Spending when money is tight
Today David Cameron announced that he was setting up a commission on restoring the between the armed forces and society as a whole.
Curiously he omitted a line from his prepared speech about Labour cutting defence spending. It's yet another sign that he is struggling to control the pressure coming from within his party to spend more and tax less.
A battalion of former generals and admirals argue that a big increase in defence spending will be needed when the Tories come to power. Privately many of his own MPs agree.
Earlier this week but no extra spending. This followed, I'm told, a behind the scenes row about the need for more cash for more prison places and bobbies on the beat.
Last week his health spokesman stumbled into suggesting that there would be .
In addition the Tories have made promises to , to and to . It's far from clear that taxing non doms and cutting welfare bills will produce the necessary cash.
The Shadow Chancellor George Osborne is fighting hard to maintain discipline and to insist that no new spending pledges have been made.
The issue here is not whether this or that individual sum adds up. In truth, governments spend and waste many billions of pounds that they have not budgeted for in advance. Those old election time debates about whether the opposition's "sums add up" are usually sterile and breathtakingly dull for voters.
No, the issue's a much simpler one. How credible is it to give the impression that you'll do more on defence, law and order and tax cutting at a time when money is very, very tight? And if there's not more money to spend what will give?
I'm 
Comments
I never signed this military covenant that allows soldiers some kind of favoured position over the rest of us. Let them be treated in NHS hospitals, and scramble for private or public sector housing like the rest of us.
For crying out loud how exactly has the government managed to pay £100bn for the Northern Rock?
I think Cameron can justify a few more quid on the armed forces and the health service.
"A battalion of former generals and admirals argue that a big increase in defence spending will be needed when the Tories come to power. Privately many of his own MPs agree."
Surely if the Tories come to power?
It's an interesting point.
One of the criticisms levelled at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is the claim that they tend to approach political problems with a "more money needed" attitude. This, say critics, proves the lefty bias at the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Apparently then, the Conservative Party too is run by Stalinists and Trots...
On another point, there are currently many people arguing that the UK does not spend nearly enough on the military.
But, according to SIPRI, the UK spent more on the military in 2006 than every other country in the world bar one (the USA). Per head of population, the UK spent approximately twice as much as Germany and three times as much as Japan. And yet, the idea that the UK military is chronically underfunded has become conventional wisdom and is rarely challenged.
Sad to say, Eisenhower's warning of the need to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex" fell largely on deaf ears.
Bout time we realised new planes, nuke subs, aircraft carriers, radios, armoured vehicles etc /// all at once/// ain't affordable.
Best to delay several programs..
I know it's heretical but even an innumerate idiot can see the MOD: will overspend: be late : and save money by cutting arms and armour for soldiers and the number of soldiers.
We cannot afford everything..
Fighting two wars at once is also very very very expensive. Specially since both are lost causes.
A reality check is needed. NO party is prepared to tell the truth: we cannot do it all.
Bout time some journalists did it... but they just spew government and opposition briefings with minimal reviews so they are a waste of space.
Great, more tax cuts for Married Couples. What about single people? The only tax concession we have ever got is a 25% reduction in Council Tax, but everything else we have to pay for at full rate when "Couples" get twice the benefit.
Both Labour and the Tories need to spend a litle more time looking at the demographics of this country rather than aligning their policies with an outdated notion of Husband, Wife and 2.4 Kids.
To Ian, You may not physically sign the covenant, but be thankful there are young men and woman who are willing to risk their lives to protect you.
All they ask in return is that they have decent equipment, living conditions which are not squalid and that politicians do not abuse them for their own gains. It is not about housing it about a weapon that will fire when required, radios which work and boots which do not fall apart.
The covenant is broken, we as a nation have betrayed our soldiers we must put this right.
As Alex Salmond and the SNP proved in Scotland, it's perfectly possible to win an election with a collection of popular - and expensive - spending promises along with popular - and expensive - tax cut promises, and to worry about how to deliver it later if you win.
By the time you need to make the hard choices, the election is safely over.
This is hardly a balanced article. It is of course perfectly fair to be skeptical how they are going to fund spending promises but you should at least explain where the Tories say they are going to get the money from. Otherwise Nick, it just looks like a Labour spin doctor has written your piece.
My take on the "military covenant" is pretty much the same as everything else. Namely, ruling elites down through most of Britain's history have bolstered their own ego at the expense of other stakeholders. The military is not a special case above businesses and the poor who have been misdirected and let down with equal measure. The core issue remains one of order and balance from the constitution down to the very bottom of society.
