Defence expenditure
Thread Starter
Defence expenditure
Thought for today: Defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, has fallen from 7.5% in 1955, a period of relative peace, to 2% today. During this period, Welfare, as a percentage of GDP, has risen from less than 5% to over 12%. Source: House of commons HC494
We know there is a problem.
The solution lies in the hands of those elected by the people.
There are way more people affected by the latter figure (Welfare) than the former (Defence).
and so it will continue...
The solution lies in the hands of those elected by the people.
There are way more people affected by the latter figure (Welfare) than the former (Defence).
and so it will continue...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the mid '50's did have Russia on the doorstep, we were building the H bomb, buying THREE types of strategic of bombers, running a load of carriers, still had an Empire which we were fighting in and also had loads of National Service personnel to train and feed
Not surprising it was expensive
Comparing it to Welfare is a bit of a red herring - unless you are willing to go back to the standards of care and medicine of the mid-50's as well
Also remember tax rates then were twice what they are now
Undoubtedly we need to spend more on defence right now - but unless and until people are willing to pay more tax it's tough to do if you want to be elected
Not surprising it was expensive
Comparing it to Welfare is a bit of a red herring - unless you are willing to go back to the standards of care and medicine of the mid-50's as well
Also remember tax rates then were twice what they are now
Undoubtedly we need to spend more on defence right now - but unless and until people are willing to pay more tax it's tough to do if you want to be elected
"There are way more people affected by the latter figure (Welfare) than the former (Defence)"
Hmm. True as long as we stay lucky. It's a bit like 1. Buggered if I'm forking out £12 a month for phone insurance 2. Drop phone in toilet.
Thing is, the prospect of things going down the toilet, one way or another, currently look somewhat higher than they did...
Hmm. True as long as we stay lucky. It's a bit like 1. Buggered if I'm forking out £12 a month for phone insurance 2. Drop phone in toilet.
Thing is, the prospect of things going down the toilet, one way or another, currently look somewhat higher than they did...
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Very though provoking. Today we live in the safest time recorded by history. Conflict, especially major conflict is at its lowest. That's not to say it won't remain that peaceful, but today, diplomatic relations between countries and liberal institutionalism have created a relative "peace" never seen before.
So, why spend more if there are "no votes in Defence"? Adequately configured Armed Forces are vital but that must be driven by a not-overly-ambitious Defence Policy. Cut the fat out of costly, slow procurement and that 2% may go further than you think!!
So, why spend more if there are "no votes in Defence"? Adequately configured Armed Forces are vital but that must be driven by a not-overly-ambitious Defence Policy. Cut the fat out of costly, slow procurement and that 2% may go further than you think!!
Yes. Very though provoking. Today we live in the safest time recorded by history. Conflict, especially major conflict is at its lowest. That's not to say it won't remain that peaceful, but today, diplomatic relations between countries and liberal institutionalism have created a relative "peace" never seen before.
So, why spend more if there are "no votes in Defence"? Adequately configured Armed Forces are vital but that must be driven by a not-overly-ambitious Defence Policy. Cut the fat out of costly, slow procurement and that 2% may go further than you think!!
So, why spend more if there are "no votes in Defence"? Adequately configured Armed Forces are vital but that must be driven by a not-overly-ambitious Defence Policy. Cut the fat out of costly, slow procurement and that 2% may go further than you think!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1955 " a period of relative peace..." Seriously? Relative to what? We faced the might of the all-conquering Red Army, massively outnumbering us conventionally, nuclear armed to boot. Ditto for the two minutes to midnight nonsense. How, by any rational yardstick can we be reckoned in as much danger as during the Cuban crisis??
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1955 " a period of relative peace..." Seriously? Relative to what? We faced the might of the all-conquering Red Army, massively outnumbering us conventionally, nuclear armed to boot. Ditto for the two minutes to midnight nonsense. How, by any rational yardstick can we be reckoned in as much danger as during the Cuban crisis??
Great point. Why don't people realize that the closest the world came to all-out nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Even the 2% is suspect, if as I suspect, all the cold war warrior pensions are included in the sum.
Welfare given the standards of the 1950’s would, as suggested above, been cheaper, but so was military equipment. A Hunter was pushing the boundary at the time, but was still a basic bit of kit.
Then there is MoD. Just one very minor example. Why do the AEF’s drive cadets around in bone domes, parachutes, and L/Js with pilots wearing expensive gear when the local flying club do it in shirt sleeves?
