The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said the Government will provide £2.2 billion of funding for the Ministry of Defence over the next two years.
Sajid Javid said the figure represented a real-terms increase of 2.6%.
According to the Government in a release:
“£2.2 billion in additional funding made available for the UK’s world-class Armed Forces will ensure they can continue to modernise and meet the ever-changing threats to national security.
This ensures the government will continue to exceed its commitment to grow the defence budget by 0.5% in real terms, with the UK continuing to exceed the NATO target.”
Takeaways:
-it’s a ‘real’ boost (not just in line with inflation)
-£1.2bn on capabilities
-£700m on pensionsCrucially
-£300m to fund “priority capability programmes”. That sounds like money to cover the black hole and absorb the £/$ fluctuations.
[H/t @pinstripedline] pic.twitter.com/psxovqDiMK— Henry Jones (@hthjones) September 4, 2019
In his announcement to the House of Commons, Javid said:
“We are one of only seven countries to meet the 2% commitment to NATO. Today we will go further still, with an additional £2.2 billion of funding for the MOD.
And a real terms increase of 2.6% for their budget next year.
Increasing again the share of our national income we spend on defence and national security. This year is the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings. We pay tribute to the sacrifices of the extraordinary generation of British soldiers who fought and died during that campaign.
And today I can announce £7 million of funding for the Normandy Memorial Trust to complete their memorial overlooking Gold Beach where so many troops came ashore.
And we will also support the veterans of today’s wars as well, as we confirm the funding today for the new Office of Veterans’ Affairs.”
£1.2bn….assuming the 3 services get roughly equal share of the cash then that’s around £4bn over 10 years for the RN. 2 extra T26’s and the rest on recruitment and retention perhaps?
From that MoD document pictured in the article… “up to an additional £1.2 billion to ensure the UK’s world-class Armed Forces can continue to modernise … This includes prioritising key capabilities such as cyber, shipbuilding and the nuclear deterrent;” So what to make of that? Surely the reference to nuclear deterrent must mean that whatever part of the extra £1.2 bn is going towards that is purely to fund cost overruns (black hole) in the budget for the existing plans since I’d be pretty sure it’s not going to expand the scope of the program beyond the announced 4 SSBN… Read more »
The suggestion is should Boris win this upcoming election – A significant increase is earmarked for Defence getting up towards what Jeremy Hunt was pledging during his leadership bid – Crica £15 Billion over 5 Years to take the spend on Defence to 2.5% of GDP by fiscal year 2024. I would imagine if that is true this £2.2 Billion would be part of that and to expect an additional £10 Billion+ over the next 4 years or so. A welcome boost allowing us to plug the ‘black hole’ (crica £7 Billion at the minute I think?) for planned spending… Read more »
That would be good, and for things like shipbuilding just the sort of spending that creates a pretty potent in-country economic stimulus for the UK economy which will be helpful and far more healthy than the debt-fuelled consumer spending boosts to the economy that we’ve seen in the past. Going up to 2.5% is about a 19% increase on the current claimed 2.1% (?) which, at about £42 bn (?) currently is an extra £8 bn in 2024 alone so, if £15 bn does get allocated to get us there over the next 5 years, that leaves £7 bn over… Read more »
Yeah for sure BoJo the clown is going to put £15 billion extra in to defence. I’ll put that up with every promise ever made by a Tory trying to win an election.
If you look carefully Martin you’ll notice the word ‘suggested’ at the very beginning of the post. Come an election we’ll get the opportunity to see a manifesto which outlines spending and we’ll see if it is in there for real. No other party would do any better – Defence doesn’t win votes – it’s not particularly high on anyone’s domestic agenda in fact. Our Armed Forces could do with the boost to meet future requirements so it may be more of a necessity rather than a vote winner – more so for a Brexit facing party looking to trade… Read more »
A reasonable assessment I would say!
And similar chuff promises by those clowns on the left! The left allways promise the world, but forget to say how it will be paid for. Jeremy and the puppet squad have promised just about everything to get elected, and suddenly they have decided not to bother…..strange!
God this clowns trying politics now
Stick to chewing lego bricks mate
Yaaaaaaawn, sorry did you try to say something?
As opposed to the honest Liberals? haha
Let’s hope it isn’t just an election gimmick.
