Sunak defence cuts a ‘breach’ of manifesto
Treasury expected to stick to spending commitments but inflation will wipe out the value of any increase
Rishi Sunak is planning to cut defence spending in real terms in an apparent breach of the Conservative election manifesto. Next week the Treasury is expected to announce all departmental spending for the next two years will remain as agreed in the 2021 spending review. That means the Ministry of Defence budget will rise in cash terms from £47.9bn this year to £48bn in 2023 and then £48.6bn in 2024. But 10 per cent inflation is eating into those budgets.
‘It seems incredible that with a land war in Europe the Government feels it can cut the defence budget’
‘It’s not going to be easy, there are going to be some very difficult choices’
RISHI SUNAK is planning to cut defence spending in real terms in the coming years in an apparent breach of the Conservative election manifesto.
The Treasury is expected to announce next week that all departmental spending for the next two years will remain as previously agreed in the 2021 spending review.
That means the Ministry of Defence (MOD) budget will rise in cash terms from £47.9billion this year to £48billion in 2023 and then £48.6billion in 2024. But inflation, currently at 10 per cent, is eating into those budgets.
Taking into account those prices means a real term defence spending cut, according to the Royal United Services Institute, a defence think tank.
It means that calls for a major uplift in defence spending in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine earlier this year have been rebuffed by the Treasury.
The 2019 Tory election manifesto promised on defence spending to “increase the budget by at least 0.5 per cent above inflation every year of the new Parliament”.
That is undercut by the real term fall coming. But ministers will argue that by taking the average yearly rise across the five-year period that the promise will still be met.
The backdrop could complicate Mr Sunak’s tough stance on Russia that he is expected to deliver at his first gathering of world leaders at the G20 summit in Bali.
The Prime Minister is expected to double down on the UK’S condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the summit, which begins on Monday.
Russia will be represented by Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, rather than Vladimir Putin, the president, who has decided not to attend.
There have been recent media reports that US officials have urged the Ukrainians to open up communication channels with the Kremlin, though Washington denied they were pushing for peace talks. A backlash on the lack of defence spending rises was emerging last night.
Gen Lord Dannatt, the former head of the army, told The Daily Telegraph: “The Government has to cut public expenditure in order to balance the books as it is reluctant to raise taxes, but it does seem incredible that with a land war in Europe it feels it can cut the defence budget. Given that we have had 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent waved under defence planners’ noses, now to be cutting it to 2 per cent or under, it makes you wonder how on earth you can plan anything sensible for the future.”
The Telegraph understands that inside the MOD some discussions have already begun about whether the real terms spending cut means the army needs to become even smaller.
Last year it was announced that the number of fully trained soldiers will be cut to 72,500, the smallest size of the UK army on record. It remains unclear whether Mr Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, will stick by the target set by Liz Truss to spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030.
The current Nato target is 2 per cent, which Britain has been exceeding.
Boris Johnson had announced hopes to raise that target to 2.5 per cent before he left office earlier this year.
But even if ministers say the 3 per cent target remains a broad ambition, no pathway to hitting the goal is expected to be set out in the Autumn Statement on Nov 17.
Rusi analysis suggests that to reach the target the MOD budget would have to jump from about £48billion this year to £93billion in 2030, just as a major Whitehall spending squeeze is coming.
Justifying the defence spending cuts could be politically complicated for Mr Hunt, who in his Tory leadership campaign this summer promised a major increase if he won.
Yesterday, Mr Hunt stressed the financial challenges ahead given soaring inflation and interest rates and new economic figures suggesting the forecasted UK recession has already begun.
“What we need is to put that plan in place. It’s not going to be easy, there are going to be some very difficult choices,” he said. “I’ve used the word ‘eye-watering’ before and that’s the truth.”
Sticking to the Spending Review decisions from 2021 mean that department spending levels will stay as agreed 2023 and 2024, despite inflation eating into the budgets. For the years of 2025, 2026 and 2027 the Treasury is not expected to announce departmental budgets next week. Yet major spending squeezes will be signalled nonetheless.
Overall government departmental spending is expected to rise by just 1 per cent a year in that period, much lower than the 3.5 per cent in earlier years.
Earlier this week, Ben Wallace the Defence Secretary, appeared to play down the possibility of defence spending increases coming any time soon.