There was also (very) full employment in the 50’s. That stopped with Mrs. T and her ‘reforms’ (and please don’t thread creep as to whether they were necessary or not) but to effectively use the North Sea Oil revenues as benefits to keep over 3,000,000 unemployed seems to have been a waste. I offer Norway’s sovereign fund as an alternative.
As for tax and the requirement to pay it. Globalisation and the ability of large multi- nationals to look upon tax as optional extra, hits the Treasury estimates. It also means the likes of us have to make up the shortfall in personal taxation. Although 6 billion on a fire HQ system that did not work, 6 billion on an NHS computer system that did not work, 5 billion on a totally botched NHS reorganisation that Mr. Hunt is still trying to sort out, makes one reluctant to pay more than necessary.
But there is the inconsistency of the British, who have always wanted Scandinavian levels of health care and benefits, with American levels of taxation and government spending.
Hey ho, don’t we all wish we knew the answers?
Welfare given the standards of the 1950’s would, as suggested above, been cheaper, but so was military equipment. A Hunter was pushing the boundary at the time, but was still a basic bit of kit.
Then there is MoD. Just one very minor example. Why do the AEF’s drive cadets around in bone domes, parachutes, and L/Js with pilots wearing expensive gear when the local flying club do it in shirt sleeves?
There was also (very) full employment in the 50’s. That stopped with Mrs. T and her ‘reforms’ (and please don’t thread creep as to whether they were necessary or not) but to effectively use the North Sea Oil revenues as benefits to keep over 3,000,000 unemployed seems to have been a waste. I offer Norway’s sovereign fund as an alternative.
As for tax and the requirement to pay it. Globalisation and the ability of large multi- nationals to look upon tax as optional extra, hits the Treasury estimates. It also means the likes of us have to make up the shortfall in personal taxation. Although 6 billion on a fire HQ system that did not work, 6 billion on an NHS computer system that did not work, 5 billion on a totally botched NHS reorganisation that Mr. Hunt is still trying to sort out, makes one reluctant to pay more than necessary.
But there is the inconsistency of the British, who have always wanted Scandinavian levels of health care and benefits, with American levels of taxation and government spending.
Hey ho, don’t we all wish we knew the answers?
peter wee
Which will tank our economy, depress exports and substantially reduce GDP, thus reducing Defence expenditure even further, great thinking...
Which will tank our economy, depress exports and substantially reduce GDP, thus reducing Defence expenditure even further, great thinking...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Nobody knows, and anybody who says / thinks they do are deluding themselves. You can present the theory for the case either way, as both sides have done since the referendum began, and both sides have produced more heat and noise than light. The 'dismal scientists' will keep churning out theories as woolly as a bad Int brief, the bankers will keep trying to either instil fear to get a better break from the government whilst lining up domestic firms for takeovers by foreign firms seeking to capitalise on the pound and the lawyers and consultants will keep raking the fees in from the whole sorry mess. And that is about the only thing anyone can say with any certainty. Defence spending will go whichever way the government of the day wants to take it at the time, and politically it just isn't important enough to them.
peter wee
Which will tank our economy, depress exports and substantially reduce GDP, thus reducing Defence expenditure even further, great thinking...
Which will tank our economy, depress exports and substantially reduce GDP, thus reducing Defence expenditure even further, great thinking...
You'll excuse me I'm sure, if I make the presumption that you lean to the left. That is politically rather than physically, but when did the left take to the idea of embracing the common market?
I do recall the Labour Party announcing at the 1980 Party Conference, among all the stuff about unilateral disarmament etc, that they would pull the UK out of the common market. They weren't fixing to precede this with a referendum either. One thing you can say for David Cameron and the Tories generally, is they do, at least on this occasion, manage to standby their word!
What was it that Gordon Brown promised again????
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 5th Feb 2017 at 00:39.
Peter
I suspect you may have been too simplistic with your analyis and would be true:
1. Only if you consider that the whole of the £35Bn UK Defence Budget is spent in $US - it isn't. Whilst the loss of ~25US Cents to the Pound is a big loss the fall of the €uro of ~10 Cents is as lot less by percentage.
2. Only if you consider that the defence budget is spent entirely on equipment - it isn't. ~31% is spent on wages and ~24% is spent on property and infrastructure neither of which should be affected by the £:$ rates.
Personally, if the rates don't recover (which they most likely will) then we are looking at £3Bn at the very worst. Not insignificant, but not as bad as pointed out.
LJ
£6 billion hit to the UK's defense budget caused by the exchange rate fall - it doesn't need an economic degree to see that.
1. Only if you consider that the whole of the £35Bn UK Defence Budget is spent in $US - it isn't. Whilst the loss of ~25US Cents to the Pound is a big loss the fall of the €uro of ~10 Cents is as lot less by percentage.
