UK Military Rhetoric Doesn't Match Fiscal Reality
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Not long before World War I, HMS Dreadnought, a battleship that made all existing vessels obsolete, was launched at Portsmouth in the presence of the King-Emperor Edward VII. Fire-breathing patriots soon took up the cry, 'We want eight and we won't wait.' Winston Churchill, then a young home secretary in a government committed to spending more on welfare, wryly noted of the popular clamor for a naval race with Germany: 'The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight.'
British debates about defense spending follow a familiar trajectory, although this time it's politicians, rather than civilians, insisting that more should be spent on firepower. A military revolution in warfare is underway, too. Drones, off-the-shelf technology far cheaper than Dreadnoughts, are being deployed to lethal effect on the battlefields of Ukraine and further afield - the daring 'Spider Web' raid last weekend destroyed as much as a third of Russia's strategic bombing force based thousands of miles away from Europe.
But the UK needs to replace expensive military hardware too, and make good shortages of munitions. Economists fear the government can't afford the outlay without large tax increases. Who will prevail?
In a speech prior to the publication of his government's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) this week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer sounded eerily reminiscent of an old-fashioned jingoist, circa 1914. Britain, he said, faces a threat 'more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War.' The UK needs to move to 'war-fighting readiness.'
Alas, reality and rhetoric don't match. UK defense spending is planned to rise to only 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, with a notional ambition to reach 3% by the mid-2030s. In the 1980s, at the end of the Cold War, it stood at almost 4%. When the dogged Defence Secretary John Healey attempted to impose a fixed timeline for a bigger military budget, he was immediately slapped down by the Treasury.
Within days, however, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization trumped Starmer. The Western Alliance has reached near consensus on a 5% commitment, with 3.5% going directly on the armed services and a further 1.5% on related spending. On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, ordered Starmer to saddle up, saying 'it is important that the UK gets there.' On Tuesday, German Defense Secretary Boris Pistorius talked of raising expenditure by annual increments to reach 5% of GDP, aimed at creating the strongest conventional army in Europe.
At home, the popular hue and cry is not for an arms race with Russia, which remains a niche preoccupation at Westminster and in security circles, but for reversing cuts to pensioners' winter-fuel allowances. Labour's backbenchers oppose projected welfare reductions. Meanwhile, the economists warn that the bond market won't countenance more borrowing to pay for guns or butter - gilt yields remain elevated amid jitters over the Trump administration's ballooning deficit. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves rules out raising taxes in the autumn — though few believe her. Something's got to give.
UK prime ministers have a habit of over-promising and under-delivering on military commitments. Starmer's Conservative predecessors squandered the Cold War peace dividend for over a decade even as Russia rearmed and attacked its neighbors.
Wishful thinking can also lead to embarrassment. Starmer recently proclaimed 'a coalition of the willing' ready to take the place of the US in policing a ceasefire in Ukraine by dispatching a 'reassurance force.' Washington, however, refused to offer air cover — and in any case the British army has shrunk to 70,000, levels last seen before the war with Napoleon — so the UK can no longer assemble an expeditionary force. The best it can offer Ukraine is a support mission.
As for crippling the Russian war effort, the UK, like other European nations, sanctioned Russian oil and gas after its invasion of Ukraine. But according to a new study by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), the value of Russian crude oil and liquid natural gas shipped under British ownership or insurance since the war began tops £200 billion ($270 billion). A dark fleet of ships working for the Russians supplements the trade. The government is wary of severing these links for fear of triggering another energy price rise spiral and a round of the ruinous inflation and cost of living crisis that sank its Tory predecessor.
To be fair, the SDR has met a mostly warm reception from military specialists. At least it puts the focus back on the European theater — previous reviews suggested fanciful scenarios in which British aircraft carriers, without a full complement of aircraft and naval escorts, might be deployed to Asia. With commendable honesty, the authors of this week's report also own up to 'the hollowing out of the Armed Forces warfighting capability' and cite inadequate stockpiles of munitions after years of 'underinvestment.'
Without a rapid improvement in military housing and in the absence of conscription, army numbers are unlikely to rise. With its suggestion that the UK should build up its maritime forces — namely the Trident nuclear deterrent and the commissioning of 12 new attack submarines — the SDR implies the UK is set on going back to a strategic stance familiar to Churchill and his contemporaries in 1914, known to historians as the British Way of Warfare, avoiding a continental military commitment at scale.
