Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that Britain will spend 2.5 percent of GDP on defence by 2030.
As part of efforts to increase defence spending, the British defence industry is also to recieve investment to increase the pace of production of critical equipment.
Sunak reportedly told reporters on a flight to Poland:
“My first priority is to keep people safe, and you’re right, I have been honest with people that the world is less safe than it has been in decades and my job is to invest to keep the country safe, and that’s what I’m doing. We’re stepping up because that is what the situation demands and requires.”
NATO estimates that for 2023 the UK’s defence spending was 2.07% of its GDP (the total value of everything that happens within the country’s economy). The UK spent £52.8 billion on defence in the 2022/23 financial year. In 2022, NATO estimated that the UK spent 2.16% of GDP on defence.
“In a world that is the most dangerous it has been since the end of the cold war, we cannot be complacent. As our adversaries align, we must do more to defend our country, our interests, and our values,” Sunak said.
“Today is a turning point for European security and a landmark moment in the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a generational investment in British security and British prosperity, which makes us safer at home and stronger abroad.”
Too little too late.
Sorry to be negative but money is needed now and these funds can’t include the funding of things given to Ukraine.
I’ve no idea how cutting civil servants helps…….cuts to the ballooning welfare budget is where I would look. In that budget it is small change. There should be a cap on that budget anyway.
Agreed on the little part but hopefully this could help the recruitment crisis by making defence a more attractive career (better salary and conditions etc). Of course equipment stockpiles is a more gradual process.
Worth looking at Tuesday night Newsnight with Heapey giving his view on this. You get a fairly frank view of Sunak’s decision from a Cabinet minister who has recently resigned for no apparent reason but was phoned up Tuesday morning by the PM to explain why the budget was increasing. Definately worth a look whatever your current opinion.
TBH I think the money given to Ukraine should come out of the Foreign Aid budget – it is literally foreign aid so I think it should come out of that.
Treasury reserve budget really!
Funny that that have reserve when they borrow so much !
They don’t. They just know on average there will be a crisis or 10 somewhere so they ring fence some cash to resolve problems. COVID or Wars can’t be resolved out of that fund.
No its not. It is money being spent on the defence of this country. We have spent relatively little and incurred no UK casualties to cut the d**k off of, and explode the myth of, the Russian conventional forces for a generation to come.
TBH im inclined to say that i’d like to see the extra 0.5% go straight to Ukraine where i think it will be spent most wisely.
If you set up a resilient supply chain with adequate stock levels then just order to replace what you are going to donate.
Some also forget some of the munitions and kit would have been disposed of anyway as it was end of life. So actually its was already sunk cost for the Mod, and actually may have cost money to dispose of.
Of course no. The money is necessary for British defence not for a proxy war.
It’s not a proxy war. It is Russia trying to take over an independent country and the rest of the world (with the exception of a few autocratic regimes) saying NO.
Honestly I think the west may have already lost the Ukrainian conflict..there was a time when significant support may have allowed Ukraine to punch out and get favourable terms..the reality is county of 44million could not sustain an attritional war against a nation or 150million…all those Ukrainian young men and towns and civilians are not coming back…Russia has suffers no damage and has a lot more young men to throw into the meat grinder…
trickling in support has essentially damed Ukraine.
The Ukrainian’s may not get back everything but it’d be great if they could eventually recapture Mariupol and the land all the way back to Crimea to have as much access to the Asov, Crimea and Black Sea as possible. It’s a big squeeze to see who gets what. Some reports suggest that Ukrainian forces may get some new weaponry and supplies from next week and then hopefully be able to start reversing some recent losses of territory. No need for the West to broadcast all this in detail. It’s hard to believe that the greater Russian society is not… Read more »
Nonsense. Western countries are democracies we take time and prevaricate but that is because the people are in charge. That is a strength. The West has decided – we are in it for the long game. The Russian people’s heart is not in it whereas Ukrainians are fighting for their homes & lives.
Sorry mate that is just not true that the west has committed for the long game…trump could be in power next year and cut all aid..even if he is not a lot of republicans are very on the fence and if they have a majority in either house it’s likely that aid will delay or not get through… You really have no idea where the heart of the Russian people sit..they live in a totalitarian state and are fed constant lies and propaganda….fighting for your home only goes so far…the Ukrainians had the same fight before and lost in the… Read more »
Nonsense. Trump could be? He couldn’t even win with the advantage of being the incumbent. He could be lots of things including in jail. Russia has not got 10 times the population 5 at most. Ukraine has food which is the main thing and with decent weapons on a regular basis it is a threat to Russia’s grip on Ukrainian territory. Russia has lost a third of it’s ships in the black sea – sunk or damaged. It has lost too many aircraft. It’s strategy is based simply on being able to sustain vast quantities of casualties.
Yes l slipped up on the population it’s only 5 time larger…the economy is 10 times..and I’ve glad you have a crystal ball on the US election..well done you know the will of both the Russia and U.S. people it’s seems, I bow to your omniscient ability around the results of election where the two candidates are polling the same.
😂I was simply giving the flip side of your ‘could be’ argument. I’m sure Americans know their own minds. My point was simply that Trump was best placed to win re-election however he could not manage to do that. His support had apparenttly ebbed away. Also I’m not sure that what has happened since is likely to be that positive in the minds of floating voters. Forget Stormy I’m thinking about people’s view on incitement to riot. Still anything could happen. Let’s say he does get into the White House – would he really abandon Ukraine? It makes him look… Read more »
I agree that the myth of Russian invincibility has been exploded.
We were all amazed at how useless the Russian kit actually was and how badly the boy n girls were trained.
I don’t think anyone believes the Russians are invincible. They have lost their fair share of wars.
The question is, can Ukraine actually defeat Russia? Unless Russian will collapses (Putin is overthrown, etc), that cannot happen. But a combination of Western aid and Ukrainian moblization “may” now give Ukraine a chance at a stalemate.
What is reprehensible was letting the momentum go from the Ukrainian side. However, I do think that a big influx of munitions as we will see next week will make more difference than we care to think. Russian air operations will become virtually impossible; and Positions and vehicles can be systematically picked off with the precise NATO artillery. The Russian AAW assets have taken a hammering and hammering them further in preparation for the F16’s will be important. The F16’s will be important to punch through – the ability to hit something with 500lbs of HE at will repeatedly is… Read more »
Ukraine’s momentum was really in 2022-23. And that was due to a huge intelligence failure on the Russian side. Russia believed that it could just walk into Ukraine and that Ukraine would collapse. As a result, they went in with too few troops and totally inadequate preparation. But that situation no longer exists. It is now Ukraine that is facing a major manpower problem. Soldiers at the front are in their 40s! They are rarely, if ever, taken off the line. Western equipment will solve none of that. But what renewed Western aid can perhaps do is to at least… Read more »
It’s actually coming out of the foreign aid budget. The government just chooses to count it twice, the same spending can be counted as foreign aid spending and military spending under NATO rules. The foreign aid budget is now also completely gone with spending on Ukraine and asylum seekers taking up almost all of the non discriminatory parts.
People will need to remember when the tax man or employer says your claiming the same expenses multiple times I can answer oh sorry that’s how the government does it so it must be what we are all allowed to do.
Good luck on that one, where do you want the cake with the multi tool inside sending ? 🤣
Tax inspectors are not known for their sense of humour 😀
What does it matter which artificial pot it comes out of. We the public need to earn the money and contribute taxes. I personally am quite happy that more taxes are going to assist Ukraine defeat an enemy which doesn’t care who he kills soldiers, civilians, Ukrainians, Brits or frankly anyone else. Obviously we need to build up our defences but we should waste time splitting hairs about budgets.
