Thank you for this sobering assessment. I wonder at what point does government simply decide that defence requirements drive the budget rather than the other way around? Reading this, I was reminded that in previous periods of rearmament Britain did not begin with an affordability envelope and then fit strategy inside it. Has Whitehall become so conditioned to peacetime Treasury discipline that it can no longer think in those terms?
All this will continue until a gutsy politician grabs the MoD and Treasury by the collar and get some answers. Failing to do so will end in catastrophic costs when we are dragged into a hot war. Pay now or pay much much more later.
At the risk of sounding naive: doesn't the delay simply demonstrate the weakness of the PM and his team? If the primary objective of any government is defence of the realm and the increase in spending is a requirement to achieve this objective (albeit incompletely), then who is calling the shots here? Any PM with a degree of authority would have acted by now-the Treasury should be there to provide options in achieving the overarching strategic objective.
The fact that defence procurement is suboptimal to put it kindly is simply a secondary issue.
These multi annual projects take so long that the product is possibly out of date by the time it arrives? Those two not so fancy carriers are a case in point. Aren't the manufacturers liable if they break down?
Hard to believe, but the QE carriers really are very fancy and some of the best ships at sea. Carriers are some of the most complex machines on earth and they all live in a perpetual state of maintenance and repair. The Charles De Gaul mostly lives in dry dock. The Cavour and Juan Carlos are not comparable. The US Nimitz class are ancient and the Gerald Ford was a disaster before it became a burnt out shell. The QE’s are good platforms today, but I don’t know if they will be relevant for the next four decades. It will be hard to meet future range requirements with a manned fighter. It is also very hard for a heavy UAV to have the right thrust ratio to get off a ski ramp. The Royal Navy says it has a plan. Maybe the boffins have found a magic wand.
It simply cannot be announced before Thursday 10.01pm, unless Starmer is going to resign and just hand things over to Burnham whilst he's at it. I'm sure there's all sorts of technicals about how it would not *technically* be a breach of purdah but nobody's going to buy that in Labour's present situation.
It's worth noting that Healey (who he? - Ed) and Starmer both used their PQs to say "before the NATO summit" so that at least isn't as woolly as Mark made it sound there.
Shashank’s irony is well placed. Underlying this matter is the ‘guns v butter’ issue. The Labour Party is not the natural ideological partner for this issue. The party that is , is fighting for political relevance. The PM has limited strategic application and diminishing influence. So Mark illustrates the results.
Beyond arming our forces with powerful rhetoric ( well intentioned l am sure ) we are stuck. To me the Defence Review looked like a clear pointer to the need to build powerful capabilities in our traditional areas of crucial self interests. That’s naval and air power. To deny the Russians the ability to interfere with our ( and by inference) European vital LOC. basically what we have done in various ways for centuries. We are a high trade island society. That has not escaped the attention of all 3 of our last major opponents we faced and all were defeated by our largely well established counters albeit by narrow margins. I instinctively and analytically feel noughts changed in that equation.
Interesting read, if rather sad and familiar story. I wonder, though, if the plan itself is the problem? Are Robertson’s ambitions simply too much for the perilous state of the Exchequer? If so, would it not be simpler to buy some off the shelf kit - Saab Grippens, South Korean APCs and tanks - as a stop gap? The Apache taken down by Iran does somewhat show the vulnerability of the really expensive kit.
OK, so if the defence budget "increase" to 2030, is an extra £13.5bn, inflation would require that the current 2024/25 Defence Spending of £60.2 billion, increases to £70bn by 2030 anyway - so the Government's defence "increase" only keeps track with inflation :-(
At the risk of sounding complacent and flippant isn’t it a relief that most of our potential friends and enemies seem to be suffering from similar difficulties. I exclude Iran and Ukraine obviously.
Thank you for this sobering assessment. I wonder at what point does government simply decide that defence requirements drive the budget rather than the other way around? Reading this, I was reminded that in previous periods of rearmament Britain did not begin with an affordability envelope and then fit strategy inside it. Has Whitehall become so conditioned to peacetime Treasury discipline that it can no longer think in those terms?
All this will continue until a gutsy politician grabs the MoD and Treasury by the collar and get some answers. Failing to do so will end in catastrophic costs when we are dragged into a hot war. Pay now or pay much much more later.
At the risk of sounding naive: doesn't the delay simply demonstrate the weakness of the PM and his team? If the primary objective of any government is defence of the realm and the increase in spending is a requirement to achieve this objective (albeit incompletely), then who is calling the shots here? Any PM with a degree of authority would have acted by now-the Treasury should be there to provide options in achieving the overarching strategic objective.
The fact that defence procurement is suboptimal to put it kindly is simply a secondary issue.
These multi annual projects take so long that the product is possibly out of date by the time it arrives? Those two not so fancy carriers are a case in point. Aren't the manufacturers liable if they break down?
Hard to believe, but the QE carriers really are very fancy and some of the best ships at sea. Carriers are some of the most complex machines on earth and they all live in a perpetual state of maintenance and repair. The Charles De Gaul mostly lives in dry dock. The Cavour and Juan Carlos are not comparable. The US Nimitz class are ancient and the Gerald Ford was a disaster before it became a burnt out shell. The QE’s are good platforms today, but I don’t know if they will be relevant for the next four decades. It will be hard to meet future range requirements with a manned fighter. It is also very hard for a heavy UAV to have the right thrust ratio to get off a ski ramp. The Royal Navy says it has a plan. Maybe the boffins have found a magic wand.
It simply cannot be announced before Thursday 10.01pm, unless Starmer is going to resign and just hand things over to Burnham whilst he's at it. I'm sure there's all sorts of technicals about how it would not *technically* be a breach of purdah but nobody's going to buy that in Labour's present situation.
It's worth noting that Healey (who he? - Ed) and Starmer both used their PQs to say "before the NATO summit" so that at least isn't as woolly as Mark made it sound there.
Shashank’s irony is well placed. Underlying this matter is the ‘guns v butter’ issue. The Labour Party is not the natural ideological partner for this issue. The party that is , is fighting for political relevance. The PM has limited strategic application and diminishing influence. So Mark illustrates the results.
Beyond arming our forces with powerful rhetoric ( well intentioned l am sure ) we are stuck. To me the Defence Review looked like a clear pointer to the need to build powerful capabilities in our traditional areas of crucial self interests. That’s naval and air power. To deny the Russians the ability to interfere with our ( and by inference) European vital LOC. basically what we have done in various ways for centuries. We are a high trade island society. That has not escaped the attention of all 3 of our last major opponents we faced and all were defeated by our largely well established counters albeit by narrow margins. I instinctively and analytically feel noughts changed in that equation.
Interesting read, if rather sad and familiar story. I wonder, though, if the plan itself is the problem? Are Robertson’s ambitions simply too much for the perilous state of the Exchequer? If so, would it not be simpler to buy some off the shelf kit - Saab Grippens, South Korean APCs and tanks - as a stop gap? The Apache taken down by Iran does somewhat show the vulnerability of the really expensive kit.
OK, so if the defence budget "increase" to 2030, is an extra £13.5bn, inflation would require that the current 2024/25 Defence Spending of £60.2 billion, increases to £70bn by 2030 anyway - so the Government's defence "increase" only keeps track with inflation :-(
At the risk of sounding complacent and flippant isn’t it a relief that most of our potential friends and enemies seem to be suffering from similar difficulties. I exclude Iran and Ukraine obviously.