Today, however, the Royal Navy no longer rules the waves as it did in 1914. That means cutting back on the rhetoric and working closely with allies to deploy the few troops available for land-based conflict. 'This is a once-in-a-generation inflection point for collective security in Europe,' concludes the SDR. Unless British public opinion changes, however, the UK's neglect of its military needs and obligations looks set to continue.
More from Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Florian Wirtz joins list of most expensive soccer signings in history
Florian Wirtz became one of the most expensive players in soccer history when the Germany playmaker joined Liverpool from Bayer Leverkusen on Friday for a fee of up to 116 million pounds ($156 million). Neymar: $262 million (222 million euros) Paris Saint-Germain shattered the world-record transfer fee by signing the Brazil superstar from Barcelona in August 2017. It was more than double the outlay of Manchester United to sign Paul Pogba from Juventus for $116 million a year earlier. It remains the record transfer fee. Kylian Mbappé: $216 million (180 million euros) A few weeks after buying Neymar, PSG also secured a loan deal for Mbappé — then the rising star of French soccer playing for Monaco — that included the option to make the move permanent in 2018. PSG did so, making it an outlay of nearly $500 million on two players. Philippe Coutinho: $192 million (160 million euros) Flush with cash after selling Neymar a year earlier, Barcelona spent most of it in a deal to buy Brazil playmaker Coutinho from Liverpool for a Spanish record fee. Moises Caicedo: $146 million (115 million pounds) The Ecuador midfielder's move was previously the most expensive deal by a British club, with Chelsea buying him from Brighton in August 2023. João Félix: $140 million (126 million euros) Atletico Madrid triggered a buyout clause in Félix's contract to sign the Portugal forward from Benfica in August 2019. Jude Bellingham: $139 million (128.5 million euros) The England star got his big move to Real Madrid from Borussia Dortmund in June 2023, for an initial up-front fee of 103 million euros plus add-ons linked to performance. Antoine Griezmann: $134 million (120 million euros) Atletico could afford to sign Félix after selling France forward Griezmann to Barcelona for a similar fee a few weeks earlier. Neymar: $98 million (90 million euros) Outside from Europe, the biggest transfer deal also involved Neymar when he joined Al Hilal, a team in the Saudi Pro League, from Paris Saint-Germain in August 2023. That came at the height of Saudi Arabia's push to sign high-end soccer talent to ignite the oil-rich state's domestic league.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Liverpool signs Florian Wirtz from Bayer Leverkusen for huge fee that could climb to $156 million
Liverpool delivered a huge statement of intent after winning the Premier League title by signing Germany star Florian Wirtz from Bayer Leverkusen on Friday. The transfer fee could climb to 116 million pounds ($156 million), which would make the 22-year-old Wirtz the most expensive player in the history of British soccer. "I feel very happy and very proud," Wirtz told the official Liverpool website. "Finally it's done and I was waiting for a long time. "I'm really excited to have a new adventure in front of me. This was also a big point of my thoughts: that I want to have something completely new, to go out of the Bundesliga and to join the Premier League. "I will see how I can perform there. I hope I can do my best. I spoke also with some players who played there and they told me that it's perfect for me and every pitch is perfect, you can enjoy every game. I'm really looking forward to playing my first game." Liverpool, determined to keep moving forward despite securing a record-tying 20th English top-flight title, splashed out a club record to bring in not only one of the best players from Germany, but one of the top youngsters in the world. Wirtz has been a key first-team player for Leverkusen since he was 17. He was the outstanding attacking player in the team that won the Bundesliga and German Cup in 2023-24 without losing a game, and is a regular in Germany's national team. It's why Liverpool was ready to pay a guaranteed 100 million pounds, plus 16 million pounds in potential add-ons. Wirtz had two years left on his contract, giving Leverkusen leverage in negotiations. The Premier League record for an initial fee was set when Chelsea signed Enzo Fernandez from Benfica for 106.7 million pounds ($131.4 million at the time) in 2023, before the London club agreed to pay up to 115 million pounds ($146 million at the time) for midfielder Moises Caicedo from Brighton later that year.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches. So far, at least 150 of the governing party's Members of Parliament have indicated concerns about the cuts in two letters to the government. Other non-signatories have told Bloomberg they also intend to vote against the bill. While Starmer's attention this week was centered on the escalating tensions in the Middle East, the domestic threat was laid bare on Thursday when Vicky Foxcroft, a government whip who would have been tasked with helping quell the revolt, quit, citing her own objections. The rebellion threatens to bruise Starmer's and Reeves' credibility and further damage their stock with the left of their party. In order to avoid falling to what would be an unprecedented defeat for a government enjoying such a large majority so early in its tenure, ministers could at worst be forced into major concessions that reduce the bill's expected cost savings, forcing the Treasury to conjure up money from other cuts or tax rises at the budget in the fall. 