If you are talking about the benefits budget mate then i hope you are including your state pension in that because it is by far the biggest liability on the books. Agree with your sentiments but an increase in defence spendinding WILL impact YOUR standard of living in one way or another.
I hate this remark
the state pension is NOT a benefit
I have paid into that since i started working way back in 67 until retirement and guess what i get £218 per week
I am not on pension credit becouse i have a very little private pension that puts me over the limit
State pension is NOT i repeat NOT a benefit
Absolutely it isn’t…. We more than paid into that pension pot! Huge numbers of people today are on various benefits, far more that used to be case… I recall as young man trying to make ends meet on £12,500 a year, no kids at the time, so being taxed on that and £165 a month on National insurance on top of that! These days, I wouldn’t even pay tax on that amount and possibly no NI either?? Vast numbers of people are effectively taken out of tax at source and paid tax credits and other benefits on top, wonderful you… Read more »
Young men are still trying to make ends meet on £12.5k, the difference is that these days the ends don’t meet.
The money should come from corporations who’ve benefited from stagnant wages.
I don’t necessarily disagree, the fact remains that large sections of society have been taken out of taxation and/or had their income supplemented in ways we couldn’t have dreamt of in our wildest dreams 40 years ago. That’s a lot of ‘tax wedge’ simply removed from the pot. Hammering corporations will simply make them bugger off elsewhere… Taxation has to be fair ( so yes, corporations , non Doms etc and everyone for that matter should pay their bit. I left school in 1982, 3 million unemployed, real poverty (not poverty in relation to average earnings) which is quite frankly… Read more »
I also left school is 82 and in 84 was a trainee manager for Sainsbury.
I’m just waiting to onboard now but have been living on Universal Credit for a few months; I earned the same amount nearly 40 years ago as a trainee manager.
Universal Credit is not a lifestyle choice, but, it is an easy target for pollies.
PIP, on the other hand, can be gamed.
For me, the NHS is the biggest drain but, dial down the dogma and the railways could release £Bns.
The vast amount of people taken out of paying income tax over the last 14 years also included a lot of pensioners as well.
“These days, I wouldn’t even pay tax on that amount and possibly no NI either??”
Have you heard of inflation? £12,500 isn’t worth what it used to be.
It wasn’t great money then Jonny!
In reality it is a benefit. We have no contractual guarantee it will exist until we die or in my case until I retire, it could be pulled at any time. There is no fund being put aside by NI payments, its being paid by future tax payers. Realistically it’s the same as income support, you pay your tax and in theory it’s there should the worse happen.
I agree it shouldn’t be a benefit but it kinda is.
Yep so what we contributed paid our parents Pensions. It’s hand to mouth with no safety net.
If only we had followed Norway and put our North Sea Oil and Gas revenue into a Sovereign Wealth fund instead of blowing it.
I agree…and the Arab states poured their O&G revenue into Defence and Infrastructure and cutting taxes – and no doubt have plenty left over. Where the heck did our O&G revenues go?
Allowed MT to make big tax cuts partly
And which generation voted repeatedly for greedy short-sighted actions? Could it be the very same ones that expect a triple lock at the expense of everyone else?
Once a greedy pig, always a greedy pig.
Well said Barry.
Please let me know where on any of your payslips it said that you were paying into the State Pension Scheme?
So what is the difference between then pension and unemployment benefits. We all pay in and we all get to claim if unemployed or over 66.
No we don’t, if you have savings you are not entitled a the same amount of benefits. Over 10k savings and your benefits start to reduce. So if you have sacrifice and saved you will benefit less than someone who hasn’t.
Barry that is true we all have contributed to state pensions. However the reality is that our contributions were paid to the pensioners at the time. The idea being that once the next generation retire they are paid for by those that are working. That is one of the key reasons why Governments of all flavours want stimulate the economy all the time becuase without loads of people earning the country can’t pay the pension bill.
Good luck with getting NI contributions up to where it needs to be – How many white van men pay it- on correct ammounts?
PAYE employment has gone out the window and with it our capacity to fund certain ‘benefits’
TheTories have discussed getting rid of it altogether – I’m really not sure how that will work or the consequencies – but I’m going to guess more cuts to all sorts of ‘services’.
NI is just another Tax, so logically just lump it all in the income tax bucket and be done with it. Yes income tax wil go up but we’ll all pay no NI.
Technically NI is two taxes. There is a personal contribution and an employer contribution. I’m guessing that the end game will be to move some (eventually alll) of the personal tax to the employers whilst also over time reducing the tax burden. The key to this is to make (over time) tax collection automatic and highly tricky to avoid. That way the tax take will be spread more evenly around employers.
In theory the economy is changing. Less cash – more automation. I suspect that the tax take will be the same possibly more however it will be spread more evenly. This is an acknoledgement that more services are required – so tax take must rise. The people who are currently paying their fair share will probably end up paying less.
Problem is we’re now at 53% of the people now get more out the system than they put in. It not just the pension bill that needs to be paid. So just blindly adding people has proved not to be the best move, we added 700k people in a year an we barely had any growth when adding that many people should have been a jolt to the economy.
Expat one day someone will realise that whilst it is essential we help people back to their feet and lead them back to independence only people who can never possibly regain independence should receive indefenite support. It is true that some people are almost trapped in benefits. Each individual needs to be properly assessed and a short term support plan with appropriate funds is needed. Benefits which applies to whole classes of people indefinately should be rare. Also we have to be realistic about pensions.We can’t expect to have a third of our lives on a pension – it’s nuts.
Yes, it is a benefit, and is categorised as such by Government alongside other benefits.
To wit:
The National Insurance Scheme was established on 5 July 1948 to provide unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, retirement pensions and other benefits in cases where individuals meet the contribution and other qualifying conditions.
Pensions have been ballooning for years due to the triple lock and successive governments trying to buy the grey vote.
Have a like, Mr Bell.
Ballooning? UK State Pension is still very low compared to most other European nations.
The European pensions are a bit of a mixed bag when you investigate them. Generally the employer and employee pay more in then in the UK and there different maximum( some of the maximum being unachievable in terms of contributions unless you were a millionaire) and minimum and I am pretty sure for example in Germany, pensioners still have to pay there healthcare insurance out of there pensions
Pretty sure or sure?..
I’m pretty sure Europe hasn’t been paying 2% into defence so can afford better pensions 😀
There’s load of analysis but generaly accepted that its very difficult to compare European Countries pension schemes they vary massively, based on financing, structure and eligibilty. I think when most of Europe has been underfunding defence for decades then to say they have better pensions, well when we’re discussing on a defence site I think thats a bit ironic 🙂
The plan was to gradually increase the pensions to a proper level without putting all the pressure at one point in time. That is not ballooning M Bell – that ia almost sensible. The grey vote as you call it is about a third of the population. The Government as supposed to act in the interests of the population and if they do well in the eyes of the population they deserve to get voted back in.
I would agree, but for that to work it’d have to be a wholesale reset- which is outside the scope for any politician at the moment. Looking at the 2022 expenditure, according to the ONS, out of £1.16T government expenditure: Defence budget was £53B (5%); Social protection (which seems to be a catch all for Welfare) was £380B (33%); NHS was £224B (19%); Public Services (workings of government) was £161B (14%). Everything else was 10% or below. These would be the main aeras that could see some appreciable savings, but drilling down a level shows issues with that: Public Services:… Read more »
Working pensioners to pay national insurance? Tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income? £50 a day meals charge for hospital stays? £50 fee for GP consultation if you are in work and not on benefits? Its not rocket science. You just have to face up to a few sacred cows and tell voters which way is up.
And a fine for missed Drs appointments ? Even if you are on benefits !
