2 months ago
39
Revelations of a black hole in public finances and government warnings about a ‘grim’ autumn statement from the Chancellor make it all the remarkable that one spending commitment goes entirely without scrutiny: the pledge to raise military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). Labour’s military budget commitment remains uncosted and unfunded.
Within two weeks of taking office the Prime Minister announced a Strategic Defence Review conducted by Lord George Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General, and overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey who will report to parliament in the first half of 2025. The Review will ‘set out the path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence’.
Unlike most government departments, the MoD’s budget is ‘protected’ meaning inflation proofed. It already exceeds NATO’s spending guideline for member states, set at 2% of national GDP in 2006. Britain and the USA have met this target every year since, the only two members to do so.
A recent report from the Ministry of Defence gives perspective to the proposed increase in military spending. Key take-aways from Finance and Economics Annual Statistical Bulletin: International Defence 2024 show UK military spending:
-was 2.3% of GDP in 2023, amounting to between $73.5-$75bn
-has increased by an average of 2.1% between 2014-2023
-is the 2nd largest of all NATO members, after the USA
-was ranked 5th highest in the world by the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and the 6th by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute).
A longer-term view shows international military spending fell from the mid-1980s, as the Cold War drew to a close. It continued to decline in the 1990s – although UK and US military spending briefly increased as a result of the 1990-91 Gulf War.
The global decline ended in the early 2000s as a result of military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Spending has remained relatively stable since in the UK, France, and Germany. With few exceptions, military budgets are showing a more sustained increase in recent years, a trend which is set to continue.
New data from SIPRI shows a growth in global military spending of 6.8% above inflation in 2023, to $2.44 trillion – the highest level since the end of the Cold War. The UK increase was 7.9%, higher than some of the largest NATO members including the US and France.
The size of the UK’s military budget is a choice like any other. It should be based on an assessment of genuine risks. Richard Norton-Taylor makes this same point, using the example of Trident – ‘more than £200bn, a figure the MoD does not dispute’ – and the fact that British troops were sent to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq without adequate body armour. There are many instances of senior military personnel questioning the effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear weapons system.
The government publishes a National Risk Register based on National Security Risk Assessments which evaluate the most serious dangers facing the UK. A long list of risks includesaccidental and malicious threats from abroad and at home, cyber terrorism, natural disasters, and environmental hazards.
The lesson is out there in plain sight. Keeping Britain safe means more than a hike in the military budget.
The public must be able to interrogate the rationality of the government’s political choice to raise military spending. Transparency is indispensable. We have the right to know:
-how much it will cost
-where the money is likely to come from, and
-what cuts it will mean for other government departments.
The post Money for war, but not much else appeared first on .