I fear it might be. It is pretty easy to promise future funding and then invent reasons as to why you need to withdraw that funding. I mean it is not as if Boris is not well known for fabricating lies and turning 360. If all the money that the Government is currently promising was just lying around then surely the previous Government would have spent at least some of it? So either it is a false promise or it is money that could potentially put us back in a financially bad position especially given the money also needed to… Read more »
Lee, my understanding is that the money or ‘financial headroom’ has been due to the economy performing (over the last 4-5 years) apparently better than expected and it being sat on rather than spent due to Brexit uncertainty as opposed to being spent at the first opportunity. Still, I do fear it is mostly electioneering and bridge building with the American administration as Julian says below. The likelihood is that the extra money will go some way towards accounting for upcoming departmental shortfalls due to the economy stagnating not only due to Brexit but the global slowdown in general so… Read more »
I would say it’s less about electioneering and more about keeping Trump/Bolton happy. My reason being, since when has defence carried votes amongst the British electorate? This audience being a notable exception of course!
I wouldn’t be so sure. Defence and specifically the navy have been in the public view a lot more recently. Being seen as taking threats abroad seriously and caring about veterans could be a very nice feather to have in your cap
All parties should sign up to a real increase in the defence budget, year on year, not just over 2 years. It should then be enshrined in law.
Otherwise the next shambles comes in and dismantles it at a whim. I’m looking at you Corbyn McDonnell.
This is welcome, but let’s see the detail.
More people, more T31, more RFA, or as Julian suggests improvements to what our vessels are equipped with is the order of the day.
Cyber is classified and any money there disappears into its own black hole.
(Cyber) And rightly so! 🙂
You are right, the government can not give billions over two years, without thinking, there must be a military programming act that gives a goal to achieve in terms of the percentage of GDP allocated to defense and clear and costed projects.
I’m not a Corbyn supporter but remember the unnecessary and damaging cuts since 2010.
Still, quite odd I find myself thinking Trump is right about European NATO taking up more of the burden……
I know HF. Both parties make deep cuts. I myself remember the despair of the endless cuts under Labour 97 2010. I was not attributing blame, just expressing my fears.
fair enough !
I’m not a Corbyn supporter nor Tory, but cuts were, unfortunately, very necessary. The further from Labour’s disastrous period in office time takes us, the more opinion will soften on just how deep of an economic hole we were left in. Sadly, defence had to shoulder its share of the pain. What the Tories have got badly wrong is cutting without reform, leaving institutions still addicted to massive waste but starved of funds, resulting in huge frontline losses. Defence is no exception to this, and as there has been no competent attempt to reform how the public sector budgets, I… Read more »
You are blaming the financial crisis on Labour not the banks, here and abroad, who caused it. I didn’t agree with Labour’s dereg but Cameron and his party said dereg hadn’t gone far enough ! The first bank to fail was Lehman’s in the US – you can’t pin that on Labour. It was acknowledged by Labour that there would have to be cuts in the future but first the economy would have to be boosted. The cuts the tories made were purely ideological, aimed at pushing their failed (for most people) make the rich even richer, trickle down ‘economics’.… Read more »
One lands but a single blow and the mask slips.
Not sure what you mean. What mask was that ? What ‘blow’ did you think you were striking ? The only mask that seems to have slipped is that you’re ‘not a tory’. Only a tory could have posted that it was Labour ‘overspending’ that caused the world financial crisis in 07/08 because that’s the canard peddled by tories and the right wing press since it happened.
Quite staggering ignorance……
Putting things firmly back on topic, I do wonder, given the inevitability of a general election, how a possible Tory/Brexit coalition could affect the spending promises on defence in particular, given the hard left elements in the Brexit Party.
You haven’t explained how my ‘mask’ has slipped, or what blow you think you’ve landed as a coup de maine. You’re not ignorant, you know you’ve posted a load of rubbish. Look up who Stiglitz, (Nobel laureate for Economics) blames for the financial crash – the dishonesty and rule bending of the financial sector. A tory/brexit coalition ? Farage, formerly Brexit’s ‘leading light’ has not been able to get himself elected to Parliament. Such a coalition would destroy what’s left of the tory party as it’s moderates desert at the prospect. If that’s what you count as insight I’d go… Read more »
“but cuts were, unfortunately, very necessary” This was my comment from the other week This train of thought about how austerity was needed is a dying thought in the UK and one that’s not used by the overwhelming majority of economists today that have actual statistical data to make an analysis, where as the austerity argument was based on economic predictions, we can now, after its finished, analyse it, and the facts are in every country that imposed austerity, the harsher the measures the slower the economy grew, this is printed on a graph on the IMF website, the IMF’s… Read more »
He has no perspective, he’s just a troll, possibly a paid one from one of these spurious ‘think tanks’ and foundations’ funded by the illiberal elite – quite often from abroad – to frighten the horses.