2. Only if you consider that the defence budget is spent entirely on equipment - it isn't. ~31% is spent on wages and ~24% is spent on property and infrastructure neither of which should be affected by the £:$ rates.
Personally, if the rates don't recover (which they most likely will) then we are looking at £3Bn at the very worst. Not insignificant, but not as bad as pointed out.
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link HH. I did follow that and there was an awful lot of doom and gloom. Have a look at this graph:
At $1.26 the Pound is lower, but not statiscally hugely lower looking at the fluctuations. Having a weak Pound is better for exports and for years our balance has been poor between importing and exporting - so much so that we have become over reliant on the banking and financial sector. Some say the fall in the value of the Pound is exactly what we need (unless of course you are a UK investor or banker!). Even the great Mark Carney has admitted that he got the financial and growth predictions of Brexit wrong. Of course the Remainers will jump on the "I told you so" bus as soon as there is a disaster (like Jamie Oliver and him having to close some of his restaurants that seemed to be doing badly before Brexit - I think his food is overpriced and boring so that is probably the real reason). If I recall correctly the Pound was hovering around $1.40 to $1.45 at least 6 months before Brexit fever hit the UK - so the drop to $1.26 is hardly earth shattering (unless you believe the tripe served up on our media feeds).
I do think there are savings to be made within our own defence budgets that could soak some of this up. Firstly, we need to get DIO and the infra budget under control - the crazy prices we are paying for building and manintenance work is totally unaffordable (I estimate at least 40% could be saved by devolving the budgets back to Stations). Also we need to revisit the way that we sell our 'family silver' for next to nothing to a developers/builders who then doubles to triples what they pay for it and then charge us again top price to build us a 'new build' on our ever dwindling estate. The proposed sell off of Henlow and Halton is a good example. We'll be lucky to get £80M combined for both but the rebuild of RAFCAM, Recruit Trg Sqn and Airmans Command Sqn plus supporting buildings (like SLAM and extra SFA) and roads/paths is likely to come closer to £500M - where are we going to find a spare £1/2Bn?? Look at some of the ridiculous procurment decisions we make, to modify the L85 (SA-80) to A3 standard for the remaining 7 years of its life is going to cost nearly 2/3rds the cost of buying new weapons from Heckler and Koch (who are doing the A3 mod program anyway!). I could go on.
So yes, the recent dip in the Pound is unwanted but it is not quite the end of the world and could easily be managed within allocated resources.
LJ
At $1.26 the Pound is lower, but not statiscally hugely lower looking at the fluctuations. Having a weak Pound is better for exports and for years our balance has been poor between importing and exporting - so much so that we have become over reliant on the banking and financial sector. Some say the fall in the value of the Pound is exactly what we need (unless of course you are a UK investor or banker!). Even the great Mark Carney has admitted that he got the financial and growth predictions of Brexit wrong. Of course the Remainers will jump on the "I told you so" bus as soon as there is a disaster (like Jamie Oliver and him having to close some of his restaurants that seemed to be doing badly before Brexit - I think his food is overpriced and boring so that is probably the real reason). If I recall correctly the Pound was hovering around $1.40 to $1.45 at least 6 months before Brexit fever hit the UK - so the drop to $1.26 is hardly earth shattering (unless you believe the tripe served up on our media feeds).
I do think there are savings to be made within our own defence budgets that could soak some of this up. Firstly, we need to get DIO and the infra budget under control - the crazy prices we are paying for building and manintenance work is totally unaffordable (I estimate at least 40% could be saved by devolving the budgets back to Stations). Also we need to revisit the way that we sell our 'family silver' for next to nothing to a developers/builders who then doubles to triples what they pay for it and then charge us again top price to build us a 'new build' on our ever dwindling estate. The proposed sell off of Henlow and Halton is a good example. We'll be lucky to get £80M combined for both but the rebuild of RAFCAM, Recruit Trg Sqn and Airmans Command Sqn plus supporting buildings (like SLAM and extra SFA) and roads/paths is likely to come closer to £500M - where are we going to find a spare £1/2Bn?? Look at some of the ridiculous procurment decisions we make, to modify the L85 (SA-80) to A3 standard for the remaining 7 years of its life is going to cost nearly 2/3rds the cost of buying new weapons from Heckler and Koch (who are doing the A3 mod program anyway!). I could go on.
So yes, the recent dip in the Pound is unwanted but it is not quite the end of the world and could easily be managed within allocated resources.
LJ