“There’ll be a budget sometime in the spring. And we’re negotiating in the very short term period between now and then to see what we can do,” he said.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman declined to comment.
The war in Ukraine appears to be approaching a critical moment. The scenes around the vital region of Kherson are nothing short of remarkable. Only six weeks ago, Vladimir Putin gave a speech boasting of the annexation of four occupied regions, including Kherson. Now, with yellow and blue Ukrainian flags flying again over government buildings there, he appears to have been humiliated.
No one, of course, is blind to the possibility that what appears to be a submissive retreat is in fact the tactical prelude to a vicious counterstrike. But even with his iron grip on the Russian media, Putin already appears unable to stem domestic consternation at this military ignominy. In the absence of a swift reversal of his army’s fortunes in Ukraine, his grip on power has surely never looked weaker.
Such a pivotal moment concentrates the mind on two issues. First, while no one should underestimate their courage and sacrifice, Ukrainian forces have done as well as they have in great part because of the support they have received from the West. Britain has gone far beyond its European neighbours in this regard, by supplying weapons that have enabled Ukraine to push Russia out of much of the territory it has invaded this year, with the potential to take back all land lost since February.
Secondly, these contributions, while vital, are expensive. They are proof that defence spending matters, that modern equipment can be decisive against well-matched “peer” enemies, and that maintaining effective Armed Forces will help keep the peace in future by deterring our adversaries from making the kind of disastrous assumptions that Putin made earlier this year. That deterrent is most evident in our nuclear capability, which has played its part, too, its certainties making Putin think twice before deploying his own weapons of mass destruction.
Yet as we report today, despite the evidence of its extraordinary benefits, defence spending faces a real-terms cut in what would be a breach of the 2019 manifesto, which stated that the budget would increase “by at least 0.5 per cent above inflation every year”. Reneging on this pledge now would undermine the spirit of the new Government, which has claimed the 2019 mandate as its foundation.
Strategically and politically, cuts do not make sense. What does is asking how the war in Ukraine ends. While the mixed signals from America, suggesting both impatience with Kyiv and open-ended support, have sowed confusion, the West should establish clear objectives that plot a path to the successful conclusion of the conflict.
For now, however, we must continue to strengthen military capabilities – both in Britain and Ukraine.
Let the police do their job
With the appointment of Sir Mark Rowley as its head, the Metropolitan Police may be beginning to surface from one of the lowest points in its history after a string of outrages, including the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer. Determined to focus on catching criminals while ruthlessly rooting out racists and misogynists in the force’s ranks, Sir Mark has correctly identified the fastest way to restore public trust in him and his officers.
But as he writes in the Telegraph’s pages today, that backto-basics mission of decency and crime-fighting is undermined not just by bureaucracy, but by the fact that the police are increasingly asked to act as health-care and social workers, too. Officers on the street have become the “service of last resort” dealing with members of the public who would be better treated by mental health workers or other branches of the NHS and social care.
As Sir Mark diplomatically puts it, while these other services have “stepped back”, the police are having to step up. This is an imbalance that will only be exacerbated by public sector strikes – something that the police, as Crown servants, are forbidden to do.
As they consider strike action, then, nurses, junior doctors and other NHS workers need to reflect upon the impact their actions will have not just on patient welfare, but also on police efforts to keep the streets safe. The police are trained to drive down crime, not to act as social workers. After a period of poor performance it is essential that they focus on that one core task, rather than being abandoned to pick up the pieces as best they can by other public sector workers.
Sound of democracy
If yesterday’s Armistice Day silence were not moving enough, it was marked by Big Ben, which will ring for Remembrance Sunday tomorrow, too. The great bell had been still for five years, though rung by a temporary mechanism on occasion. To hear it again is an event for the whole nation. In war and peace, it rinsed the world’s ears with the sound of democracy. Its tower’s official name – the Elizabeth Tower – means more now that the late Queen is no longer with us, she who donned uniform in the Second World War and reigned for 70 years of peace. The tower is also a lighthouse, as when Parliament sits the Ayrton Light (named after a curmudgeonly and forgotten minister) shines out. Above its chamber are set the Rose, Thistle, Leek and Shamrock for the United Kingdom – which best remains united on days of Remembrance like these.