In a recent Defence Committee meeting, officials were pressed on whether the defence budget for the upcoming year represented an increase or cut.
Witnesses examined included Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Defence; David Williams CB, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence; Tom Wipperman, Strategic Finance Director; and Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan KCB CBE, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability).
Grant Shapps opened the discussion by addressing the committee’s concerns over budget transparency. “I think the confusion on the day is that when the Treasury publishes its numbers, you are not comparing apples with apples; you are comparing apples with oranges,”
Shapps explained, indicating that supplementary expenditures, such as Ukraine support, were not initially included in the figures. He asserted that, once these were accounted for, there appeared to be a 1.8% real-terms increase in the defence budget.
However, this explanation did not satisfy committee members, with Mr Mark Francois accusing the government of employing “smoke and mirrors” tactics. “You have suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Treasury, you have had your budget cut by £2.5 billion, and you are now trying to play smoke and mirrors with the Ukrainian money to pretend that your budget has not been cut, when it has been slashed,” Francois pointedly remarked.
Amid the heated exchanges, David Williams attempted to clarify the situation by emphasising the distinction between core spending and supplementary funding. Despite efforts to provide a detailed breakdown of the budget figures, questions persisted regarding the real impact of the budget on the UK’s defence capabilities and transparency in accounting.
Seems it was all a lie that the Ukraine assistance wasn’t coming from the MOD and instead a separate pot provided by the treasury. At least its going to a worthy cause that makes us ultimately safer by wiping out Russian ability to wage war but a lie never the less.
Reducing British military capabilities is to help russian agression, with China , Russia, Red sea and middleast crisis It has only onev word. Traitors
Who in their right mind ever trusts what comes out of Westminster, they lie with forked tongue. False accounting to make it up to the 2% GDP NATO asks for such as adding in military pensions which have already been paid for and the National Deterrent that was always a separate cost now included etc etc. It’s a disgrace. Our Armed Services are far too small for what they are expected to do. So much money wasted on projects that fail and woke leadership. No wonder no one wants to join up yet we let the country to be invaded… Read more »
All those that live in the UK should be MADE to serve in some capacity before they get the right to vote.
Thats very unlikely to happen, more likely 16 years and EU citizens will get the vote, especially as the next government will have a super majority, they will be able to make structural changes that will cement power.
And before I get shouted down by other posters, I’m not saying this will happpen just more likely than Angus’s suggestion that everyone should serve before being allowed to vote.
To be fair the younger generation is the majority of workers in the country and so why shouldn’t they get a vote on how the country works.
Also I don’t see an issue with someone from overseas that lives here and pays taxes here having the vote.
The younger generation that do currently have right to vote don’t really use it as they don’t truth the system, but that’s another issue.
You right, but then so should someone applying to.live here after all they will be paying UK taxes. We could allow kids to vote they have a stake in the future of the country. The point is you have to draw a line somewhere.
There’s a pretty good reason why a political party wants new groups to vote and its not because they will vote for the opposition. And the purpose is to ensure they hold power so no matter how admirable I think it maybe its actually sinister in its objectives.
My above reply to myself was meant to be a reply to yours.
I’ve always been anti under 18s voting because I always felt they didn’t have a developed life view but maybe that’s needed to change the mess that is politics and if your old enough at 16 to sign up for the army and die for your country, surely your old enough to vote.
Steve I’m not saying 16 year old shouldn’t vote but its that motivation behind it. It’s to cement power rather than the rights of voters.
im probably being a bit nieve here, time will tell could be very wrong, but i don’t think starmer is all about power, i think he really wants to clean up polictics after seeing the impact of it as a human rights lawyer/procecutor.
rest of the labour party is a different question.
Hmm. I think the political class is quite arrogant. He may believe he wants to clean up politics, but he may feel never letting the opposition back in power again is a good way of doing that. The bottom line politicians do think the other party should be in power.
If he was really wanting better representation he’d be push for proportional representation not first past the post.
I think PR may be coming. Labour can’t announce it until they are in power, as the media will go nuts over it, linking it to all sorts of bad things as they know they woulf struggle to control policticans under it. Labour needs to get in first and then maybe have a referendum on it in their second term. We will see.
