Andy Beckett, a Guardian columnist, argues that the UK's defence budget is frequently exempt from the public spending scrutiny applied to other sectors. He warns that incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham must be cautious not to accept military claims for more funding without question, as such increases could be paid for by cuts to other public services.
The defence budget's special status
Beckett notes that since the late 1970s, public spending has been viewed negatively, with the state seen as wasteful. Yet the defence budget, despite being among the world's top 10, is often described as “cut to the bone” and in need of significant increases. This argument is advanced by defence ministers, thinktanks, lobbyists, and military chiefs, including Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, who told a House of Lords committee that without a spending increase, the armed forces would have to reduce operational activity and training.
Such warnings receive widespread coverage, and many Britons, including outgoing PM Keir Starmer, tend to believe them. Starmer recently unveiled a more generous defence investment plan. However, Beckett questions whether these claims should be taken on trust, noting that military information is often classified, making it difficult for civilians to assess.
Democratic accountability and military influence
Beckett highlights the problem of unaccountability in a democracy, where taxpayers’ money should be transparent. The military’s unique potency and distance from everyday politics, with loyalty to the monarch rather than the elected government, exacerbate this issue. During rare periods of political questioning, such as Tony Benn’s iconoclastic phase or Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership, military figures have signaled that politicians should back off.
Current geopolitical tensions, from Russia’s invasions to China’s assertiveness, create an ominous atmosphere that suits the military lobby. Burnham, while not a natural pessimist, seems unlikely to diverge from the militaristic narrative. He wrote in the Times that “increasing our national security, in every sense, will be my first priority,” but also called for more transparency and accountability to tackle cost overruns and delays.
Waste and inefficiency in defence
In 2022, Labour published a “dossier of waste in the Ministry of Defence 2010-2021,” concluding that the MoD is a uniquely failing department, with none of its 36 major projects on time and on budget. Beckett acknowledges that long-term military planning is hard, but notes that similar uncertainties affect the NHS budget, which has a more immediate impact on public safety. Yet the discourse around health spending is very different: Jim Mackey, head of NHS England, said last year, “We are pretty much maxed out on what’s affordable. It is really now about delivering better value for money.” It is almost impossible to imagine the head of the armed forces saying that.
Beckett warns that redressing this military-civilian imbalance is not a luxury project for critics. With the government “reprioritising public spending” to boost defence, cuts to other services could damage Burnham’s premiership. Burnham’s references to inefficient spending suggest he is aware of the danger, but his claim that military manufacturing could “regenerat[e] and reindustrialis[e] the country” is contradicted by history, which shows small islands of subsidised defence jobs amid dead factories.
Beckett concludes that war and preparing for war is often a game of bluff, and one should not believe everything its players say.