Borrowing £150 Billion a year at 10% of GDP, was Not sustainable in the medium or long term, so had to be brought down quickly to near £100 Billion and on a downward path, as the economy grew again.
Keynes was not the all knowing final arbiter of economics, therefore neither is Keynesian economic theory.
For example if one subscribes to Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economic one would say “stop spending money you don’t have”.
I didn’t say he was
I just used a quote that makes sense from him
But even so, Keynesian economic theory still influences the West, and shaped the west’s economics, it’s well studied and respected.
Of all the replies, I have to say, I really didn’t expect one about the one sentence quote in the middle, questioning the use of the 20th centuries most influential economist, the guy who designed modern macroeconomics
So strange
And are you one that subscribes to that? do you want the US to stop borrowing?
No I am more a adherent of the Chicago School of Economics. Meaning not against VERY limited intervention in the economy. What I agree with in Austrian theory is the belief that their is nothing new under the sun and the buisness cycle is as unavoidable as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.
That kind of economics is why we have global recessions, the market left deregulated cannot be trusted, I would rather the people I vote for in office who’s job it is to look after the country as a whole play more of a part than people, sometime not even fellow nationals, making decisions where the lining of his own pockets is his main aim This thought is all well and good until the s**t hits the fan and then the state has to intervene, so we tell the state to f**k off and leave us alone most of the time… Read more »
No recessions happen because that is how buisness works expansion and contraction. As seen by the fact that governments who follow the recommendations of Keynesian economists STILL have recessions.
Also in Austrian theory the statement is mor along the lines of “I see the cause, what of it?” Every action by governments only causes unanticipated reactions by economies. You can fix one cause and merely trigger another.
The economy except for efforts to curtail monopolies and keep foreign companies from unduly preying on the market, is best left alone as much as possible.
That’s not how business works at all You go to a group of investors for your new business and tell them that after a few years of growth you’ll start losing money rapidly, the bottom will fall out, you will have to make redundancies and get financial assistance to stop it getting worse and try turn it around You would be laughed out the office the a boot up your a””e for good measure Just because in modern macroeconomics it seems as though there is a pattern based on probability that the US therefore the U.K. and the rest will… Read more »
If Investors did not ask about my plans for dealing inevitable bad times I would be worried about how they got their sanity.
Governments cannot prevents recessions they can only CAUSE them. For an example see Venezuela. If civil servants were competent at running businesses and the economy they would be small business owners and CEOs. Only the willfully ignorant or the ideologically blinded trust government officials with the economy.
What inevitable bad time? I know business owners that have grown since they started 15 years ago and always made a profit, you’re trying to say that business is expansion and then contraction and that is wrong, you can make sure you have things in place to help through bad times, if there is bad times, but as a business owner you do everything possible to avoid it, and if you do go through it you can guarantee that a top down change in the business will take place, but a business contracting is not inevitable, only the wilfully ignorant… Read more »
I use business for the economy because business is the economy. You know the exchange of goods and services the making of the green stuff with the pictures of dead Presidents. How would you characterize Venezuela other than government intervention? Divine intervention? The two largest recessions in the last hundred years were solved by time and market corrections beyond the control of the government. Or you are one of shallow charlatans who believes World War II ended the Great Depression? Then you are suggesting perpetual warfare as a way to solve economic crisis. That would be rather unsustainable not to… Read more »
You never at all, you said business is expansion then contraction and i corrected you, now you’re stating the complete obvious saying business is the economy, bloody hell my head hurts with you I would not use Venezuela because like i said at the very beginning (if you were even paying attention) is “I would like the state to play more of a part” that does not mean on the scale of Venezuela does it, far from it in fact The great depression was ended with government monetary policy, tax cuts, opening up of trade, all decided and enacted by… Read more »
“It’s never debate only argument”, pot meet kettle.
The danger of allowing government intervention is the proponents are always one more regulation or one more spending program away from fixing what they see as a problem and are then shocked when the whole thing collapses on their heads.
Hmm not free thinking or possessing of rational thought? I doubt we define the concept the same way. But you are entitled to your own opinion.
And still boring and repetitive the second time lad! The majority of Labour spending was with money they didn’t have on projects they thought would buy votes, or on equipment for wars they got us involved in and couldn’t extract from without bad press!
You mean too much for a Lego muncher to understand
The majority of every government spending for over 200 years has been with money they didn’t have, including each and every conflict we have ever been involved in
You really need to work in your repertoire! Still low score but I expect that’s what your used to! Never mind eh lad!
Munch munch
Keep dancing to my tune lad, this is so easy!
You remind me of the knight in Monty Python’s ‘The holy Grail’…’only a flesh wound’. Your arguments are not clever just cheap!
