Defence spending will fall -- and rightly so

Britain, a warrior nation, will be forced to take a more pragmatic approach

All governments are reluctant to cut defence spending, or rather be seen to do so. With Britain's self-image as a warrior nation and its belief that its armed forces really are "the best in the world", no politician will freely admit to reducing the defence budget.

But it is increasingly clear that the next government will have to make cuts of roughly 10-15 per cent in real terms. Even the Tories, who still see themselves as the party of the armed forces, will have to slash the defence budget if they are to maintain their commitment to ringfence health and international development spending.

The latest report from the Royal United Services Institute shows how these cuts could shrink the armed forces by up to a fifth (see graph). Although we can expect no mainstream Labour or Tory figure to make it, there is a strong case, given the £178bn Budget deficit, for cutting defence spending.

RUSI - RUSI NEWS_1263377865110

Data published by the Stockholm Peace Research Institute in 2009 placed the UK fourth in a table of the top ten military spenders in current US dollars. The US led the table, spending $607bn on defence, with China in second place, spending $84.9bn. France came in third place ($65.7bn) and the UK was just behind with $65.3bn. British defence spending as a percentage of GDP is 2.6 per cent.

Many will assume that Britain should fight to maintain its position in the international pecking order, but that ignores an alternative approach. Instead of struggling to project power abroad, we should focus on pursuing fairness at home. This means prioritising spending on education, health and anti-poverty measures.

In the post-recession world, this sceptred isle will be forced to become a more pragmatic and modest nation. The £20bn renewal of Trident, little more than a national virility symbol, must be cancelled. Military intervention abroad, humanitarian or otherwise, will become increasingly unthinkable.

It is a case that Labour should be prepared to make. As James Purnell wrote in his excellent Guardian article this week, by conceding that major spending cuts are needed in some areas, the government will be in a better position to argue that the deficit must not be cut at a rate that threatens economic recovery. Let's hope that Labour's "radical manifesto" reflects this truth.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.