The UK spent 2.5% of its GDP on Defence in the last budget year. This amounted to £46.1bn but we already know that, thanks to Liam Fox’s foot-stamping, the MoD’s budget will decrease by only 7.8%, down to £42.5bn, for 2011/12.
Now I personally believe that, given all the stomach-churning belt-tightening and belly-garroting that’s going on in other budgets, that this 7.8% is too small. We shouldn’t be expensively gallivanting around the world as the self-appointed world’s policeman more than other countries do, especially while we charge students tens of thousands for degrees, hold back investment on Renewables and make hundreds of thousands unemployed. Furthermore, we meddling Imperialists shouldn’t be building £34bn nuclear weapons just so that we can cling onto our grossly undeserved permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
I know that the above doesn’t have to happen because there are other countries out there who have quite happily eschewed onerous defence spending and unnecessary nuclear weapons, four of them in Scandinavia.
Per the latest information that I could find, Sweden spent 1.3% of its GDP on Defence, Norway 1.3%, Denmark 1.4% and Finland 1.3%. It’s almost not worth taking an average given how consistently peaceable the Scandinavians have been but let’s go with 1.325% anyway.
Were the UK to adopt the same approach and drop spending to a Scandinavian ratio of GDP at this Wednesday’s Comprehensive Spending Review, we would be saving £21.7bn per year. 21,700,000,000 of extra cash every single year. That’s over £80bn for the rest of this parliamentary term.
That’s a lot of tuition fees, a lot of wind turbines, a lot of new schools, a lot of welfare cheques and a massive head start on high speed rail.
While delivering once in a generation cuts is the perfect time to shake off the old British mentality of needing the biggest stick in the playground. I know it won’t happen but I thought it was well worth pointing out just how much money is available to be painlessly saved.
#1 by James on October 18, 2010 - 10:19 am
From Twitter. “Hospitals: protect yourselves against cuts by putting HMS in front of your name and letting fighters land on your roof”.
Not that there are any suitable aircraft even to use these carriers, I understand.
#2 by Anon on October 18, 2010 - 3:08 pm
Painlessly? You’re talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs lost – service personnel, civil servants, industry and civilians employed in local economies. That’s the end of Barrow and Govan for example. But then I suppose there’s no votes in Defence so who cares about that then.
The GDP figures don’t tell the whole story of Scandinavian defence. Per capita, Norway spends more than the UK with Sweden and Denmark not far behind us. If we reduced our defence spending as % GDP to Scandinavian levels as you suggest, we’d be spending less than half what Norway spends per capita. So much for the Scandinavians chosing less onerous levels – they’re actually some of the highest in the world. With the dash for Artic resources and a resurgent Russia in the region, the Scandinavians are actually likely to increase their defence spending further in the future.
As for 7.8% cuts not being enough. Unlike other Government Departments the MOD budget remained flat, even falling, as commitments rose. In other words Defence has been repeatedly cut over the past 13 years. Meanwhile Health and Education spending rose well above inflation for little gain. Instead of ringfencing the NHS or Education, we should be looking at where all that money went, not blindly throwing more into those blackholes.
And finally, who should take over our Anti Drug patrols and humanitarian support in the Caribbean? Who should protect British merchant shipping and keep sea lanes open? Who should fulfil our responsibilities to the Oversea Territories?
#3 by Jeff on October 18, 2010 - 9:43 pm
Anon, if the argument that we need nuclear weapons just to provide jobs is stupid then it is also so for the Military as a whole. Do we build battleships cos we need battleships or do we build battleships just to string along an outdated workforce for another decade or so? If it’s the former, fine, if it’s the latter, it doesn’t sound like value for money.
Yes, cutting back on Military spending will result in job losses but with £20+bn to play with I’m sure we can put the unnecessary manpower to work elsewhere. DId I mention the massive amount of Renewables investment we need? Perhaps there’s more job satisfaction in building the infrastruture that will save the planet than in building vessels of war.
Furthermore, I would wager that the most flab in the MoD budget is arsenal-related rather than personnel.
Also, Richard answers your questions on ‘who should…’ better than I could.
#4 by richard on October 18, 2010 - 8:56 pm
who should take over our Anti Drug patrols and humanitarian support in the Caribbean? – How about the US doing more of their own donkey-work?
Who should protect British merchant shipping and keep sea lanes open? – British merchant shipping only needs protection in one area, namely the Gulf of Aden and Western Indian Ocean. There is currently a multi-national task-force there, but the area is so vast that not even the entire RN could protect every ship. The Singaporean, or even Liberian merchant fleets are far bigger than what the British fleet is now – I don’t see Liberian Naval vessel patrolling the Dover Strait to “keep it open”.
Who should fulfil our responsibilities to the Oversea Territories? – I’m not even going there…