the knee to China and Russia, fail to support our allies and pull our weight. The government are failing (treason) to discharge their number one duty, the protection of the state.
I wonder why? “BEIJING — China’s annual defense spending is set to grow by 7.2% this year, well above the country’s economic growth target of “around 5%,” amid high tensions with the U.S. and festering disputes over Taiwan and the East and South China Seas. The Ministry of Finance submitted its annual budget plan to the National People’s Congress on Tuesday, the same day Premier Li Qiang delivered his government work report and reiterated Beijing’s firm stance on matters such as Taiwan and Hong Kong security. The defense increase will bring the budget for 2024 to nearly 1.67 trillion yuan… Read more »
Worth keeping an eye on. China and Russia To Team Up at Iran’s Naval War Games China, Iran, and Russia are poised to conduct a joint naval exercise in the coming weeks, aiming to bolster regional security, as announced by the Iranian Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Shahram Irani.In a statement on the exercise, Irani said, “the primary strategy of the Iranian Army Navy in the current situation is to safeguard the interests and economic resources of the Islamic system and its people,” referring to growing tensions in the Middle East which started after the beginning of hostilities between Israel and… Read more »
Only a few years ago HMG was falling over itself to court Russian & Chinese investment. Curious how far those “investments” have influenced the atropy of our armed forces. Or is that just an innocent coincidence?
It is nonsense to criticize the UK for failing to match many allies’ recent increases in defence spending. Most of them have spent a lower percentage of GDP for years and only since the Ukraine war have started to make good on their NATO commitment. The UK will spend @2.3% in 2023/4 giving us,once again, the second highest budget in NATO. A number of eastern European countries will.reach a higher % but only after years of under spending. Only the US and Germany have spent more on support to Ukraine. The key for the UK is to make better use… Read more »
Peter, are you a Tory politician in disguise? When you take out the nuclear deterrent (which should be funded directly by HMT), service pensions and non-military intelligence, we probably only spend 1.5-1.7%.
Many £billions is wasted in poor procurement programmes.
We have always been ‘global Britain’ – it is not a nonsense. If you think we are not globally orientated, then are you suggesting selling both carriers and quite a few escorts?…or everything else that is required for world-wide expeditionary operations – C-17s etc.
All the costs included in our defence spending satisfy the NATO definition. It really doesn’t matter whether the nuclear deterrent is in a separate category. It all has to be paid for out of tax revenues that have not covered government expenditure in any year since 2000. 24 years of deficits and continuing. So I think it is reasonable to argue that the current budget of @£56b ought, if spent wisely, to be sufficient for our defence needs. World wide expeditionary capability is not necessary just a legacy of imperial nostalgia. No other medium size country tries to have one… Read more »
We engage in world-wide expeditionary operations, not because it puffs us up to be reminded of the Empire (who really is in that category?) but because we consider that (with our credentials and experience) we should be a force for good in this world. Many countries, even small ones, engage in operations beyond their homeland and beyond their part of their continent. 50 nations chose to deploy military forces to Afghanistan. 42 nations deployed forces on Gulf War 1. Regarding the carrier programme, £2.8bn was never going to be enough to build two state of the art large carriers. The… Read more »
The UK only “meets” the 2% GDP minimum by fiddling the books. We haven’t seen stability in force levels but a steady, rapid decline across the board & are weaker now than ever since WW2, still disarming as though world peace broke out in 1991.
Correct. And the ones who have shirked and continue to shirk, will also be required to make back payments. You don’t get to consistently go below the 2% and expect your other NATO members to carry you like fools. Trump warned of this for years, and now it has come home. He was called a monster for even suggesting NATO pay its bills. Now if he is President the “yanks will pay for it” gravy train stops. Stops dead.
Incompetence, moronic, dangerous and treason.
4 words that sum up the Tory government under Sunak and Hunt.
It is madness not one penny on Defence 😞
We are no longer in the era of the peace dividend — we are in the era of the fingers-in-ears dividend.
Fingers crossed is my take.
Breaking up lifeboats for firewood as the Titanic goes down.
The wake-up call goes unheard again, what does that tell us about the state of politics in the UK?
Basically they haven’t got a clue . For wake up call with war in Europe and the possibility of Trump getting Elected and pulling out of NATO .Does this mean other NATO members are on there own ? Are the UK going stay up with Europe if Russian decide to have a go ? Or are we going to say sorry no can do without our American friend’s.🤔 No money what so ever allocated to Defence budget just remains the same as if it’s peace time .And yet the UK are trying hard to keep our beloved NHS going 👍… Read more »
It’s not too late to change policy and deport these people back to where they came from. All things considered, some cultures are better than others. The UK is a better culture than say, somalia, hence the reason why many many are flocking from 3rd world countries to the UK for free stuff. They know that some cultures are better than others.
There seems to be a more general approach of today’s politician to hide the truth from voters. The CP have built-in cuts after the next election which underpin their current financial plan and nobody is willing to confront the impact these cuts will have – jam today is the offer from a tired and fractious CP. As for Labour they are trying their best to make themselves as small a target as possible to avoid being found out. Under this policy everything is aspirational with no detail, except VAT on private school fees which plays to their left wing. They… Read more »
I know the Chancellor did not have much money to play with, but I was amazed he could not find a token extra amount for defence. He was dishing ou a million here or twenty five million there on all sorts of things. He should have given an extra ten million to refurbishing service housing or a few million to RN/RFA extra crew so ships are not stuck in port. Just some token spend to show the services were not forgotton. If Hunt needs revenue, he should copy Trump & put tariffs on Chinese goods.