NHS is the biggie for me, eventually the govt (not just in the UK) will collapse under the weight of the elderly population and only then can we have an adult conversation as to the role the NHS should have when your average brit by 2060 will be in their 60s.
Re defence spending, needs to be atleast 3% and needs to be that now.
We need to turn the UK into a Blue Zone. Plant based diet = healthy active centegenarians 🙂
Personally, I’d look to Europe. I have experience of the French system, but I believe many others are similar. Their healthcare provision is clearly delineated as to what is covered under the “national health” part of it- emergency care, natal care, cancer, that kind of thing. Everything else is covered by a State regulated health insurance industry that is restricted from going mental like the US has. If you do a lot of sports, for example, then you can pick up a higher tier of medical insurance that covers you for physiotherapy and suchlike; if you’re getting older, then a… Read more »
I’m sure you have a positive side Joe 😉 I have French relatives. France is not without its funding issues. I read somewhere that labour has been researching Australia and Singapore I think. Italy is the only European country that has a NHS like ours – funded 100% out of tax and free at point of access. Its high quality I believe:but organised differently; regionally I think and your choice of GP is limited. I don’t think everything is covered. I think they have a red/green list. Green treatments free, red is payable. Be interesting to see what labour comes… Read more »
£50 for hospital meals, fecking hell!,
I’d do a meals deal with Spoons and get three St Ella’s thrown in for £35!
I’d buy shares in Dominos
🙂 😉
In Germany if you are in hospital, you have to pay for your meals I believe. Span you are expected to provided for your after care
Contrast that with the UK. If you are in receipt of UK state pension it is docked if you fo into hospital because you are receiving an alternative ‘benefit’. This is what people mean when they describe the UK as having a benefit culture. You either think how lucky we are or you think its rather patronising and we should take a bit more responsibility as individuals. A hotel charge for hospital stays would raise a lot of money.
I’d put NI on private pensions, and use it to increase state pension modestly.
I think that would mean people would pay less into their private pension. As they will expect more from the state at the end they’d think I don’t need to save so much. Well that’s what I’d do.
I think penalising people who sacrifice and save is part of the reason why so many people are quiting early and this is actually dragging on the economy.
Jesus Christ- Health most definately for the rich then.
The Germans are rich 🙂
Agree welfare budget has got out of control. Needs urgently addressing. Defence budget should not be used for donations to Ukraine- that is foreign aid budget surely?
Cuts to the welfare budget?
It increased by £39 billion last year!
Exactly – huge sums.
Yes because pensioners got a massive triple lock rise in the basic state pension.
Governments have know the baby boomer generation would cost a lot when they retired . No UK Government set up an investment fund to help with the bill.
Because that very same generation would never ever vote for that and would cry foul over it.
The greediest generation bar none and have expected everyone else to pick up the tab.
The Triple Lock is a crime against the working population.
55% of the welfare budget is pensions- the other segments are much smaller slices of the pie. Unemployment benefit is less than 1%.
More civil servants in MOD than the RAF establishment, including 12,500 in DE&S (Israel has 300).
The 12,500 (their website says 11,500 civilian and military staff) in DE&S are not all sitting in Abbey Wood, Bristol offices buying kit.
They operate over 150 sites across the UK.
Plus hidden numbers and cost of farming out armed forces repairs to Babcock etc .
There is going to be £70 Billion getting rid of the CS brought in for Covid – Also they are looking at not the long term unemployed, but the recent boom in sick note none work. Looks like a toughening up.
The elderly are the problem. They are the ones taking up all the welfare and the NHS money. Additionally they are the largest demographic so they have the most power. Triple lock should be removed and pensions should be reduced until the country is in better economic circumstances. There is no alternative to supporting an aging population, short of importing more young people from abroad which isn’t favoured by the elderly population so won’t happen.
You are joking? Reduce the state pension, I do not understand how anyone can actually live on just the state pension. Suggest you have a try and see how long you last. The UK state pension is if not the lowest then among the lowest in Europe.
We don’t need more people, we could do away with 100ks of jobs in the next 5 years with automation.
So you aren’t going to get old then?🙄
Completely agree..2.5% by 2030 is pathetic..we are likely heading for an optimal time for the wests enemies to fight a war with the west in 2027 to 2030 timeframe..china and Russia are burning money like water right now..china is dumping close to the tonnage of the RN in the water every 2 years or so…we should be on 2.5% for 2024-2025 with a trajectory to 3% by 2027…there needs to be radical investment in every T23..yes it’s throwing money in old ships but they are the only ones we have until late 27 and into the 30s..decommissioning Montrose was idiotic…we… Read more »
Hopefully this will allow Labour to make an announcement without get lynched by the no money..your irresponsible mob..
Spending money is easy, how about they stop wasting it away unnecessarily, often in the millions. Tighter controls and oversight, more accountability. And hopefully more promotion of British Industry and some more foreign sales to increase the UK’s coffers!
If the Norwegians want the T26 hope they work it out to get this happening!
Ah some common sense for once. But why get hung up on industry heck promote services as well get more of both will benefit us all. Also slash debt quickly, debt interest is the 3rd largest spend outside welfare and health.
What is this “ballooning” welfare budget? UK spending on welfare is miserly, and Sunak’s current policy is Full Attack on Disabled People. What would you cut exactly, and what would it save? Reduce State Pension by 20%? Cancel Child Benefit? Cut schools? Please explain. I’d suggest that we need to look at the the current Govt obsession with tax cuts for wealthier people, at whatever cost and no matter who it hurts, piling much of it onto the national debt, and move more into line with our Western European peers. A few places I would look would be subsidies given… Read more »
What the obbession with taxing wealthy people more? Why not increase the number of wealthy people, simple really, top 1% already pay 33% of the income tax, so lets triple that number to 3% and that’s all the income tax taken care of. Why are people so obbessed with tax wealth that already here instead of getting more into the country. Its of no logical sense and strikes me that it a policy based of envy or class than logic. I’m a socialist but have different way of look at it, its better to make more money and distribute than… Read more »
I agree and also speculate that the civil service thing is a doctrinnaire puff of smoke to deflect attention. I do hope that there will be major announcements after all 6 years is not a long time to plan and spend 75bn.
Trouble is if you look at the numbers of civil servants on the MoD payroll they have increased YoY since 2016 whilst front line number have decreased, I would expect the number of civil servants to at least track the size of the forces to a degree. Yes there’s a minimum number thats needed so it would not shrink indefinitely but quite how its been on uptick for some time is beyond me. But I agree my account at HMRC shows me a break down of my tax spend and Welfare make up a whopping 19%, the other worry one… Read more »
Civil Service budget for salaries alone exceed £16 Billion. Merely attempting to contain that cost is tricky. Impressed they have tried.
I believe that 2.5% of GDP is the absolute minimum needed to pay for all the kit which is currently on order. We really need (at least) 3%, and we need it much sooner than 2030.
Agreed but won’t happen unless we go to war with Russia. This is just election talk, Labour have been saying they want to spend 2.5% on defence recently aswell.
It’s actually way more than the unfounded procurement it’s really a big surprise. The shortfall is £16.9 Billion 2023 – 2023 against an extra £75 Billion over 2024 – 2030.
So even if we plug it by 2030 it still leaves £58.1 Billion extra funding for Defence.
Well at least we know what “when economic conditions allow” means to the Tories, a full 6 years into the future. Means little to the current situation, unless this 2.5% figure will be met gradually, and we will see defence spending go up every year.
Read the actual Govt announcement rather the article because it is exactly that, a planned uplift in increased budget to 2.5% over the next 6 years.
Given they aren’t going to be in power in those 6 years, how exactly does Sunak think he can make Labour follow his policy?
Sunak is just full of lies as he knows he has zero chance of being in power or having to deliver.