Don’t know why Labour would be interested in PR. They will have a mega majority under the current system. In future PR would potentially throw them in tie ups with other parties to form government. PR would see the possibility of the likes of Reform power sharing with the Tories. PR is great foe overall voter representation but actually, the result can be a smaller party holding the balance of power and forcing their policies on whoever decides to link up with them. So you have a parliamentary balance that’s representative but the political class abuse it to benefit a… Read more »
It was voted on by the Labour members and supported heavily and also Blair had intended to implement, so we will see.
I am not 100% sold on it though. Every system has its pros and cons.
I’d agree PR works in a lot of countries so no reason why it wouldn’t work here.
I’m not a fan of hung parliaments but that’s possible with our current system also as we had prior to 2019, really it was a bad time for the UK as nothing really got done for 5 years
That’s one of my concerns also, but could just be teething problems. Saying that I’m not sure much has been done over the last few years with Conservative in fighting and they have a massive majority.
Something like a single transferable vote like they had in london might be better.
I’ll add I think any changes to the political system should go to referendum it shouldn’t be a choice that’s wrapped up with a party manifesto, it’s to big a decision for that. That would include things like 16 year old and other groups allowed to vote.
They have 16 year old voters in Scotland but not for the national elections. Look at Scotland, and ask yourself how that’s woking out.
Dont send 16 years olds overseas to fight do they.
Politicians rarely lie, they just good at spinning a response so it makes it sound different or not answering questions. Boris really started the whole just lie and don’t worry about it mentality.
In this case it was a straight up lie.
No Taxation without Representation ! Does that sound familiar and how did that work out ?
So a person who has worked for over 40 years, paying Taxes doesn’t get a vote !
Do me a favour go look up 2 words “Democracy” and “Serfdom”.
Oh and for every adult in UK (18 to 40) to qualify and “have served” we would probably need an Armed forces of roughly 1.5 million with an annual intake of about 1 million.
Can you pay their wages please ?
He said serve in some capacity, I think you should be asking for that to be defined before going off on one.
I just can’t understand introducing woke doctrine into the Armed Forces. That sort of stuff is a complete turn off to the average male recruit. Next up who knows? The leadership has lost it. I wouldn’t join up under the present terms because I ask myself what ever happened to the values I thought UK stood for: Truth, Family, etc, etc.?
Well the UK has to choose between healthcare, pensions and defence. We spend inordinate amounts on social welfare and the NHS but the armed forces have always been at the bottom of the list.
Sadly no political party will change that. Labour certainly won’t and will most likely make things worse.
Non of that’s actually true though, we have some of the lowest spending in the OECD on health and government pensions and we pay some of the lowest taxes in the OECD. Simple answer is taxes need to go up and not just for high earners but everyone. The UK got buy for too long on its magic money tree of the city of London and Scottish oil both of which are now largely gone.
👏🏼
In 2020-21 (the last set of data available) the UK spent 44.6 billion on defence, 36 billion on public order and safety, health 218 billion, education 96 billion, and social protection 300 billion (all figures from UK gov treasury reports). The value of UK public service pension scheme liabilities eclipsed 100 per cent of GDP in 2021 (as reported by the FT) and are increasingly unaffordable as less people work and the UK population ages.The UK tax burden has increased the fastest and is at a historical high (according to the OBR, 2023) and health spending is literally the OECD… Read more »
I agree, above 45K people are paying 50% to the government in NI and Tax then another 20% in Vat when they spend it. That’s 70% handed back to the government. Who in their right mind thinks thats to little.
Not to mention the various claw backs that happen like reduction in child allowance over 50k.
Ah nope, I can see from the HMRC site I pay 12% for the countrys debt so actually reducing debt would be a better option. Thats 12% that if we’d balanced the books, I’m taking aim at both Labour and the Tories, we’d all be better off today and have more fund for defence and educate our children. Logically getting more people back into work would reduce welfare which could pay down debt resulting in a double reduction in 2 of the top 3 government out goings. And why do we need to pay more tax, why not encourage more… Read more »
Too true.