Another bad day for defence spending, and given the state of public finances, not at all surprising.
The goal has to be to improve productivity, increase public and private aector investemnt, increase wages and thereby those able to pay taxes, increase trade, and eliminate structural barriers (realistically this means re-entering the EU single market).
Right now we’re in a period of quantitative tightening, and this burden is falling on individuals and the public sector. Until there is relief from this, there will be no more in the pot for defence in particular.
I’m pretty sure that keeping taxes where they are and spending the difference on a bunch of British-produced NLAWs, Brimstone, 155 mm arty ammunition and other such things would grow the economy far more than that drop in NI will. Hunt’s budget is nothing to do with what’s long-term good for the country, just enough to keep the hardcore Tory tax-haters at bay and an attempt to win a few votes- which I really hope is seen as the transparent (and probably worthless) attempt that it is. Many things need to structurally change to make this country’s finances work, but… Read more »
So there we have it at long last… tory bean counters publicly stating that they are dramatically cutting the armed forces budget.
£2.5Billion reduction, however I doubt if it will stop there. By my reckoning the creatures holding the purse strings have till at least till November, to gift contracts, and squander more millions into the pockets of those they may soon work for.
Interesting times…
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and before the ‘Peace’ dividend the UK was spending around £34 Billion on Defence, approx 4% of GDP. Today that figure is approx £55.5 Billion, 2.1% GDP with the Nuclear deterrent also coming out of this budget unlike in 1990, Allowing for inflation since 1990, today we should be looking at a figure of around nearly £70 Billion at 3% GDP. I accept these figures are plus or minus but it does illustrate that our politicians have carried on with the same ‘Peace’ dividend mentality over the last 30 years. Only a hot… Read more »
Rather worrying news. We keep cutting military personnel in order to switch the money to the equipment budget, but the soaring cost of modern equipment means we always have a massive, unfunded hole in the budget. Result is force levels that are now far too small.for the job and no budget to even replace much of the current ageing kit. The RN is the least badly hit, with new submarines, expensive carriers, new £1bn escorts on the way, new FSS ships to be ordered, new MROS and no doubt new MRSS in due course. etc, etc. It is a pretty… Read more »
World beating complacency. Criminal considering our alliance & UN responsabilities.
Many like to say we’re not a world policeman, but if we don’t play our part we leave a vaucum for the likes of China & Russia to fill. Our interests are global wether we like it or not. Every nation allowed to fail just increases the numbers of refugees seeking safety in more stable, peaceful nations such as ours. If we were in their position we’d be doing the same.
Isolationism just enables evil.
Our current NHS cannot sustain peace time levels of care, let alone a large scale shooting war. Both it and Defence need significant and urgent upgrades in financing. We could start by makign sure that the wealthy actually pay their fair share instead of taking advantage of tax avoidance schemes. Our PM for example has paid less in income tax proportional to income than the majority of normal working people!
You sound like a socialist dreamer. The issue is unplanned and unbudgeted demand from millions of unskilled, unhealthy and uneducated migrants from the 3rd world countries that have flocked to UK for much advertised free stuff. This unplanned demand is the result of woke, British self hatred/colonial guilt policies of the left.
What on earth has your comment got to do with it? If you care to actually apply reason and logic you are may understand the actual position instead of believing the false statistics, inuendos and blatant misrepresentation of our current crop of self interested inept political masters in charge of the nation’s finances! They are treating us all like idiots. The facts are that the cuts in public services have (why do you think queues exist in hospitals, police not being able to deal with crimes, and defence being pared back have all occured?) been caused by austerity politics. Regardless… Read more »
Well those who are tories on this site ,come up with a good case for this one
The country appears to be tapped out. Perhaps when you welcome millions of uneducated, unskilled illegal economic migrants to the British welfare state, that is designed and budgeted to support less, it begins to collapse under the unplanned demand sent its’ way. Economics basics.
Good luck UK, it’s not too late to jump out of the boiling pot of water but it’s later than you think.
Seems to be we have been keeping a number of capabilities warmed over for a ‘rainy day’.
Can someone with a pair, tell Sunak and Hunt the rains are coming and they better move themselves into a new way of thinking fast because believe me Defence Spending is going to be an election issue?
Is that clear?
Sadly I think that Defence Spending is unlikely to be a ‘Top 10’ election issue. The most I would expect from a manifesto is the Tories ‘pledging’ yet again to spend 2.5% on Defence when economic conditions allow it (ie never).
God sake, Many countries have been paying 1% to defence budgets. UK is not one of them. The issue is not money. It is the spending of that money. Pensions are eating up the U.K. budget. NHS, like defence is able to waste billions. We need to address the issues of what we spend money on and how we spend it before we start setting arbitrary figures of GDP. As someone who has a few years on the clock now, I would be more than willing to consider palliative care only above 70 – 75 provided by NHS. Painful decisions… Read more »