Of course, but wouldn’t you start getting your duck in a row for when you’re in opposition?
He can’t but we can ! It will depend on what goes in the Manifesto, to say scrap it or put it in.
Lol. People vote by tribe not manifesto.
6 years!!! We will never have another Tory government after this election. Labour with its super majority will open voting to new groups who are favourable to them. Tories will splinter into 2 groups compounding the problem making it impossible to unseat Labour.
You also need to read between the lines With today’s announcement, UK defence spending will increase immediately and then rise steadily to reach £87 billion at the end the decade – hitting 2.5% of GDP by 2030. Sounds good until you try to figure what is meant by immediately Defence spending will increase immediately and rise linearly – with a further £500 million for Ukraine this year and overall increase of £3 billion in the next financial year. So nothing for UK Defence this side of a general election, and Ukrainian spend to continue to be included in the government’s… Read more »
Sunk’s numbers don’t add up.
He thinks that a steady increase from 32bn to 87bn over 6 years involves a total amount of £75bn ie nearly half in year 6.
Run the numbers and it is about £50bn short.
But then he knows his party is about to be liquidated in an election, so there’s no need for him to take responsibility for anything.
Just the latest Hail Mary Pass.
He’s talking about the extras. If it’s steady it would be £0.5bn this year (Ukraine counts in his eyes) +3.5+7+10.5+14+17.5+21 = £74bn
Not too far off.
Thanks for the reply.
I don’t see how that gives an £87bn Defence Budget in 2030, as claimed by Sunak – £35bn up from the current ~£52bn..
Defence budget was 48.6b in 2023 don’t know what is is this year so your 32b starting point is need adjusting up.
TBH Defence civil servant numbers have been on the rise for 8 years, quite how thats needed when the forces have shrunk is beyond me.
The numbers were decimated by Cameron in 2010. To make up for it, more contractors were hired, who are far more expensive than civil servants. It’s no secret that much of the work is done by contractors as the civil service pay is so low they can’t afford experts. MOD is one of the few departments whose number of civil servants have not risen even close to the number that were present in 2010. It may be that it would be cheaper to hire more civil servants and fire the contractors. I can’t say. The devil is in the detail.… Read more »
The government made it difficult for contractors to take full time positions. If there’s a job to do long term it has to be permanent, so i don’t see how contractorscan be replacing permanent civil servants. There’s also IR35 which means contracting is less lucrative for many roles. Lastly when you pay a contractor that’s all you pay, you don’t pay pension,NI, sick leave, redundancy, holiday pay and other perks. So there’s no long term cost associated with a contractor. Every one looks at the direct salary vs contractor rate that’s just part if the picture. Lastly if the civil… Read more »
Happy St Georges day🏴
Remembrance of the fable of the victory of Good over cosmic disorder? Seldom more needed!
So true.
Good news, but bloody late in the day!
Should never have fallen as low as it has.
I’ve done some working out and 2.5% of GDP increases the amount from the £52.8 billion to £63.76 billion, so just over a £10 billion a year increase.
I’m curious as to how this will be spent.
An increase to 3% of GDP would be £76.5 billion a year.
We need to be thankful for small mercies I suppose but the Army in particular needs additional focus especially the RA. In truth, events will determine what we have to spend if the international crises remain in their current state, then this additional money will start to address the shortfall.
Glad I’m not the only one who got the calculator out, the problem is that all sounds not too bad until you realise it isn’t for another 6 years. In real terms even with inflation at 2% (and Defence inflation is usually higher), it’s no real increase as that will have been eaten up. The underlying economic killer is lack of growth in the economy. If you can get that going at above inflation then you are laughing ! If he really was serious he should start with cutting the size of the Defence Procurement Establishment (12.5k Civil Servants). Increase… Read more »
Tax cuts announced in the last 9 months have been the best part of £30bn a year.
We need taxes up not spending down.
We need taxes to stay in the same place and reform of key spending areas.
Increasing taxes sounds great (usually I’d be all for it), but it’s so hard to justify when the state of the public sector is this poor. That’s why everyone is unhappy about the highest taxes in decades – we see nothing for our money.
We should be empowering NHS Trusts to be more aggressive with negotiations (and reduce needless nation-sized contracts) and we should means test the state pension. Both would yield enormous savings without any impact on those who need either most.
No we need debt down, go look at the interest we’re now paying. If you do a tax return you can go to the HMRC site and see where your tax is spent. 50% of my Tax and NI goes on Welfare 19%, Health 19% and debt interest 12%. Defence is way down the list and gets just 5%.
AUKUS submarines and Tempest GCAP will eat up a big junk.
If it was up to me moving to be the biggest Airforce in Europe would be a priority with 160 F35 and 240 Typhoons. These were the envisaged aircraft levels in SDR 98.
Converting over all C2 tanks to C3 would be my next priority.
Jim, please sit down.
AUKUS subs and Tempest will SINK (Chinese) junks.
Oops meant chunk 😀
Why do we need the biggest air force in Europe?….and not boost the size of the Navy and the Army (at its smallest for 300 years).
Not so sure we’d need quite that many aircraft, and it would take more than 2.5% for that.
If it were 3% I’d say maybe 180 Typhoons and 120 F35Bs, with 6 squadrons on a 3/3 split between RAF and RN.
I don’t think we’d need more than that.
Mine would be way easier add a 5th SSBN to our CASD which is the minimum optimum number for a cost effective force and has been since we started Polaris.
A 25% increase in force results in a 100% increase in deterrent as it enables 2 boats to be at sea on patrol at any one time.
That would require an increase in the number of SSNs escorting them though.
More SSNs are the absolute minimum threshold for an increase in anything else.
SSN AUKUS will likely see an increase in Boats,that has been known for a while now.
Yes but we are building SSBNs at present not SSNs so you would need to wait till after 2060 to get an extra SSBN. As for an increase in SSNs it’s pretty well on the cards as a bi product of the SSN(A) build. To fulfil the RAN requirement we have to have a much faster drum beat of production than at present. No 1 rule in the Nuclear Submarine industry is gaps or slowing the build cycle cost far more in the long run than any immediate savings. If memory serves MOD took £139 million out of the Astute… Read more »
About bloody time too. Mind you, this maybe just about the difference lost due to inflation.
And as for 2030? It’s a joke. I guess China, Russia and Iran have kindly agreed to wait for us to be ready.
2.5% by 2030!
The War might be over by then, they will be able to declare a Peace Dividend.
Thank goodness they will not be in charge, hope the new lot can do better, but not a high bar to climb over.
Bearing in mind they are currently at 2.32% this is a raise 0.18% over 6 years, a lower bar than I thought.
Methinks they really, really, really don’t get it.
2.5% to fund what we want to fund at this moment in time. 3% to grow.
Good, better late than never it will help, but the way money is accounted for is kind of smoke and mirrors. But any rise is good news. Lets see what it is spent on and what is ordered, that is the big test words are easy.
Wow, they have woken up at last …. but 2.5% is probably not enough right now, and saying ‘by 2030’, just sounds like more can-kicking.
This should not just be about acquiring weapons systems and recruiting. There should be a long-term plan for reindustrialisation, any confrontation with near-peer enemies like Russia, China, or Iran means we will need the ability to endure a lot of attrition.
Not many others have picked up on the 2030 bit and that is a most salient point.
The most salient point is that immediately means more for Ukraine this year and nothing for UK defence this side of a general election. Promises for the other side of a general election have no salience at all.
It looks sensible, I doubt that we have the industrial capacity, or the armed forces structure to cope with instantly 2.5%. But this allows long term planning on the equipment and recruitment budgets and infrastructure provision. (including docks and housing etc!) .
We have more than enough capability to take on 2.5% right now and grow to 3% over the next couple of years. There’s a black hole to fill, remember, and an increase this year will help pay for stuff we are overspending on already.