We spend roughly the same as France. Yet they seemingly have more ships, tanks and planes than us. They even build our nuclear power stations for us. The problem in this country is rotten, unaccountable government, which can see no further than the end of its nose. I mean how much is HS2 costing now? Pigs and trough come to mind.
For one thing France has numbers but misses out alot of the expensive enablers such as air to air refueling, heavy lift, their subs are smaller and by all accounts nukes less capable.
We need to decide if we can afford the best of everything like we used to or if “good enough” is good enough
France is in even worse financial shape than the UK with debt something silly like 112% GDP. They are considering cuts to welfare and (tried) to raise the pension age, not to mention trying to woo business by loosening employment law and having pro business mentality. I agree that they spend more wisely but even then the French gov are spending way beyond its means.
There are quite a few ways to claw government money back and put it toward our military.
Just a couple of examples:
Cut all foreign aid to countries that have a military that’s larger than ours e.g. Pakistan.
Abolish government grants to religious-based charities.
Take money-wasting private enterprise (e.g. Capita) off the MOD bankroll.
etc….
I think you’ll find healthcare has been cut badly & run into the ground deliberately in the Tory dream of dismantling the NHS. Goal posts keep moving on pensions too. We pay more to get less. Time Tory dogma was binned.
The Committee can’t seem to clarify the requirements for information any more than the military can clarify the requirement for equipment. David Williams is the Permanent Secretary of the MOD, a government department. He has a budget and is interested in publishing and defending how the budget has been spent. That’s what the PAC want, that’s what the NAO audit, it’s what he was expecting to be quizzed on, but it’s NOT what the Defence Select Committee was interested in. They wanted to know whether the money going to fund UK military capability was increasing or decreasing year on year.… Read more »
Great summation Jon, thanks for the insight.
You’d think with the increase of MoD civil servants year on year since 2016 they could actually supply some details.
The Treasury is superb at asking for information and every figure they ask for they get. Everything is broken down just as the Treasury wants. The Treasury has become so good at asking that it’s almost unthinkable that anyone else might need different figures. Many consider the Treasury’s viewpoint the only true view of Government.
The Defence Select Committee keep trying to use the Treasury-mandated numbers, designed by accountants for accountants. They have to figure out what they actually need and ask for it unambiguously. If they don’t get it, it won’t be down to civil servants.
The government keep harking on about the Economy ,no money in the pot .But if the Economy grows we’ll rise the Defence budget to 2.5%GDP ,oh really big deal 🙄 that’s no were near enough .At the end of the day we all know the government have no Ambition to grow defence and simply not interested or a Labour government .
Should really be rising it to 3% immediately and if the economy grows, raising it beyond that.
Couldn’t agree more Steve 👍
Absolutely, it’s time the public woke up and see what is happening in east Europe and the issues in the Red Sea. The impact this is having on the security of the UK. The government is wasting the opportunity to use current events to explain the case for defence increased spending.
Cheers
George
To be honest, I wonder if more of the general public may have actually woken up to this issue, but the Government line is always “no votes in defence” so won’t touch the issue until after the general election.
I don’t think pledging more money to defence now will necessarily attract many more voters, but neither do I think that it will turn many people off.
If the economy grows then in cash terms the defence budget is higher. If the economy shrinks then in cash terms the defence budget shrinks.
If the economy grows but our outgowings also grow at faster pace then there’s still no money for defence. Good example is the 12% of my taxes that pay public debt. We need GDP per cpaita growth not based on more people, otherwise the money is chucked back into services to feed the needs of the larger population.
Under the circumstances a competent PM would be personally intervening to ensure that the Treasury doesn’t short-change the MOD.
Totally, Ian. How can these so called intelligent people be so unintelligible at times? Why don’t they just straighten up their act and show some pride in the 🇬🇧 and its armed forces and people. Stronger leadership is needed from the PM and his ministers top down.