While the politics of fear and greed has gained dominance in business and society it has also touched the military whose unbalanced reasoning and personnel development led to the Iranian border crisis not too many months ago. Since then an investigation and change in approach has put the military in a better position to deal with how things are instead of continuing the poor trend. I suspect, a similar and welcome market correct is taking place generally.
Daoist scholars will note that where there is skill there is insight, and where there is knowledge there is genius, and underlying both is attitude. As financial capital is tight I'd also suggest character capital is also tight, and a more forward looking and inclusive military approach may prevent more disasters from occurring and generate more willing partners to carry some of the burden. Short-term political graft is no substitute for the more subtle and longer term.
As Alex Salmond and the SNP proved in Scotland, it's perfectly possible to win an election with a collection of popular - and expensive - spending promises along with popular - and expensive - tax cut promises, and to worry about how to deliver it later if you win.
By the time you need to make the hard choices, the election is safely over.
Whilst it's true that we spend more than Germancy or Japan you really have to look at how heavily involved in combat operations British troops are compared to those nation's forces.
We can argue about the various merits of those operations, but the clear fact is that British service personnel are in harm's way, and we should fund them accordingly to ensure as many of them as possible come back alive.
As for the Covenant, fortunately it is between the country and the military, not selfish individuals.
Nick
This item could have come direct from the Labour spin machine. Are you trying to get back on the right side of Kilfoyle et al?
About time you looked at the Tory promises, Nick. But two points need correcting I think:
1) It is entirely clear that " taxing non doms and cutting welfare bills" will NOT produce the necessary cash.
2) the concept of George Osborne "fighting hard" is asking for too great a suspension of disbelief.
If the UK is to maintain the current level of operations, then certainly there is a case for increased spending on the military. The core question, though, is whether it is right for the UK, as a relatively small country, to be doing so much more than our peer group. I suspect this hangover from the empire will take a while yet to dissipate, but it must go eventually.
If the UK is to maintain the current level of operations, then certainly there is a case for increased spending on the military. The core question, though, is whether it is right for the UK, as a relatively small country, to be doing so much more than our peer group. I suspect this hangover from the empire will take a while yet to dissipate, but it must go eventually.
"… a time when money is very, very tight".
Would this be the same time period in which spending on government agencies has increased, under the present government, from £24bn to £123bn per annum?
If there is little money left to spend, it is because of the wildly profligate way in which it has already been, and is constantly being, spent on quangos which it is not in the governing party's interests to rein in, irrespective of how little this vast additional expenditure contributes to our national life.
The figures that Cameron is talking about are peanuts by comparison. Why, Nick, are you and other political commentators not constantly drawing attention to the fact that 10% of GDP is now casually thrown at these democratically unaccountable bodies, for little if any tangible benefit?
It is a bit Labour leaning to be sure. However it makes a valid point, speding and budgets in political terms are purely imaginary devices based on how much money the voters percieve the country to have.
The problem is that there is no reliable way to audit what the government spends and recieves. You get more useful information from companies house. Never mind the MP spending review I'd like to see a country spending review where we can actually see whether these things add up.
Having said that there are so many devices that keep funds "Off Balance Sheet" (PPI) that this would hardly be that useful.
If the UK is to maintain the current level of operations, then certainly there is a case for increased spending on the military. The core question, though, is whether it is right for the UK, as a relatively small country, to be doing so much more than our peer group. I suspect this hangover from the empire will take a while yet to dissipate, but it must go eventually.
Please expose this "Military Covenant" nonsense.
It is a scandal that the army has inadequate resources but unless and until the Chief of the Defence Staff (and his successors) are prepared to resign, we can only assume that the military hierarchy believe the resources they have are adequate.
We still have more admirals than ships, and the reason that CDSs' do not resign is that they value their expected peerage too much. The military budget is more than adequate, it is the people that manage it that are inadequate.
As for Cameron, he will say anything to gain power.
It's easy enough to save billions - just fillet a few layers of the fat, featherbedded civil service, quangos, development agencies, regional assemblies and so forth.
Stop handing out benefits hand over fist to anyone who asks. Reform the pensions system to remove means-testing.
An example closer to home for you Nick? The ´óÏó´«Ã½ gets £2bn a year from the licence fee. Printing, distributing, checking licences, court actions, enforcemet etc all soak up £500m or so. We could just GIVE the ´óÏó´«Ã½ £2bn from taxation and ABOLISH the licence fee. The Beeb gets the same money but we save £500m every year.
It's easy - if you have the nerve.
