The £6bn Ajax armoured vehicle – seen here at the British army expo 2025 – arrived eight years late and with faults. This example of Ministry of Defence wastefulness highlights a broader debate about spending priorities.
The guns versus butter dilemma
Polly Toynbee examines the recurring political argument between defence and welfare spending. Historically, Hermann Göring and Margaret Thatcher used similar rhetoric, but defence spending fell as a proportion of GDP after the Cold War. Now, with Russia and an unreliable US, the peace dividend is being questioned.
Al Carns, former armed forces minister, repeated the warfare/welfare zero-sum framing upon resigning, suggesting a need to balance support for the needy with defence. However, Toynbee criticizes this juxtaposition, noting that the Ministry of Defence has a record of wild overspending and delays. The Ajax vehicle, Dreadnought submarines, and aircraft carriers all exemplify cost overruns and delays.
The real budget driver: pension triple lock
Toynbee points out that the welfare budget is often misrepresented. Ruth Curtice of the Resolution Foundation shows that non-pensioner welfare is at mid-1990s levels when corrected for accounting changes. The real growth is in pensions, driven by the triple lock. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and Resolution Foundation have criticized the triple lock, which costs billions more than earnings-linked rises.
Yet, the right focuses on cutting benefits for working-age people and disabled, ignoring the pension triple lock. Toynbee argues that defence and welfare are separate issues and that UK benefits are already low compared to other OECD countries. She suggests a defence levy or patriotic bonds instead of cutting support for the most vulnerable.