Sadly we are in an election year and neither party yet are willing to show their hands on Defence spending. No doubt it will be an election issue!! Hopefully the Chancellor has already thought through his response. Taking into account who was his father i hope he wil do the right thing. Commit to 2.5% with a view to raising to 3% over the parliament term. Along with a Defence Industry Industrial investment plan. This should be the absolute minimum whether you are Blue or Red.
I remember when Jeremy Hunt made his attempt at the Tory Party leadership contest he said he’d increase defence spending massively. I think at the time he said by around £16 billion a year.
Not surprising that now he’s Chancellor he’s completely forgotten that pledge.
whilst the % is sort of important, its capabilities I want politicians to commit to. You can spend and huge chunk of 2% on expensive groundsman for the MoD estate but that won’t win wars but you can still boast 2% defence spending.
With all these bad stories about poor the state of the Armed forces, no wonder no one wants to join. The heads of Military are to blame as they worry about beards, re naming rifemen some thing gender free and getting in to the House of Lords its on THIER watch this has happened. When did it mean being head of the military meant you just took it and shut up or went along with it. And yes the current government has totally fiddled the figures less is spent on the military now as every thing else has been added… Read more »
There is a review to rename Riflemen to a gender free name? Tell me that’s just an exaggeration and not real…
no lie its being considered as its offence to have names like kingsmen, craftsmen,guardsmen etc you would thing those in charge had way bigger issues to address. No wounder the Army is so crap now and more leave than join. Its lost direction its sad what mess.
Yes you are right, although it’s more discussion and review to counter criticism from women in the service that male domination is cemented with masculine names line ‘guardsman’. I saw a comment from women within the Army who is fiercely proud of the masculine-coded rank, the female section commander said “Be really clear, don’t you dare take this rank away from me, because I am proud to be a rifleman. That’s my rank as much as it is yours.” Most wars are fought by men, I’m talking about the brutal sharp end of that is, you know stabbing someone in… Read more »
The heads of the Army worry about rubbish like that while the whole thing is a mess having served my 22 it is to me bloody annoying. Yes its the new woke way and the lack of money is down to the Government of the day, but you have to ask how did get in to this mess, vehicles in some cases twice as old as the people crewing them, lack of spares, lack of Ammo, the Army half is what it was when i joined yet we can not equip it. Stop blaming the Government its time blame the… Read more »
When you have a chancellor that has gone on record saying “defence spending doesn’t win votes”, that says it all. The people in government don’t care about looking after the country, they’re only bothered about trying to keep their jobs.
Hmmm, if the Tories were only worried about keeping their job they’re done a very poor job of it, most will be unemployed by the end of the year.
I never said they were competent at it
You need serious people to make serious decisions – and we don’t have enough serious people in charge.
Liar,liar,pants on fire 🔥 😍, we already know they were lying bxxxxxxds,I’m glad their facing wipe out and then the truth will come or will it with the next pile of shit in the house of corruption 😉 🤔
Accepting that all politicians lie is the first step to an important realisation. Politicians cannot be trusted. Politicians are bought by lobbyists. And who Rupert Murdoch “likes”. The MIC milk the public via tax and spurious promises about wonder weapons/systems. Only when there is drastic change of our political system, ie accountability of politicians and civil servants, will you see light. Sadly the British public are largely stupid, ie thick. And campaigning for change, a waste of time. Maybe we need that war. Then the great unwashed will wake up.
Harsh but true, not the brightest lot,
Yeah, I have had this conversation with some of my more ‘left-leaning’ friends:
“If you wait for the right government or the right set of politicians, to fix your problems then you will be waiting a long time”.
Having said that though I do not think I would want to be an MP myself these days given we live in an age that is rife with misinformation and vexatious ad hominem attacks.
Churchill once said more or less, “if you want to see the problem with democracy, speak to the average voter for five minutes”. You only have to look at Scotland this week to see where the problem lies.
The treasury counts forces pensions as part of the 2% GDP, that’s a fudge if you ask me.
Looking forward to these die hard cutters getting cut from their roles as ministers & MPs. See how they like some austerity. Here we are barrelling towards war with forceseven too small for peacetime, deterring nobody.
Support to Ukraine really should have come out of either the Treasury’s Contingency Fund or the Foreign Office budget, in my opinion.