ANALYSIS by Patrick English
This week was revealed the cost of building the Royal Navy's two planned Aircraft Carriers after a parliamentary question by a Labour MP. The figure stands at around five billion pounds sterling, and contracts worth around 1.25 billion pounds sterling have been awarded to companies across the UK already. Up to 10,000 jobs now depend on this carrier programme, and mass orders of steel and steel cutting have already been made to Corus. Why then, one might ask, is this funding now looking at being pulled in the upcoming spending review, when contract, funds, and jobs are already circulating and in operation? Further, why would it be seen that the Ministry of Defence should bear so much cutting to its funding in the eyes of those holding the financial axe? It seems non sensual to do so, but there are reasons as to why this could be the case.
George Osbourne and Danny Alexander would immediately turn to the obvious catchphrase for means of explanation as to why this funding is under question in the review, "We are all in this, together." If the middle, upper, and (for some reason) lower classes are looking to be making sacrifices toward helping curb the budget deficit left by the extortionately spending previous government, then so should all government departments. Stopping projects, such as the carries, which won't threaten national security or affect employment (albeit directly) would be easy targets to slash from the MoD's rather hefty annual bill; currently standing at around 40 billion pounds sterling, it is amongst the most costly institutions to the state in the UK. Also interesting to note on a financial level is that research from the Stockholm Peace Research institute places Britain 3rd in the world's list of top spenders on defence in terms of US Dollars. Only the USA and China spent more in 2009 on defence than the UK:
Perhaps then it would seem just that the MoD take a hit in its budget. After all, the total proposed rumoured cuts in defence by the treasury to the MoD will actually work out at around 20% of its budget; around the same figure which was announced as the coming average for all governmental departments for the coming cutting chop. Therefore it is hardly a case of the MoD being bashed by the new 'age of austerity', the numbers being circulated are large simply because the budget of the MoD is larger than most budgets to begin with.
Politicians at the Treasury and senior officials within the MoD, notably not from the Navy side, would appear perhaps to think that building the carriers is a wasteful and unneeded project for the MoD to persue. The argument from the latter, army officials and military heavyweights, as well as members of the public and world of journalism, is the same for that of supporting unilateral disarmament; 'We don't need nukes and battleships to fight terrorists.' Meaning, with the changing face of world conflict from mass wars to guerrilla insurgency fighting, there is no need for weapons of mass destruction and expensive planes and ships, as they would have little effect on such conflicts. We should instead be investing money in recruiting soldiers and equipping them with the finest gear available whilst ensuring they are supported by fully operational, state of the art support units such as helicopters and artillery. This would be cheaper, and would ensure that we can fight effectively in the changing field of modern combat.
As bizarre as it might seem to cut the proposed construction of the two new aircraft carriers so far into the initial development stages from the budget in this coming reviews, there are actually some valid reasons behind the argument for doing so; the large overall budget and cost of the MoD and defence, the lack of immediate need for such weaponry, and the changing face of how battles are fought. Indeed, it would hardly be a U-Turn, the funding was granted by the previous administration so times have now changed. As large as the figures may be concerning MoD cuts, it is important to remember the size of the overall defence spending and thus MoD budget in order to gain some sense of perspective as to how deep these cuts will be. Numerous arguments against cutting our military speding may be equally valid in stature, but if the decision is made indeed made to cut the carriers and shave billions from defence spending, least we may find some sense behind it.
I somewhat agree with what you're saying here Patrick. So why would The MoD with any sense be seeing fit to cut the Budget of many recruiting organisations; such as the recruiting offices and even the Cadet Forces. The 4 cadet forces produce a magnificent amount of recruits for the armed services. And these have already seen a slash in up to 10% of their budgets from the slash in spending by the Labour Government. I believe another 20% cuts would destroy these valuable recruitment services for the armed forces.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still see the need for a nuclear deterrent, perhaps not along the lines of 2 x Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, costing around £5bn, but more in the forms of Stealth Missiles, similar to trident or a better alternative. Let’s not just pretend the threats sent from one embassy to another have disappeared over night, some recently found their way up to national news.
Hi Rob, thanks for the feedback
ReplyDeleteThe MoD seems to be very centred with maintaining Britain's place at the forefront of world affairs rather than keeping itself in existance! At current there is around a 64.5 billion pound defecit in their budget, it's clear that the men handling the money aren't getting the sums right, and I believe it's time the MoD dropped the most expensive projects and focused on the cadets, the recruiting offices, equipment for our brave soldiers, and the support units needed to combat an insurgency. The fact of the matter is, cuts are coming to the MoD, they are going to have to learn to prioritise correctly.
So far as a nuclear detterant goes, I myself am a supporter of dismantling ALL nuclear weapons and trying to get the heck on with working on world peace instead of world fear. That said, I'm not an idiot and I realise that if we simply dismantled our stockpile then we would be giving up our seat on the security council and putting ourselves at risk in a world where nuclear arms are spreading to unstable or and, in some cases, unfriendly states. So my verdict lies with scrapping the awful, useless waste of money that is trident, and replacing it with much cheaper, much more effective detterants such as missiles and what not. From there, we can work on keeping nuclear devices out of unfriendly hands and work toward giving over the keys from every country to the UN or something similar, to try and remove the threat of nuclear action unless the UN votes in favour of doing so. Just an idea though....
Patrick