Words are cheap and who to say they will be in to actually do that. I have little trust in those in Government no matter who they are. Many things need to change and the British People need to take a more active role in keeping us all safe. I’ll not hold my breath to see what gets ordered if anything new…………
That rise will be largely consumed by the procurement budget shortfall
Looking at the details, its 2.5% of GDP in 2030, a £75bn increase in planned expenditure over the 5 years. Its £500m this financial year all for Ukraine, (they dont separate out Ukraine donations from the core budget headline unlike pre-announcement rumours) and £3bn in the next financial year with progressive increases to reach £87bn a year in 2030. £10bn is ring fenced for munitions with ammunition purchases, industrial capacity expansion and R&D on ammunition. A commitment to ringfence 5% per year of the budget for R&D and the creation of a new Defence Innovation Agency (Whats the difference from the… Read more »
If you read the Gov announcement the £10billion isn’t ring fenced as part of the extra £75 Billion it is in addition to that.
First it’s £10bn over the next decade, not over the next five years. And it’s most definitely not in addition to the promised GDP increase. The word additional means more that we were going to spend (in Sunak’s fantasy world). “The Prime Minister has set out three areas of focus for our bolstered defence budget: Firing up the UK defence industrial base: Investing at least an additional £10 billion over the next decade on munitions production… Modernising our Armed Forces: … with at least 5% of the defence budget to be committed to R&D. Backing Ukraine’s defence: Ukraine’s security is our security…”… Read more »
Theyve announced how they are going to fund it now. Take £1.6bn a year from existing government Science R&D and reallocate it as Defence R&D and to cut 70,000 civil servant jobs to release £2.9bn a year.
Though that only accounts for £27.6bn of the £75bn. The rest is unfunded, and simply reclassifying existing R&D funds to be part of the MoD core budget is just an accounting trick to artificially inflate the figure.
Commence “Operation Drop Labour in it”.
Yeh, good spot. 2.5% by 2030 is not enough. Sunak’s focus this week is all about positioning himself as PM and statesman, leader of a UK which is setting the agenda in Europe; Rwanda flights, aid package to Ukraine, defence spending. All directed at the local government elections. Expect a July general election.
We have a general election coming this year and all of this will be thrown out as unaffordable.
What governments need to understand – and this applies to health, education etc as well as defence – is that if you cut funding to save a few million you end up having to pay out billions more to recapitalize further down the line.
The whole % of GPD sending is nonsense in my opinion anyway.
It should be % of government budget, then the only way to increase one department is decrease another budget in percentage terms to show priorities
2.5% by 2030- that’s 6 years away, they are making this promise knowing full well they wont be on power at that time. Also how can increasing defence expenditure by 0.5% over a 6 year time period be classified as putting the UK onto a war footing. That’s just BS. If they had announced a 10% GDP to defence expenditure subject immediately- that would be putting the country onto a war footing. Just hot air from a failing parliament and a government devoid of ideas and fortunately for us all fast running out of time in power to continue to… Read more »
Any increase is welcome but surly they need to understand that the increase in threat has already started and we need to act now, not 5+ years down the line. If we was to borrow £50 billion, order more type 26/31, F35/Typhoon and upgrade all challey 2 tanks and so on now then we could surly pay this off with additional funding that is supposed to come later on, at least we will have the equipment when it is actually needed rather than scrambling round when we are in full on war.
You can’t just borrow, the credit card got maxed out by Covid furlough and then the energy subsidy.
It isn’t ideal but yes we can, we would be borrowing from the private sector/investors that would take a substantial hit if full out war was to kick off, £50 billion would not be anything compared to the tax rises that will inevitably come if a full on war was to happen and we was not ready. The contributions to adjust for the pandemic dwarf what is required to inject a much needed increase in defense, this of course is just my opinion but I feel talking about an increase in 5+ years when the need is now is complete… Read more »
The other thing is the time it takes to bring equipment into service from the date of order. Many complex programmes requiring design, development and testing can take up to 10 years from the order (Contract Award) to being in-service.
Which is why we should be borrowing now and get the ball rolling as it will take like you say multiple years to order, train personnel and get operational. It’s is not an ideal situation to be in but, what’s the alternative, wait and hope it all goes away
I fully agree. We should also be looking more seriously and more frequently at buying proven international kit off the shelf.
Its a mixed bag I think, UK should buy off the shelf in some areas. But where we feel we can create a product and get some volume then invest in the UK. Dragonfire is a good example, invest early, build a product and sell it. That way we’ll have a balance of defence exports and imports and we’ll focus on what we’re good at making.
I agree. We should certainly buy OTS when replacement kit is long overdue, and there is not time to go through a Design, Development and Testing cycle.
Well, our current Govt are still borrowing, increasing national debt.
At the same as they are maundering on about reducing national debt.
HM Government seem to forget, we will fight the next conflict with what we have not what we might get.
That ship has sailed
Ship sailed when thatcher sold Royal Ordnance, the 16 factories became 5, production for war would not be enough for demand !
So easy to say that when he knows full well he won’t be here then. I hope Labour follow this with a better commitment.
If you are relying on this article it’s got a lot of missing detail. The Govt announcement is a steady linear increase pa so that by 2030 we are 2.5% at £87 billion pa, starting this year. It’s £75 Billion extra funding in that period. He actually has done what we hoped he would do and shoved a live hand grenade in the Labour Parties Manifesto. It is a seriously clever move, if Labour commits to cancel it then they hit the Red Wall again. If they commit to carry it out then they have to either do so or… Read more »
Blimey. Ok I get it!!!!
The Cons are just planting landmines for Lab to step on.
Beth Rigby on live sky could have ripped this apart but gave him a very easy ride.
Journalists are up there with the pollies I would hang.
I agree mate.
Send some of us to ask them about our amphib force being in a mess, the RFA cut in half, transport force reduced, and so much else. Most Journos are clueless, Deborah Haynes for sky at least has highlighted the cuts for many years now.
To be fair there is good detail on Twitter with the breakdown and if Labour can match it it’s an awful lot of extra money and headroom.
It’s the words Daniele
“Steady increase…” Means what exactly?
And of course, this is a re-hash of so many other announcements that the Cons have uttered.
And the nail, as you well know, he won’t be here.
Another unfunded pledge at the heart of our national security; it is reckless and he should be held to account.
Ah, I didn’t see that either.
Yep, this politics stuff is tricky to get your head around, Daniele!
M8 Seldom would I say this but this article looks rushed as it is very poor. It misses the key details and starts off with PM announces to members of the press on the plane to Poland. Reads like a throw away re statement of the “aspiration to get to 2.5% when we can” which is nothing but a bit of political hot air. But when you read the detail it isn’t it’s a full on officially Government announcement for a fully funded, thought out 6 year linear uplift in Defence spending. Plus additional ring fenced funding for industry and… Read more »
Thing is mate, it’s meaningless if Labour don’t match it. As you know, I trust Labour even less than the Tories simply because of the far left of that party waiting to take over who wish to dismantle this nation and any influence or power it has internationally. You can say, as others have, your typical working class won’t vote for them, sure. But we’ve seen how easily the Tories changed leaders with no public vote. As it is, it’s ground-breaking stuff, IF it happens. If Labour match it, I might vote for them, for the first time in my… Read more »
Labour have come out with ‘2.5% if budgets allow’. So I guess they’ll be trying to show Tories increases are unfunded rather than match it.
I still won’t vote for either of them, annoyingly the MRL party don’t have a defence policy I can find…. It might make more sense.
Good luck. Labour just interviewed on TV. They will match Rishi’s commitment. No surprise there then.
I need to pinch myself….