Ah Herodotus to the rescue eh!
Nobody needs rescuing from your vacuous comments…other than yourself that is!
Thank you for holding, your call is important to us…
Not actually true, before WW1, governments raised new taxes to pay for wars, and they did borrowe as well, but after a war had ended, budget surpluses were accrued over a long period to repay most of the National Debt. Most of the debt from the Napoleonic War was repayed, it just took a very long time to do so.
But since WW1 No attempt has been made to repay most of the National Debt.
Yes it is and no we didn’t
We raised taxes to pay the interest on the new borrowing we were doing, you may have heard we raised taxes to pay for wars etc, but the reality is the taxes were raised so we could pay off the interest on the borrowing
We have borrowed for every major conflict for over 300 years, probably more.
The Fact is the UK repayed Most of the National Debt from its peak in 1815 at 260% of GNP, down to 25% of GNP in 1914, not just on the interest.
Of cause there were small spikes in borrowing along the way down, but it was mainly down hill until 1914.
Welcome, I did expect anything. I too am worried if Labour get in. I reviewed their RUSI presentation last year, yeah 2% but it we would lose key capabilities and focus to focus on peace keeping and humanitarian roles, it would be like the foreign aid budget boast :).
This is only as worthy as the current government remaining in power? Judging by the past few days that may be shorter than some would like. I get the impression that Boris’s gang would support UK defence more rigorously than some other parties? However, that’s only an impression. If as I fear for future defence budgets, an early election could result in a more liberal-minded parliament. If that be the case, such an election could possibly not come at a worse time for the MOD.
So basically this staves off any further cuts for another 12 months or so, assuming a new Government doesn’t row back on this pledge. Only sustained and guaranteed funding increases will enhance capability. A good start mind.
So almost half’s going on pensions! We havent always included dam pensions in the defence budget have we! With all the mass cuts we still manage to spend almost the same! Clever accounting.
As some below have said, I take this with a large grain of salt. Johnson is smart, but has not historically shown himself to be trustworthy to any geat extent when it comes to pledges etc. These spending increases come alongside the “end of austerity” and spending on a number of different deparmtents across the board; to me that smacks of election point-making. Besides, with the economy looking set to shrink for a second quarter in a row, what he’s bascially doing is rowing back on all the justifications the Tories have made since 2010 about balancing the books and… Read more »
I never realised that the author of that twitter report is the son of Lt Colonel H Jones.
Respect.
He gets a lot of stick on twitter from paper journalists because he’s seen as stepping on their “professional” toes. In my humble opinion his pieces are far more informative than anything I have read in black and white for a good while.
Hi Daniele, Henry Jones is a grandson of H. Henry’s father, Major General Rupert Jones is one of H’s two sons.
Hmmm, not as good as first thought once you look at the breakdown. Massive chunk set for pensions (have these not already been allowed for in the current budget?), and the rest spread out across multiple areas leaving little for actual an increase in capability. After watching BJ yesterday, I am left in no doubt what so ever that he is totally untrustworthy and knows full well the damage a no deal Brexit will do. This uplift will end up only covering the reduced budget due to a likely recession from a hard Brexit and leave us where we are… Read more »
I very much think the RN would get better value to procure VLS Astutes(with silos).
And to develop FC/ASW to as future deterrent.
We already have our Astutes long lead parts ect.
It will be a matter of adding an extra compartment(merging).
on the ones not completed, the whole program is behind anyway!
It will be almost certain that Trident will be cancelled under Corbyn, he will do anything he to do so!
I can’t see this realistically happening with so much other stuff competing for limited budget. I do hope though that the Dreadnought design team will move almost immediately on to the design for an Astute successor where it would make sense to make use of the Dreadnought Common Missile Compartment which I believe was at least intended to have the capability to do more than just host Trident and to also be adaptable to host multiple cruise missiles and even special forces equipment. If all that flexibility did make it into the final CMC design then it would make a… Read more »
When you think about it, spending more on cyber is the perfect answer to all MOD / policitcal problems. No one can prove or disprove that the money has actually been spent, as it’s virtual and so you can state grand statements like X billion towards cyber security without risking anyone brining you up on what the money is actually being spent on and where is the output, because this all secret
The liberals in Britain are just like the liberals in America. They are more interested in opening the borders to migration than they are in national defense and protecting their own citizens. Liberals know that every migrant they allow in will almost certainly vote for them if/when they ever become able to vote.
Inaccurate claim – NO gun control doesn’t protect citizens and many (settled) Latinos in the US vote GOP
This is a piece of good news as far as I am concerned.