Defence policy has not often been influential in British general elections. But judging by their election manifestos, the three main parties seem to think it might be an issue this time around.
Unsurprisingly, given recent experiences, the Labour manifesto has a lot to say about defence; beginning with a summary of the strategy for Afghanistan and a stark prediction of what failure there might mean. Counter-terrorism and domestic security are discussed, and Labour rightly claims credit for the new National Security Strategy. Yet while a good deal is made of a ten per cent increase in defence spending since 1997, no mention is made of inflation in the cost of equipment and personnel, which has consumed this increase and much more. And since the December 2009 defence announcement it can no longer be claimed, as Labour does, that the cost of operations in Afghanistan is additional to the core defence budget and covered by the Treasury Reserve. Labour’s manifesto also pre-judges the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) which will begin after the election. The Royal Navy will have “new aircraft carriers” (note the plural); the Royal Air Force will have two fast jet fleets and more helicopters; and the Army will be “vastly better equipped than it was in 1997”. Since the defence budget has not been ring-fenced, if these promises are to be met savings must be made by reform of defence procurement and cuts in staff and other costs. But these might at best amount to several hundred millions – scarcely enough. The clue to this conundrum might lie in the way the SDR is described. Rather than conduct a top-down strategic reassessment, Labour’s review could be intended more simply to be a cost-reduction exercise which will “equip our armed forces for twenty-first century challenges and support our troops and veterans”.
Content from our partners