'It's a test of Starmer's authority and the way he and Rachel Reeves are running the economy,' Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London, said in a phone interview. 'If the rebellion is too big, you start to run into questions about the loyalty of your backbenchers and even perhaps the future of your leadership.' The welfare reforms allowed Reeves to save about £5 billion ($6.5 billion) a year by 2030 by making it harder for disabled people to claim a benefit called the personal independence payment, or PIP. The chancellor factored them into a spring statement as part of spending cuts designed to help meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. Reeves says the changes are necessary because an extra thousand people a day have been signing on for PIP, creating an 'unsustainable' impact on the public finances. PIP payments had been projected to almost double to £41 billion by the end of the decade, within overall spending on disability and incapacity benefits that the Office for Budget Responsibility — the government's fiscal watchdog — sees rising to £100 billion from £65 billion last year. The government has also says there is a moral case for supporting people back into work. But Labour lawmakers are concerned the government announced changes in a rush to deliver savings, without thinking through the impact on vulnerable people. 'There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people,' one Labour backbencher, Debbie Abrahams, told the House of Commons. There are particular concerns about a new requirement for claimants to score four or above in one of the daily living components of the PIP assessment, meaning people who can't wash half their body or cook a meal will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. One Labour MP describing the process as letting the OBR tail wag the government dog. Some 45 Labour MPs signed a public letter objecting to the measures, while another letter — arranged in secrecy so that even signatories couldn't see who they were joining — garnered 105 signatures and was sent to the chief whip. While some of the would-be rebels have indicated they could be swayed by the government whips, one of them told Bloomberg they are confident that more than 80 MPs will commit to voting against the government. Given Starmer's working majority is 165, if all opposition parties vote against the bill, it would take 83 Labour rebels to defeat the government. The main opposition Conservative Party is planning to vote against the changes, Danny Kruger, one of the party's work and pensions spokespeople, told parliament in May. Its reasons are different: the Tories argue the measures don't go far enough. One Labour MP told Bloomberg that concerned lawmakers plan to put forward a procedural challenge to the bill. While they don't expect the speaker to select that amendment for debate, the aim is to force further changes from the government, and organize would-be Labour rebels into a coherent group which could eventually vote down the bill. Many in Labour had been waiting to see the bill before making up their minds. When the text was published on Wednesday, the concessions to their concerns were minimal, largely amounting to a 13-week transition period for those losing their PIP. Foxcroft — the whip who had previously served for four years as Starmer's shadow disability minister in opposition — quit within hours of the publication, saying she didn't believe cutting the disability benefits should be part of the solution to tackling ballooning welfare costs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Friday that Foxcroft's resignation wasn't a sign of a major rebellion, while conceding that 'of course' there are dissenting voices on such a big reform. 'Vicky is the only front-bencher that I've had a conversation with about resigning,' she said. Nevertheless, many so-called 'red wall' Labour MPs in northern and central England face a tough decision. Health Equity North, a public health institute, found that all the places most affected financially by the PIP reforms are Labour constituencies in northern England. In several areas, the number of people affected by the welfare changes exceeds the Labour majority, meaning those MPs could see a crucial drop in support. The government is gearing up for a fight, indicating it will make no further concessions. On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failed to rule out stripping the whip from Labour rebels, while government enforcers are warning MPs that their political career prospects will be ruined if they oppose the bill. Whips and wannabe rebels alike expect the potential revolt to be whittled down as July 1 approaches. Some opponents are weighing whether to abstain at the second reading and wait until the third reading to take a more decisive vote, as whips are encouraging them to do. 'I'd be amazed if he were defeated here,' Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said. 'If the whips got a whiff they were going to get defeated, they'd give some concessions. The worst of all outcomes is to lose this.' More stories like this are available on
