Des Browne’s Defence Spending Fiddle
Fraser Nelson 11:38am
The government's response to the Thursday attack by the defence chiefs was to claim that Britain has the second-highest defence spending in the world. It was a new one to me. Does Britain really outspend Russia, with its phenomenal ballistic output? Or China, the communist superpower whose soaring military budget is deeply unnerving the Pentagon? How did Des Browne conjure up the figure?
My inquiries have established that the MoD has used the old accounting fiddle of using unadjusted (and, therefore, misleading) currency translations. As any fule kno, the only way to do any meaningful international comparisons is to use purchasing power parity (PPP) measures – adjusted for how much arms their money can go. What China spends, for example, may not buy much more than half a Eurofighter in Britain. But at home it's enough for 1.6m troops and 7,100 tanks: substantially ahead of a British Army which has fewer troops than at any time since the 19th century. (And did I mention that we're fighting two wars?)
I actually have the raw workings of the MoD on this one. It's from the Stockholm Peace Institute, available on PDF here. The dodgy (MER Dollar) figures which Des Browne gave to us are on the left, and the real (PPP) figures which he didn't give us are on the right. Old Des obviously learnt a trick or two during the year he spent working for Brown at the Treasury.
Previous
Comments
Jack R
November 25th, 2007 5:25pmFor a serious critique of the Labour government's policy on defence spending, see: " A homourless post" (25 Nov.) http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com
Steve
November 26th, 2007 8:57amI am stunned that the Gov, can even think of spinning Defence. Unless of course they truly believe we have the 2nd best armed services in the world? A delusion on a par with another ex-bunker dweller, who spent his final days in office moving non-existent armies around the map. (Sorry cheap shot but I couldn't resist it.) There are so many layers of nonsense in this claim that it is difficult to know where to start. But I also wonder about the efficiency of the expenditure, for instance why is there almost 1 MOD staffer (100,000) for every 2 Members of HM Armed Forces. Does the Chinese MOD have some 800,000 staff. Oh and on a final note, Des Browne threw out a challenge to name one thing he hadn't done as a part time defence minister. I would have thought that, failing to defend the UK defence budget, is a rather large thing he hasn't done.
John Backhouse
November 26th, 2007 11:31amI'm afraid nothing stuns me about this government. Lying is built into its very soul and was from the moment the Blair/Brown cabal took over in opposition. Nothing is too serious to lie about and this is why they are so very dangerous for this country. Imagine beating them in an election and having to pick the bones out of this mess. Terrible.
Brian Murphy
November 27th, 2007 11:04amPPP is pretty misleading too, since big arms (tanks, ships, planes) are sold on international markets at international prices. Even taking the PPP figures at face value, does the UK really need 1/4 of China's expenditure, to defend a 40th of the territory and a 20th of the population? Or does it have other ambitions than defense?
Laura Fox
November 27th, 2007 2:12pmIs it true that the MoD spent £2 billion refurbishing a Whitehall building whilst the soldiers at war don't have basic equipment? And that our Gurkhas had to march 8 hours overnight before a dawn attack on a Taliban compound because we didn’t have helicopters available? Is it true that the MoD and British military employ in total some 200,000 people!? But only 5,000 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan?! Or that the Navy has more Admirals than ships (let alone captains)? If things like these are true, then our military is criminally deformed, in favour of the top brasses and civil servants, against the safety of our soldiers in battle, efficiency of our military, security of our country, and also respect for our tax money (though the latter is the LEAST important here). And you in the press have the MORAL DUTY of investigating this PROPERLY! Find the facts, the numbers, be critical! Our soldiers at war need this! Compare our military with more efficient ones. Investigate it! Please!
David
November 28th, 2007 7:24pmAll Des Browne said was that Britain is the second highest spender on defence in the world. And this is technically correct, so the fact that you go on about PPP is completely irrelevant. You're just clutching at straws here.
Jim Silver
December 5th, 2007 12:51pmHow could we be the second highest defence spender in the world when this Government fails to notice the problems we have and therefore fails to properly increase funding for the Armed Forces. The Royal Navy may supposedly be getting two new Fleet Carriers but at the rate the escorting Frigates and destroyers are being cut from the fleet, there won't be any ships available to protect them or the trade lanes that are so important to us as an island nation. The Royal Air Force has few front line squadrons left and is struggling to find sufficient aircraft to support our troops overseas, never mind defend our own air space. The Army has had its fine regiments amalgamated again and again until the soldiers have no identity and no morale. They are forced to use sub-standard equipment and vehicles without adequate armoured protection for the task in hand. Due to the reduction in size of the Army they are also being sent into the combat zone in insufficient numbers to make notable gains. This country cares very much about its soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. I implore you not to let this sorry state of affairs continue any longer, to bring it to the attention of the House of Commons, over and over again, until something positive is done to help our armed forces to protect our position in the world. Being a country solely dependent on nuclear weapons for defence is not a viable option. We are rapidly becoming a second class, second rate power. No good will copme of it. We must not let it happen