LIKE every other area of Labour’s actions in government so far, the Strategic Defence Review published on Monday is riddled with contradictions, holes and disinformation.
The most obvious place to start, as many commentators have already pointed out, is the numbers. There is a commitment to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2027 and any increase is of course to be welcomed; but as we are already at 2.3 per cent, this is only £6billion a year more, not much when set against the costs of defence infrastructure and the massive gaps left in capabilities by all governments since 1990. The figure of 3 per cent is an ambition, an aspiration, dependent on all sorts of factors which can, of course, be manipulated to ensure that the figure is never met. Even 3 per cent is way below most European members of Nato and, of course, the US, Russia and China.
Of course, as I keep saying, headline numbers of GDP are meaningless unless tied to the matter of capabilities – more of which later.
Built into these numbers is the dreaded word ‘Efficiencies’. We know what this means – cuts. Some of these have already been implemented: reductions in helicopters, drones and ships. The most likely target for cuts: the Army. Not really an army any more at all, given its tiny numbers and inability to field anything more than a brigade. There are efficiencies that could be – should be – made: taking back recruiting, the management of ranges and training areas, and the nonsense of ‘whole fleet management’ from contractors. Huge sums are paid to private sector companies who are given responsibility for matters that should be core competencies of the armed forces. They fail every year but are not accountable for their failures. So sack them.
The next contradiction is the claim that Britain will be the lead Nato nation in Europe. How can this be, when Starmer has sold defence, and the defence industry, to the EU? The EU Commission hates Nato and is determined to undermine it. We have the claim of new munitions factories, but the EU under the surrender deal is planning to take over the direction of where defence industries are located. These new factories are therefore unlikely to be in the UK, but in France or Germany. Jobs for British people? Hardly. And for what will these factories produce munitions? More proxy wars. Since we are incapable of taking the field, let us allow the Ukrainians or Taiwanese to do it for us.
Britain can be a lead Nato nation only by having a major stake in the airland battle. This means an army with at least one corps – with at least two divisions and all the supporting capabilities such as the ability to see the battlefield from the ground, the air, from space and in the virtual realm; long-range missile troops and artillery; aviation for transportation and close support; cyber and electronic warfare (EW) and the logistic support to run a line of communication. It also means a large air force capable of both deep interdiction and close air support of ground forces. We are already far behind the Germans, French and Poles in this and the addition of 0.2 per cent of GDP will not close the gap.
The next contradiction is the welcome building of new submarines and making our aircraft carriers something other than white elephants. All very well – but at the same time, nothing is being done to stop the most immediate security problem facing us: the constant attack and invasion of thousands of unwanted, illegal, spongers and criminals in small boats. Indeed, the Coastguard and the RNLI – not another penny for them, ever – assist in this assault on our sovereign territory. And as a result, of course, while a stressing the need to defend ourselves against external enemies, this invasion opens us up to attack from within, most especially from the extreme Islamist faction on which Labour depends for support in many areas, which is pledged to take over our country.
Moreover, where will we find the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines? There is now little impetus towards military service. This is in part due to the fall in terms and conditions of service. This review says it will address service pay and pensions, housing and barrack accommodation. But there are a few other things that need attention. Stopping the disgrace of ‘pay as you dine’, and ensuring our service people eat proper meals, not pot noodles. Stopping the encouragement of a complaints culture: if you encourage Tommy Atkins to complain, believe me, he will. But to employ staff officers by the dozen, and civil servants by the hundred, on this, rather than relying on the chain of command, simply undermines discipline and effectiveness. The inability to recruit military personnel stems from other factors too. For many years, young people have been told in schools that Britain is a wicked country and not worth defending. Most of them believe it – and to undo this will take a generation and the complete restructuring of education. Not all believe it, as the success of the cadet movement shows. However, look around – is a country full of illegals, where criminals thrive and welfare is out of control, where the government hands over more and more of our sovereignty every day, worth defending? To make military service attractive, all that must be addressed. By Labour? Not likely. Smell that cheese
