I sometimes find this sort of Select Committee auditing of government affairs a little disingenuous. On the one hand parliament slashes the funding that would make doing more achievable, whilst another part of it is critical that not enough is being done. Does such a committee therefore serve more to salve the conscience of those making the decisions than actually influence decision making? That said, I cannot shake the feeling that for a country that spends over £35bn each year on defence, the size of the forces we can field and the amount of equipment don't seem that much. Government spending seldom seems to be effective spending, and no political party has ever really got to grips with the matter of getting better value for money in defence - or any other area for that matter.
Regrettably, it is clear that our political masters see no votes in defence, as recently highlighted by The Telegraph. The recent BBC/Populous survey reported on the BBC (
BBC News - NHS 'most important issue' suggests BBC/Populus poll) didn't even mention it as an also-ran in the ranking of public concerns they want to see reported and debated in the run up to the general election. Yet given that many ordinary folk in the UK are largely supportive of our troops, how has this come to pass? Unpopular wars have certainly not helped. There is probably a general lack of understanding of the level of commitment involved to maintain wide ranging defence capabilities at short readiness. Yet the public still expects them to be there when needed because they haven't really been paying attention to defence issues. When the call comes, capability is expected to be on tap. Perhaps an essential military strategy is to re-engage with the electorate? Right now the NHS, welfare, the economy, education, crime, immigration and all the other day to day pressures of living dominate the news, and it seems, voter concerns. Defence should be in there fighting for its share of attention. And not in Army
or Navy
or Air force terms either, but on a united front. From the outside, inter-service rivalry shows a serious issue in a very bad light. Some slick, professional,
PR is required. I don't know if that exists in the military at all and if it does, is it in an all-services context? Is it even within the military remit to spend money in such a way? As I don't think we do learn from history, it will probably take something pretty horrible to happen for defence to get the attention it merits. Not that that is the way I want it happen of course.
A further observation: the current crop of political leaders of the all the main parties are a particularly weak bunch. Defence is so important to a sovereign state, that there just has to be a time when a strong leader tells the electorate how it is, even if it is not popular. It should be so important as to be independent of electoral analysis or whatever is trending on social media at the moment. It would be good to see defence receive ring-fenced status, as I believe it really is that important, and getting more so as the range of threats become ever broader.
But our finances are still in poor shape, and there will always be more things to spend money on that there is cash available, even in the good times. It's just a pity that the military component is being inexorably relegated down the pecking order and too few seem to be noticing.
LF