A decision the next Prime Minister must make

The last Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was undertaken in 1998 and the die is now cast for the remaining months of this government. As the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in his last speech on the subject of defence, ‘The nation must debate and decide what we want our country to do in the world and then fund it, so that it does not slip by default into the second division’. A major decision with respect to foreign and defence policies and their funding awaits the next Prime Minister and this decision can no longer be fudged.

We could decide to continue with our current liberal interventionist, expeditionary and proactive foreign and defence policies, working and if necessary fighting alongside the United States, but then we must fund them adequately. This funding would have to involve repairing the damage as a result of over-stretch, filling the equipment gap and allowing for an appropriate tempo of operations.

Alternatively, we could decide to lower our profile in the world at large and compromise towards more reactive foreign and defence policies. When played out, this would represent the most radical shift in the nation’s priorities in more than two centuries. Perhaps this course already has been decided upon by default. Indeed, this course of action would be compatible with our current trajectory. As if to reinforce this impression, defence spending has been ruled out as a fiscal stimulus.

The scandalous lack of adequate defence equipment, from personal items to helicopters experienced by the armed forces together with wasteful start-delay-stop of high-value equipment programmes is now well understood.

What is the common thread which explains this unsatisfactory situation? It is the chronic problem of trying to do too much with too little funding. The lack of recognition of this situation played out over many years has led to dysfunctional approaches to contracting which in the end cost even more. However, none of this should be placed at the feet of the thousands of competent, professional men and women working very hard every day in the MoD attempting to make sense of it all.

The United Kingdom is still a major player in world affairs. A Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, and America’s key partner in the transatlantic alliance – despite having slumped to seventh place (and still falling) in the league table of global economies – Britain undoubtedly ‘punches above its weight’. But, Britain is also currently ‘punching above its budget’ – and we can no longer continue to do so.

Tony Edwards is a director of the United Kingdom National Defence Association, which campaigns for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded armed forces

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and The Independent View.


  • “…continue with our current liberal interventionist, expeditionary and proactive foreign and defence policies, working and if necessary fighting alongside the United States…”

    Interveneing with our armed forces out of genuine humanitarian is one thing, to invade, distabilise and otherwise bully and abuse states merely because they act contrary to western interests is quite another. Unfortunately, it’s the latter which the United States seems bent on doing and Britain by many areas such as the arms industry, intelligence-share,etc, is far too emeshed into US foreign policy/military policy to ever extract itself fully from this client-state role.

  • Malcolm Todd 23rd Dec '09 - 4:41pm

    I’d be quite happy in the second division, and if by default is the only way to drop there, then fine.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

    With the cost of living having risen so dramatically, I don't think its unreasonable for a minimum wage to be at least £15/hr likewise the lowest level before ...
  • Katharine Pindar
    Thanks to all for developing an interesting debate here. I think we do have the means to end deep poverty and raise living standards in this country, if resourc...
    Just wanted to know if the ALDC is on line...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Nonconformistradical, The extent of nationalisation is always a matter of some debate among both socialists and no-socialists. Katharine does support the c...
  • Simon R
    @Peter Martin The problem with claiming that £33K each is enough is that you can't distribute it equally. Capitalism requires significant income inequality bec...