IN a deeply embarrassing coincidence, on the day Donald Trump – with his calls for greater defence spending – was sworn in as US President, a new report reveals that we spend 20 per cent more on health-related state benefits than on defence.
How outrageous is that? Where are Britain’s priorities?
Ian WhittakerA report revealed the UK spends 20% more on health benefits than defence, above Royal Marines training in Norway last year[/caption]
APBullies like Putin can only be faced down by strength[/caption]
GettyLord Robertson, as the Secretary of State for Defence in Tony Blair’s government, has a second chance to carry out an effective Strategic Defence Review[/caption]
With all due respect for those who are genuinely unable to work, it seems extraordinary that we spend £64.7billion on health-related benefits, according to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report, while in the 2023/24 financial year, we spent £53.9billion on defence.
Both the Conservative and Labour governments must share the blame for this, but it is down to Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to sort this out.
Without adequate military capability, the entire nation’s health and security will be in jeopardy.
Deeply worried
Even a rapid glance around the world shows that we are living in very dangerous times — think Taiwan/China, the Middle East and Ukraine.
The days of taking peace dividends after the Cold War are well over — and the case to increase defence spending is blindingly obvious.
We need stronger Armed Forces to fight and win a war if we are forced into those circumstances — but, better still, we need highly capable Armed Forces to deter war as part of a strong Nato, with or without the US.
We cannot afford to sit back and hope Uncle Sam will bail us out.
The 47th President is too unpredictable for that.
One day, Donald Trump criticises the European members of Nato, the next he is calling on all Western governments to spend five per cent of their total public expenditure budgets on defence.
We may not be able to guess what President Trump will do next, but neither can Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile, President Volodymyr Zelensky and his brave Ukrainians are fighting not just for their freedom, but for ours, too. Their values are our values — their freedom is our freedom.
Bullies like Putin can only be faced down by strength.
When Trump suggests that Western countries should be spending five per cent now on defence, he may not be wide of the mark
We must put the Ukrainians in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and use the time they are buying us to protect the UK and Europe from further Russian aggression.
I was at the Baltic Military Conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, last March and met a lot of very worried Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Poles.
Why else would Sweden and Finland have chosen this moment to join Nato if they were not deeply worried about their security?
The UK is quite properly in the middle of a Strategic Defence Review.
My fear is that it will conclude with a brilliant analysis of the threats we face, but fail to chart a path towards building the military capabilities we need to secure our future.
Unusually, Lord Robertson, as the Secretary of State for Defence in Tony Blair’s government, has a second chance to carry out an effective SDR.
His first review, in 1997/98, while producing a brilliant policy statement, ultimately failed because Gordon Brown, the then-Chancellor, refused to fully fund the outcome. Many of the black holes in the MoD budget today stem from that refusal.
We must not let recent history repeat itself. Nor indeed must we let past history repeat itself.
There have been many present-day comparisons with the late 1930s. But the facts speak for themselves.
In 1935, like today, we were spending less that three per cent of GDP on defence and failed to either appease or deter Hitler. He was merely a threat — Vladimir Putin is a proven aggressor.
Appeasement having failed, in 1939 — when war broke out — our defence spending shot up to 19 per cent of GDP and, in 1940, when we were fighting for our very survival, it rose to an astronomical 46 per cent. That is the disastrous cost of fighting a war.
How much better to spend enough to deter war in the first place.
And it is worth reflecting that during the Cold War years, we were spending between four and five per cent on defence, and the Cold War never turned hot.
Dictatorial jackboot
When Trump suggests that Western countries should be spending five per cent now on defence, he may not be wide of the mark.
The previous Conservative Government pledged to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent by 2030.
That is not enough, but at least it was a pledge with a date which gave defence planners something to build towards.
No matter how much we spend on health benefits, we will all run the risk of being under a dictatorial jackboot
The present government talks vaguely about 2.5 per cent. but with no target date.
If we are serious about what our Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force needs over the rest of this decade, the current Strategic Defence Review must recommend a rise in defence spending to at least three per cent or, better still, 3.5 per cent.
Without such an increase, our gallant soldiers, sailors and aviators risk defeat on land, at sea and in the air.
No matter how much we spend on health benefits, we will all run the risk of being under a dictatorial jackboot.
Come on, Lord Robertson. Get it right this time.
PA:Press AssociationGeneral The Lord Dannatt is the Former Chief of the General Staff[/caption] Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
