A consensus is growing that UK involvement in a war is becoming significantly more likely and that we need to spend more money on defence, but where should this money come from?
On Saturday 11th April, Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, warned that ‘Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is “breath-taking” that the UK government is failing to better prepare’. On the same day the leader of Canada’s military said in an interview with Sky News, “The world has changed. We have to get ready for large-scale conflicts, more conventional, so we need a different military to do that and different capability.
Then on Monday, April 13, the Daily Telegraph reported ‘Sir Grant Shapps and Dame Penny Mordaunt urge the Prime Minister to free up money to meet threats from hostile states.’ In a Sky News interview, a former Joint Forces commander, General Sir Richard Barrons, warned that the UK needs an extra £10 billion a year in defence spending to meet current threats from conflicts like Ukraine and Iran.
Today, Tuesday 14th April, Lord George Robertson, the former Labour defence secretary is reported by the BBC as saying, “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
These interviews and comment raise two issues. What threats do we need to protect against and where should the money come from?
Defence from Whom?
Anyone watching the behaviour of Russia over the past ten years, from the invasion of Crimea to the war against Ukraine will have no doubt that Russia is a growing threat to Europe. In previous decades during the Cold War, we felt safe because the relationship with America under NATO was strong. This is no longer the case.
Today’s America has a weak and dysfunctional leader. Even when Trump leaves office in Jan 2029, the damage he has done will remain. America’s ‘Special Relationship’ is with Israel, rather than with the UK and the antagonism shown by many of Trump’s government colleagues such as JD Vance indicates that it will take decades to rebuild trust between America and Europe.
So, we must be ready to defend ourselves against Russia, but why did General Sir Richard Barrons suggest we also need to defend against Iran? Iran has a history of being involved in terrorism but the UK is not under any immediate threat that would come close to justifying us getting sucked into the American-Israeli battle to dominate the Middle East.
President Macron of France has been calling for years for European countries to direct defence away from American and toward EU defence products. This view has just been reinforced by Canadian Premier Mark Carney who on Sunday, April 12 declared “long-standing model of sending ’70 cents of every defence dollar’ to the United States is coming to an end. We are not at the stage of viewing the USA as an enemy, but the world understands that the USA is no longer a reliable ally and we need to stick with our European friends.
Funding Defence Growth
Most accept that dramatic increases in defence spending will require either increases in tax, or decreases in spending. Will the nation be prepared to pay a higher rate of tax to defend our nation from Russia? This seems like the sane option to me, although the rich have mounted a strong publicity campaign to explain why they need massive untaxed income to give them the incentives to work. (See We Must Not Tax the Rich) Certainly, I can see no way a government that tries to introduce another bout of austerity will be able to win an election.
A Third Way – PPP and PFI?
General Sir Richard Barrons did float the idea of our defence being paid for by a partnership with private equity and he is not alone in taking this view. General Sir Roly Walker, the Chief of the General Staff, has argued in the past the UK defence industry is being unfairly shunned by investors. But what does this mean?
Those old enough to remember Tony Blair was a great proponent of PPP (Public Private Partnerships) where private companies would fund a school or hospital immediately, so the government did not have to find the money, and the government would effectively lease the property back from the private company. A variation on this, called a PFI (Private Finance Initiative) is a long-term procurement method where private consortia design, build, finance, and operate public infrastructure.
Sounds great, unless you stop to think.
Private companies are not bastions of evil, but they are not your friends either.
I used to be involved in purchasing computers for secondary schools and learned to read the small print and calculate the long-term costs of any ‘deal’. When a private company offers you a way to avoid spending money today, this always involves spending more in the future. This is OK for a young person who takes out a car loan because they know their salary will rise sharply in a few years, but in general, when borrowing you should be careful to take a long-term view and ensure you pick the cheapest offer.
PPP and PFI Disasters
The disastrous record of PPP deals is such that when a deal does not become a disaster, it is trumpeted as something amazing. Examples such as the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, the Darent Valley Hospital and the Kent Police Stations where there were no disastrous extra charges hidden in the contracts, and the private companies did what they were paid to do, are recalled as successes. However, there are very many examples of disastrous
South London Healthcare NHS Trust (2012) became the first NHS trust to go bankrupt, primarily because it was spending 14% of its income just to service the massive debts from PFI contracts used to build its hospitals.
Carillion’s Hospital Projects (2018): The collapse of construction giant Carillion left two major hospitals—the Royal Liverpool and Midland Metropolitan—unfinished for years. The state had to step in at an additional cost of over £148 million to complete them.
According to the Guardian on Mon 13th April, the Centre for Health and the Public Interest has found that:
- £2bn of the £12bn of NHS private contracts went to firms with owners based outside the UK.
- £533m of that £2bn went to companies owned by people living in tax havens such as Jersey and the Cayman Islands.
Should we let such opaque groups own our defence systems?
Private companies are a necessary part of our economy, but they must be approached with a sense of realism. Their loyalty is to their shareholders more than to their customers, they are driven by a desire for profit.
The idea that our defence systems would be governed by a profit motive and a private company is something that should fill us with dread.
I am not saying it would be as bad as portrayed in “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, in Lord of War, or in War Dogs, but an integration of the profit motive and weapon sales is a poisonous mix.
Arnold is a retired teacher from Lisburn, now living in Belfast.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
