The Spectator

How to fix our defence budget mess

It’s never a good idea to define achievement purely in terms of spending – but it’s a worse one to guarantee aid spending while not doing the same for defence

Getty Images 
issue 28 March 2015

With the exception of 1983, when Michael Foot promised unilateral nuclear disarmament, defence has played little role in modern election campaigns. This is not least because the two main parties appear to have developed a non-aggression pact. They have agreed to heap praise upon the armed forces and commit them to ever more frequent foreign campaigns — while simultaneously nibbling away at the defence budget to fund programmes which offer more instant gratification to the electorate.

This week, as the news emerged of Russia’s plan to lease 12 long-range bombers to Argentina, the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, announced the results of the latest review into how we protect the Falkland Islands. He promised to spend £180 million over ten years improving the military base on the islands, including better housing and a new primary school. While that is all welcome, it does not address an underlying deficiency of our armed forces: we are trying to defend the legacy of Britain’s centuries as a great maritime power with a navy that is a shadow of its former self.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in