I agree with those contributors who say it’s not enough and / or it’s not fast enough. Rishi might say he is putting the UK ‘on a war footing’ but I’ll believe that when I hear that the T1 Typhoons will be replaced by T4 and that we are setting up a no fly zone over Ukraine. Election posturing.
Agree. Devil is in the the detail with these blasted politicians. If the cuts continue as you say it’s posturing and election rhetoric.
Agree with you on the Typhoons replacement with T4s but no fly zone over Ukraine 😟 now that would be a worry.
Didn’t they say, ‘if budgets allow’ rather than a full blow commitment. Labour will need to come up with the equivilant savings or tax rises. Can’t see LAbour sacking 70k civil servants, espaecially when the union has just called out the Tories for it.
Both parties are vying to demonstrate they are the more fiscally responsible. The Tories are crafting policies which attempt to put Labour in ‘catch 22’ situations. I suspect most of these 70k will go by voluntary redundacy or retirement over the period till 2030 or they are contractors hired to cope with covid.
Yep, it’s all politics. But the civil servants who work for the MiD have been on the increase well before Covid. It’s been the only growth area of defence 😀
So that’s a 20% increase. Can we expect a plan for the army to grow by 15-20,000?
It’s nearer 25% actually !
It should be 2.5% immediately and 3.5% by 2030. Instead of kicking the can down the road and hoping it doesn’t explode in your face.
all politician ego statement he knows that he has NO chance of ever being in power (prob not even MP) by 2030 so will never actually have to deliver…….NO Minister should be able to annoce anything outside of the current parlimentary term. Especially the bloody Chancellor in 2050 we will………… all bunch offf!!!!!! General CheeseBurger has correct solution.
So then how do you put together a manifesto? Labour will have to announce commits before the election in its manifesto. That how we know which party we’ll vote for. Except for me I’m not voting for either of them.
It would have been nice if someone had left in the bit about it being a plan to steadily increase it to 2.5% by 2030. Rather than it reading as it will raise to 2.5% by 2030 with no incremental rises.
Yes, which is how I read it. It’s defo something, even if it fills some of the inflation holes.
While that’s how it’s meant to be read, it would be nice if they put some targets around it. Currently it still could be 2% by the end of next parliament.
Read the actual Official Govt announcement. It’s a fully funded, costed out linear increase up to 2.5% by 2030. So £75 Billion extra in 6 years to get us up to the target of £86 billion pa.
” today is a landmark moment in the defence of the United Kingdom…”
Oh thank goodness; for a minute there I thought we were all in trouble.
Totally irrelevant, Sunak will be ‘retired from parliament’ feet up in his tax haven by this time next year, lighting his cigars with £50 notes….
Anything he says or promises is utterly irrelevant, he might as well promise a UK moon base by 2030!
It’s electioneering hot air, pure and simple.
Exactly, it’s not even in the next parliament, it’s the one after that! Someone should ask what his defence plans are for next parliament (and labour for that matter as they’re more likely to win)
What does this mean in reality? T1 Typhoon retained?, FMH brought forward? More T31, SHORAD etc?
Filling the black holes with no extra kit or people most likely beyond minor adjustments here and there.
I’ll still take it.
On that list, I’d go with all 4, as all are sensible affordable increments that won’t break the bank.
Or perhaps they’ll opt to inform future decisions!!🤔
Grrrrrrmmmpppphhh….We hate that!
This may sound daft but before we spend anything on top of the existing programmes we need to step back and look at how not to do things. All the wasted money on programmes that were cancelled, cutting numbers of items ordered to a bare minimum and not replacing kit when it’s due. IMHO there are 2 sensible things that should be done right now. Increase the numbers of what we are purchasing and producing now as that results in the quickest overall increase. So for example convert all the CR2 to CR3 and maybe see if Oman wants to… Read more »
The only thing in the announcement is £10bn for recapitalising ammunition stocks and R&D on new munitions. Bulk of the rest probably swallowed by existing unfunded commitments like Submarines, second Frigate batch and probably some money left over for Tempest procurement.
He says one thing and the figures say another. Defence spending going down as percentage of GDP.
£3 billion cut to the defence announced in the spring budget.
Creative accounting just to keep it above the embarrassment of being under 2%.
Less people, less equipment, capability gaps and we are to believe somehow that’s happening due to him prioritising defence.
I hope if this announcement makes it to the main media they rip it apart with the actual truth to show the lies he tells.
What this announcement will really benefit is the longer term planning for the new kit. That black hole in the equipment budget has just magically disappeared, and the MOD planners can get back to planning the kit for the longer term. Things like F35 or Tempest post 2030, for example. Major defence procurement is a long-term game, and this announcement has just made certain projects morw likely see the light of day.
You’re not a glass half full man, Robert, you’re a glass brimming with the whole keg paid in advance.
Seriously???
I’ll take that as a slight complement hiding in that comment. But, yes, seriously, this is positive news for the long term. And all major projects take years. If billions were made available tomorrow, we wouldn’t see the benefits until the back end of this decade. Its just the nature of the beast.
Can we agree to disagree.
Unfunded, unplanned and if enacted, a sticking plaster over yawning chasms in the Defence Budget.
Enjoy your beer!
Well, we can celebrate the decision. Or waste time and energy over what could have been, or things we have no control over. We can’t turn back time. 75bn over 6 years is serious wedge.
They are not going to be in place.
Just landmines for the Labs to step on.
It is not honest, it is unfunded and it is unplanned.
The man should be hung. Sophie Ridge is trying to hold one of them to account but he is squirming like a maggot on a hook. Sorry Robert.
That’s ok. It’s a free country.
It must be said. More detail was announced today. Defence spending will rise from 64.4 billion today, up to 72.2 Billion by 2028 or 2.4%. Rising to 2.5% for 2030. Or 87bn. Whatever the final outcome. The fact that defence spending has become an election campaign tool, is good for defence as a whole. Its a shame we live in a world that requires such spending.
Your point about it becoming an election campaigns tool hits the nail on the head..no one has talked about defence in that way since the Cold War and really not even then…they only reason this would be announced is if the Tory workshopping had show this has suddenly become an issue voters are registering as an issue…that’s a good thing..but as you say shows hoe scary the world is.
If billions were made available tomorrow and the MOD allowed to spend it at will, you would see benefits start within two or three months. It wouldn’t take long to negotiate a RFA pay rise, for example. The catch is allowing the MOD to spend the money at will rather than referring it up through all the layers of governance.
And I’m sure, regardless, the RFA will get a much deserved payrise.
Which will hopeful at least stop outflow and then boost recruitment which will improve availability of the ships we do have.
We could see some quite quick I changes to be honest…the manpower issue takes money..you could get people back in the service, direct entry engineers all sorts of ways to get people if you have the money…china has an aim of being ready for war in 2027..we need to be doing the same.we have type 23 frigate sittting there rotting because it’s to expensive to lifex…just give it the budget it needs.
Could Westminster even be made ready for a 2027 war at peacetime refit rate? We’d need to speed up shipyard maintenance, with recruitment and training as well as the physical dry docks and facilities, I’d be surprised if we could manage it. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t try to increase that capacity, just that I don’t know if it would get Westminster ready. What it could do is speed up the upgrades to the T45s, and maybe get Kent and Northumberland finished a little faster.
