Defence Review

Amidst all the detail of the defence review I think it's important to remind ourselves of a few key facts. The most important is that, for all those on the right claiming that these cuts are 'a joke', Britain will still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world following this review. Not only that, but spending levels will be well above the NATO baseline of 2 per cent of GDP and the cut of 8 per cent in real terms still amounts to a cash increase over the next four years. 

Is this a spending review or a defence review?

The question of whether or not this is a spending review masquerading as a defence review is a false one. You cannot conduct a defence review without taking into account what you can afford. That is obvious and unavoidable. What Labour are alleging is thus that what the defence review does is not to find an appropriate balance, but to put the spending issue first and defence second. For example this is, according to Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy, what leads the government to take decisions that leave us without any aircraft for our carriers for ten years.

Is this review short-term or long-term?

The carrier decision plays into a larger debate about the nature of the review: is it short-term or long-term? Cameron was unequivocal. It was a long-term review. And because of the state of our finances, that leaves the government having to make a strategic gamble. Leaving the new carriers without aircraft and decommissioning the Ark Royal (our current carrier) immediately leaves a gap in defence. The government has obviously determined that our ability to respond to the threats the country faces over the short term - the next 5-10 years - is not likely to be reduced. 

What are the threats Britain faces?

That is because they anticipate focussing their effort and money into intelligence, diplomacy, international aid programmes, counter-terrorism and the like. These are the first four of the eight areas laid out on pp11-12 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. They also fit in more broadly with the direction our foreign policy is taking under William Hague. His speeches have all discussed the need for Britain to remain an active player in the world, something which Cameron reiterated today. It was not surprising to see more money given to counter cyber-terrorism, given how much coverage this has had in the press recently. 

When it comes to using our armed forces, it was telling that there will be no cuts to special forces outfits like the SAS. Aside from the unaffected current levels of commitment in Afghanistan it's pretty clear that the government is planning to make the army smaller once we pull out. 

What does this mean for the future?

The government announced that the Defence Review will be conducted every five years. While this is a welcome innovation, it is partly because the government want to delay making key decisions until the next parliament. Hence the postponement of a decision on Trident (which also saves £700 million). The future is not bleak for the armed forces though. There will still be money for new projects once the economy is back on its feet, and given how shockingly wasteful the MoD has been/is it can't really be surprised that it has lost a few things.