I work in the public sector - the NHS - and the amount of money I see wasted is frightening. Having experience in other public services, I can also say the NHS is far from alone in that.
Any government who can manage to stop the bleeding away of funds would find itself with a remarkable tranche of cash to spend - so tax cuts and increased spending is possible, and I would say needed.
Labour has seen fit throw cash at problems, rather than deal with the core issues, with diminishing returns. I don't hold up much hope that a Tory government would do much better, but they'd be hard pressed to do worse.
Nick
The sums wasted by this amazingly financially incompetent government are colossal. Central Government Administration costs over £22bn per year, the NHS wastes enormous sums on management/IT consultants and and hopelessly ill-conceived IT projects. The Regions absorb billions - largely wasted.
Have I missed something... "when the Tories come to power"??
Dear Nick,
Lets hear your views on the greatest betrayal by a government since Oliver Cromwell and thats the covenant between the forces and the government being broken by Labour, who, in real terms could not give a damn about losses in the wars theve created.
Dear Nick,
Lets hear your views on the greatest betrayal by a government since Oliver Cromwell and thats the covenant between the forces and the government being broken by Labour, who, in real terms could not give a damn about losses in the wars theve created.
When did this Military Covernment come about?
Was it before or after 1st July 1916 when twenty six thousand (26,000) soldiers were needlessly killed before breakfast?
Was it before or after the Falklands war, when soldiers suffered from trench foot because Mrs Thatcher sent them there in 1916 style boots?
No doubt the next Prime Minister, no matter from which party he/she comes, will want to play on the world stage and expect the militery to punch above its weight.
The money for any and all parties could come from cutting waste. That is pretty clear, so the sums issue isn't really important.
What matters is government's (any government's) inability to manage the reduction of waste. This fundamentally involves reducing the hand of government (ie the constant reforms and other meddling) and thus ministers in the provision of our public services - trust professional managers to manage, and have ministers and MPs assigning high level budgets and direcion, and shaping the legal frameworks. MPs won't reduce their own ability to interfere and look important. They always know better in spite of the evidence.
In the face of such arrogance money will always be tight.
Adam #24:
Good point. What do you mean by "when" Nick?
Sadly if you look at the history of this country and the army this situation is all to familier. Some of this stems from the fact that the army is the monarchs who they sware to uphold and are sent to war by a prime minister using the royal perogative. For much of the last few hundred years the army has used in support of the empire we no longer have, but no attempt has been made to change it's relationship to the state since then. I suspect that the attitude of the MOD is still that fighting and dying for the monarch is the duty of the subject and we should be grateful for the privilage. Politicans statements, I wouldn't say promises, over tax and spending are never reliable whoever they are. So the army, NHS etc. and ourselves would be well advise not to hold our breath until they are fulfilled, unless they really want ot turn a very funny shade of blue.
The "covenant" between the armed forces and the public in this country was broken by Tony Blair's foolish decision to send them to fight wars that have nothing to do with this country, and at the behest of a foreign country.
With costs increasing and losses mounting the stupidity of what was done in our name becomes ever clearer, especially after the so-called "reason" for the wars has been exposed as a lie.
It is not the fault of the brave soldiers out in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the reality is that the public simply have no interest in it.
The quickest way to restore the covenant, stop the loss of life and wastage of money is to pull the troops out of the middle-east as quickly as possible. This will also mean that an incoming Tory Government would not have to increase spending on defence at a time when there is unliklely to be any money available to do it.
It is time that Governments of all persuasions recognise that we are now just a small to medium sized European regional power and to stop making fools of all of us by pretending otherwise. No-one outside these islands is deceived.
When will the Conservatives be coming to power?
I should think a modest revue of the Barnett Formula would hand over pots of cash from the Scots back to the English to pay for bettter armed forces, education and healthcare.
Perhaps the Scots could then join us in the 21st century and earn their keep.
I should think a modest revue of the Barnett Formula would hand over pots of cash from the Scots back to the English to pay for bettter armed forces, education and healthcare.
Perhaps the Scots could then join us in the 21st century and earn their keep.
"The Tories have made promises" ... whoah stop right there!
Alarm bells immediately ring.
A political party makes promises?
Sorry, we the long suffering English public have heard it just too many times before.
'Dave' and Gordon and whoever is this weeks Lib-Dem leader ... take a big hike ... into the hinterland that we Englsih inhabit.
Then come back humbled and promising to genuinely serve the English people.
lets share the UN security seat with the EU and get them to pay for its obligations-punching above our weight for too long me thinks?