Hi Jon..2027 needs to be the nominal target date around which most things are considered….but assessments are that china will be at the height of its geopolitics and economic power between 2027 and 2030 after that it will see various drags.. also in reality china will probably look for the long war..your not knocking nations like china and the U.S. out of a war quickly and they are essentially half the world apart ( the pacific is big) so any conflict will be over years and involve strategic exhaustion and a lot of attrition of naval vessels…so even if it’s… Read more »
Did anyone noticed Grant Shapps idea of where this money will be spent, high tech equipment such as anti aircraft missiles and manufacturing 155mm ammunition… Since when has 155mm ammo been high tech
Quite a bit, lot going in to extended range GPS guided shells at the moment and Britain is working on new GMLRS rockets for M270 that carry and deploy recon or suicide drones or multiple independent anti-tank warheads.
have you seem BAEs Bonus mr2 round…there are some very high tec 155mm rounds.
Bollocks. Total claptrap from a spiv shyster.
In response to the Ukraine crisis, Olaf Scholz announced a big uplift in German defence spending including €100b rearmament fund to restore and enhance equipment. In reality, little has been delivered. It takes time to increase production even of existing designs. Producing something new takes longer. So committing to a gradual rise over 6 years is probably the most effective approach. Existing commitments to Tempest and AUKUS will inevitably take a good chunk of any additional funding. The surface warships programme is already committed up to 2030. Major land vehicle procurement also runs to 2030. But we seem to have… Read more »
“The surface warships programme is already committed up to 2030” No it really isn’t. Babcock can cut first steel on extra ships starting in 2027 without even increasing current capacity, so knowing what needs to be built and getting contracts sorted is very much an immediate thing. BAES have just announced a step up in cadence at Govern which means they also will be able to take more on before the end of the decade (ships for next decade need the build to start this decade). We need to get the T32 programme out of Concept immediately and FADS into… Read more »
You’re right that T31 build should be concluded by the end of 2028 with all operational by 2030. What I was trying to highlight was how much new equipment included in the latest 10 year plan will be delivered over the next 6 years. The RN included T32, T83, MRSS, FAD in its numbers, ie everything it thought necessary to carry out its roles. With designs not finalized, it is impossible to say what might start construction by 2030. The army only included costs for approved and committed programmes. But what is clear is the number of major programmes that… Read more »
Looking at Venturer and Active the T31 build will run into the 2030’s,absolutely no way that they will finish building all 5 by 2028.
There are things that could be done to up the frigate production rates….for a start when the new BAE shed opens they could keep the old shed and external slip open and running..that would allow the concurrent assembly of T26 hulls…they could continue subcontracting T26 block work out to the smaller yards such as Appledore.. re the T31 they could lay down a strait order for another batch staring in 27.. They could also swallow their mistake and throw money at the T23s and ensure they all keep running until 2030. there would also be the option of speeding up… Read more »
Adding a peacetime rotor to the Rivers would mean adding Peregrine (Camcopter). I have no idea why it’s taking so long to put on to Lancaster. But despite the pretty picture of the Martlets, it would be useless for an uparmed River. We should see if we can speed up the Proteus build. The demonstrator was originally suppose to be in the air next year, but recent announcements have stopped mentioning the date. HMG put in a £60m contract, so increasing the budget to help it come faster wouldn’t break the bank. Then in the same way that they accelerated… Read more »
Time for out of the box thinking. Radakin was reported in today’s press as mentioning fast attack craft for the RN. So I think I see the plan; Type 32 will be a fast attack craft batch 3 River built by Ferguson Marine and crewed by illegal immigrants who will be offered service as an alternative to Rwanda. Be in service next year.
You say the whole immigration thing as a bit tongue in cheek..but service for citizenship is not a new concept infact it’s pretty valid…
We now essentially offer citizenship to those serving as Gurkhas as do the French foreign legion for those joining the legion( which casts a very wide net).
if it’s done right you could get some pretty skilled people ( the NHS does not offer citizenship and has been migrant dependent for a couple of decades now).
There’s a long history of that.
Roman auxiliaries were offered citizenship at the end of their (25 year) service, one of the main attractions of signing up.
Would it be a good idea to offer a similar system to the Commonwealth?
For example, the River world cruises are hardly critical to national security and would find it easy to act as a recruiting station and first posting for sailors from the Carribbean or Africa.
The announcement is almost meaningless unless Starmer supports the increase, and that the extra funding can be assumed to be available when developing the expected 2025 Strategic Security and Defence Review. Of course the strategy should drive the funding, but in practice the tail always wags the dog.
Despite the increase being back-ended, it is still good news for a raft of unfunded or under-funded MOD equipment projects which won’t be spending big before 2029/30, e.g. the RN’s T32 frigate programme.
I’m glad that Russia and any other threat will wait until after the election and when its convenient.
The 70,000 extra Cival Servents took on pre covid are getting the sack to pay for this, Alle the cash goes to Defence, about 70Billion..
I’d hope so. I know some of those civil servants. They’re useless flatulent wastes of space
Has the PMs Alarm clock ⏰ gone off .🤗 Happy he’s awake but still guy’s 2.5% , it should be at least 3% but still let’s try and smile 😃 🇬🇧
Does he think the economy is going to shrink that much !😅
Why announce this now rather than following the Integrated Review Refresh 23 a year ago? We know the answer – it is pure electioneering.
100% that. So disingenuous too. A smokescreen of BS to fool the voters that with NATO heading towards war, our forces are rosy rather than on their knees after devestating, foolish cuts throughout Tory rule. We’ve dangerously few troops & equipment nearly 10 years after Russia started nibbling at at her neighbours. Who was chancellor of the exchequer through much of that time who starved the MOD of funds & demanded cuts?
Polls showing Labour is now more trusted on Defence, low Tax, and Crime than the Conservatives. Finally given them a kick up the arse.
The only positive point is that it will allow labour to come out with a spending commitment on defence without getting hit with the “ your irresponsible, where’s the money coming from..your raising taxes we are cutting them” BS they would have been hit with…making defence an election point is really positive…it may actually be the first time I’ve seen it become a proper news worthy election point since the Cold War…
Spot on. Its all about setting traps for labour and positioning Rishi as heir to Churchill 🙂
What I really want to know is, does this mean T26 and T31 move forward more quickly now? Could they ask bae for another four T26 which means the workers go full pelt, build the extra one’s in the old shed and the type 83 built in the new shed two at a time and when T26 is finished use both sheds for type83.
I always favour a larger Navy but your all forgetting the critical factor, CREWS, they cant be manufactured like machines and experience takes time to grow. 2 T31’s can be manned for the cost of one T23 (give or take) but the mix has to be right to man them. The youth today just do not want to do hard work so a degree of encouragement needed there (you want something you have to give something that will benefit them and the UK in the long term). Uni Students once got their degree with mega debt could be offered a… Read more »
Hi Angus, crews are a problem but we need to try push the issue and see how we go, I’ve never believed a politician for many a year our system needs something different just don’t know what.
Truly I think this just fills in the funding gap that existed between planned equipment and paid for equipment. Meaning – unlikely to get much more hardware that is already planned
We have £16.9 Billion unfunded spending in MOD Equipment plans over a 10 year period 2023-2034.
That just got filled in by £75 Billion extra in the next 6 years. So yes there is now money for some reasonable, sensible uplifts in capability.
Nothing stupid but add a few more Frigates, Submarines, Typhoons, F35, MBT, SPG, MLRS across the board.
Oh and GBAD for U.K would be my only big extra.
In a word no ! Assembling on the slipway is a really bad way to build a ship these days, it’s slow and labour intensive so as labour is limited concentrate on efficient build. Which why we haven’t built Submarines outside for 4 decades ! The best way to increase the build rate (and it seems to be what they are actually doing) is to increase the rate of blocks that can be supplied to the New Assembly Halls. The main central blocks are the most complex so they will be built and largely pre outfitted in the 3 SBOH… Read more »
Thanks for the info mate much appreciated 👍
burning money like water right now?
