Westminster politics is adept at hiding consensus. The oppositional style, embedded in the layout of the House of Commons, requires a performance of partisanship that often goes beyond genuine differences of opinion. It was predictable that the Conservatives would accuse the government of weakening national defences by scrapping old military hardware as part of a departmental savings drive. John Healey, the defence secretary, says the items in question – mostly helicopters and sea vessels – are obsolete or defective. Military chiefs confirm that assessment. The savings for the defence budget are £500m.
But James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, laments an injudicious disposal of capabilities “just as the threats to our nation are growing”. Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, describes it as “pure folly”. The Tories would like this argument to reinforce their claim that Labour is weak on national security, as evidenced by refusal to match the timetable Rishi Sunak set for raising defence spending to at least 2.5% of gross domestic product. Sir Keir Starmer has a “cast-iron commitment” to reach that target – the current figure is about 2.3% – but not a specific date. The prime minister’s argument is that defence priorities will be settled as part of a wider review, due next year. That will then dictate the rate at which spending can usefully be ramped up.
Deciding what is needed before deciding how much to spend and when is a rational sequence, especially when the Ministry of Defence has a terrible record when it comes to procurement efficiency. But it is also easy to see why the Tories demand a specific date, which looks like a more robust statement of intent to rearm.
The salience of this issue will rise when Donald Trump moves into the White House next year. Europe’s Nato members will come under intense pressure from Washington to ramp up military spending to cover their own security, which the US feels it has subsidised for too long. Sir Keir will feel a particular obligation because defence and security partnership is pivotal to his “reset” of post-Brexit relations with the European Union. Continental leaders fret, with good reason, that Mr Trump is an unreliable ally and worry about their vulnerability to an increasingly belligerent and emboldened Russia.
Britain’s military capabilities will become increasingly significant, given the pressing geopolitical dilemmas and complex diplomatic calculations that will need navigating in the coming years. That imperative is just one of many competing demands on public expenditure that a government operating under a set of fiscal rules must balance.
The Tories sidestepped that issue before the election with improbable budget forecasts. They pledged to expand defence spending, alongside tax cuts, as part of a budget that envisaged savage and politically unworkable austerity down the line. Defeat spared the Conservatives from any obligation to enact their plans, so they snipe at Labour for grappling with the choices they neglected.
That is largely to be expected – a function of the oppositional system. But it looks more egregiously cynical when both sides are more aligned than they seem. Labour ministers are well aware of rising global volatility and the implications that has for the defence budget. The differences of emphasis in how and when that must be addressed are being amplified by a Conservative party that is still a long way from sensible engagement with the practical reality of government.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