We need to better understand what this means. We have funding based on a political target. How does that political target translate into actual defence capability. What underfunded programmes are now going to be properly funded? What defence vulnerabilities are going to be mitigated\resolved? Is it going to guarantee the existing force levels in the near term or are we still likely to see our armed forces reduced? We need our politicians to focus not on headlines but actually on delivering improvements in Defence. They need to get in the weeds and detail of their jobs and actually boss their… Read more »
The last thing we need is politicians concentrating on that. They often have absolutely no expertise beyond what will sound good in the press, such as our current PM. MOD Ministers are often, as Sir Robin Day famously commented about John Nott, “here today and gone tomorrow politicians”, who may have no military or departmental experience before they turn up to do the role. It’s rare they come with background and last as long as Wallace and Heappey. They need to delegate more and demand more, and not get too stuck in the weeds in their first couple of years.… Read more »
Jon I fully appreciate where you’re coming from with the need to remove “pushy idiots” from the decision making process. However it’s equally as bad to have a detached, disinterested leader who just signs off on what the leadership of an organisation tells him to do. The danger from that is we fall victim to low energy organisational behaviour and bureaucratic politics. A good organisation has an engaged leader who knows not just how their organisation should work optimally but also another 2 ways it could also be configured. What I’m advocating for is that our politicians should know the… Read more »
The only person who gets to decide that is the Prime Minister, who will pick a DefSec depeding on the criteria that seem right to them at the time. Nobody believes that Mr Shapps was picked because Sunak thought he’d be good for Defence. He was picked because Sunak wanted someone in cabinet in the election run-up who could handle TV and radio interviews. That’s why in his first week, Shapps wasn’t in MOD Main Building learning which service ran the aircraft carriers; rather he was doing the media circuit pretending he knew the difference between a plane and a… Read more »
Govt borrowing highest since 1960’s. Rishi only promises a target for 2030 but no military increase this year. Will be v hard to sell taking from NHS to give to mod.
We could start by taking away the triple lock on pensions strangling HMT’s budget
Upbeat article from Radakin in today’s DT; talking about long range missile battalions for the army and fast attack craft for the navy.
Where does he think we could use fast attack craft?
Surely that’s just River I replacement carrying 57mm and NSM?
Might mean the existing GMLRS regiments that are due to expand. The RA does not have “Battalions” 🙄
If so a bit of spin there.
Fast Attack Craft???? The SBS/SMG have at least 3 already but they’re FIC not FAC.
Maybe we’re joining the Norwegians in the Fjords!
My theory is Rishi has been reading You.gov polling data 🥴 And to be perfectly honest I don’t care what is behind this, but I’m glad it has happened.
I really can’t wait to see what Starmer does about it ! My gut reaction is he will wait to see the real detail and then stick it in his manifesto.
FYI the best indicator of the “wokist, liberal elite” waking up was probably Shapps being on Radio 4 this morning on the Today programme. The BBC didn’t grill him that hard which was a surprise !
So am I. It gives us something to hope for!
But I’d caution against too many shopping lists.
Let’s clear the black hole, fund what is already planned, build up weapon stockpiles, dare I say pay people better and improve recruitment.
Gradual increments in key areas, like those 2 extra E7s. Not go all out for a new BAOR which isn’t happening.
Radakin is politically astute and a good presenter. Probably a new paint job on the batch 1 Rivers 🙂
Getting positive coverage in the press – haven’t seen any negative coverage.
Have a listen to Shapps interview on Radio 4 Today programme this morning. It’s odd not hearing negativity about anything this Government does for once.
Interested to hear your view on it 🤔
What you are seeing is the Tory party election machine, which includes the majority of the quality and tabloid press, clicking into gear: carefully chosen ‘wedge’ issues that invite labour to shoot themselves in the foot by countering with something better which can only be done, allegedly, by increasing taxes or borrowing, while positioning Rishi as the statesmanlike leader of Europe. Let’s be honest; Sunak, Schults and Macron is hardly the ‘A’ team. Both parties keeping their manifesto cards close to their chest and their powder dry until the election date is announced. Best not to get carried away, what… Read more »
Does this mean more bods in uniform? A new armored brigade would come in handy right now.
Hopefully, but I doubt it. 3(UK) Div does not have a proper third armoured brigade – just a mash-up of Ajax and artillery pieces.
Not more than now, but it should stave off the next round of cuts.
Well, if some of the extra cash goes towards better pay and conditions, fixing up dilapidated housing and delivering on the equipment upgrades already planned but not fully budgeted for then hopefully that will mean that headcount slots that are currently unfilled can be filled which technically would be “more bods in uniform” even without any increase in official headcount caps/limits. In some cases sorting out recruitment could also effectively magic up extra assets out of thin air e.g. looking at the current state of the RN escorts as reported here and on Navy Lookout extra RN personnel could add… Read more »
HMS Albion and Bulwark to name but two. RFA Wave Knight and Wave Rider to name two more. And having the RFA on strike because we can’t pay them doesn’t help.
There’s one ex armed forces minister (not Ben Wallace) who I saw on a couple of TV news programs last night who was putting a very pragmatic spin on things. After enduring the usual set of questions – is it funded: what else will be cut to afford it? do we really need to do it? etc – he was then asked what extra stuff this spending increase would deliver. His answer was – nothing. I hope he’s exaggerating slightly to make his point, and he did go on to explain what he means. His position was that the increase… Read more »
Probably James Heappey, who having spent 4 years in MOD was passed over for the DefSec job. He has a recent understanding of what the money issues are, and I would be inclined to listen to what he has to say.
Thank you. Yes, that does sound familiar from yesterday’s introductions. Army I think, served in Northern Ireland amongst other places.
I agree re the credibility. If his “nothing” on growth is just a tiny bit of an exaggeration it’s certainly worth having that commentary out there to counteract the “this will buy us eleventy-twenty more F35s plus 10 new carriers” nonsense that I suspect might be incoming. (And I’m just a civilian with an interest in the military but I think I’ve learned at least enough to be able to filter out the obvious crazies.)
However, it would buy us some more kit, because although Heappey is right that it should be spent propping up what we have, the new politicos will want some of it spent on shiny shiny for their press conferences. So the black hole should be filled, but probably wouldn’t be. Heappey was in the Wallace mould and far too sensible for a Shapps MOD.
Anyway this all assumes Sunak & Co are re-elected. So we’ll never know.
Good point on the political motivations likely to lead to at least a bit of new “shiny shiny”. There is probably a half-way house though between what would be pretty much invisible to non military-watchers (housing refurbs, deeper munitions stockpiles etc) and totally new assets that even those of us here didn’t see coming and that is to make very tentatively announced programs actually happen. Here I’m thinking of things like T32 perhaps delivering up to 5 more frigates and MRSS with maybe 6 vessels to replace Albion, Bulwark, Argus and the three Bays – or at least that has… Read more »
If they actually do, this government is good at playing accounting games. For example why is Ukraine aid considered as part of the defence budget. It should be an entirely separate entity.
The way the press release is worded , it suggest a gradual increase to 2.5% year on year. I suspect the defence budget will remain frozen and during 2030 it will suddenly be boosted to 2.5.
Assuming they stay in power, which seems unlikely.
Completely irrelevant. In less than 12 months Rusty Shoebox won’t be Prime Minister. Still, at least he’ll have more time to work out ways for his wife to avoid paying tax 😅
Sadly the MOD is unlikely to actually got any of the extra money as Starmer and Labour spokesman have refused to support the Sunak’s statement. The Labour party line is that the MOD doesn’t need extra money, rather it needs to spend what it is already getting better. Of course the same could be said of the NHS – whose budget is three times the MOD’s. With the Labour Party promising to spend many £10’s of billions of money on policies ranging from rail nationalisation, free school meals, gender recognition support, increased child benefits, “green investment”, boosting social care, and… Read more »