What’s going on at the MoD?

February 5, 2013 10:56 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

On Tuesday evening last week David Cameron said he wanted to ring-fence the entire defence budget from 2015. By Wednesday morning Philip Hammond was desperately ‘clarifying’ that the only portion of the budget for which any guarantee could be made was the equipment element, which is less than 40% of the total. What Ministers did not tell you was that on the same day the National Audit Office released a report on defence equipment which said the Government’s guarantees will only be affordable if non-equipment spending is cut, which means more likely reductions in welfare, housing and personnel.

The significance of last week’s governmental incompetence is twofold. First, as part of his apprenticeship for the job in government he has had his eye on for almost a decade – Chancellor – Philip Hammond is desperately trying to build a reputation on ‘balancing the books’, but the NAO report exposed the fact he is failing to do so. Second, the Prime Minister is unaware of his own defence spending policy, which not just accounts for £34bn of taxpayer pounds but goes to the heart of our ability to achieve our ambitions in the world and protect our service personnel.

Many will think will take some beating as an example of government shambles – or as one wag has called it #bombnishambles, or #armygeddon – but there is a ready-made contender. A Defence Select Committee report is published today which revisits the flawed 2010 Defence Review and the Government’s decision to change the planes that fly from our future aircraft carriers. Out went the vertical take off and land variant, which Labour had planned to introduce, to be replaced by the ‘cats and traps’ variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. Standing at the Dispatch Box in 2010 David Cameron announced his plans to reverse Labour’s  policy, scrap all the Harriers, which left us without aircraft to fly from carriers for a decade, sell Ark Royal, build two carriers but mothball one and sack trainee pilots.

Soon the plan began to unravel and, just weeks in to the job, Philip Hammond had the humiliation of performing a u-turn and returning to Labour’s original plans. Their u-turn only came full circle after an embarrassment of errors. They said their policy was cheaper – but it was more expensive by up to £2bn more than planned. They said the UK would be interoperable with the French – but their chosen jet couldn’t even land on the French carrier. The Prime Minister personally derided a policy he has now adopted.

Ministers scrapped the Harrier Jump jet fleet, but the irony now is that the Government are in fact buying a new fleet of jump jets, meaning we will need to retrain and redevelop the skills carelessly cast aside. It is as incoherent as it is ludicrous.

The Select Committee has now concluded that the ‘decision was rushed and based upon incomplete and inaccurate policy development…This decision ultimately led to increased costs to the carrier strike programme and a delay in the in-service date of the carrier.’ The report shows that the decision has cost the taxpayer £100m, and seems set to rise still further.

This all comes as there are rising concerns across the Government’s defence planning.  There are real worries over proposals to increase the number of Reservists to plug the capability gaps left by deep cuts in the fulltime Army. For our nation’s sake we need that policy to succeed but there is as yet no government offer to incentivise employers, who are understandably concerned about losing employees for longer periods of Reservists service. The Government are also now considering cutting those who support our Special Forces at a time when they are needed to help deal with al Qaeda.  Meanwhile the ‘bedroom tax’ could hit Forces families while their loved ones train or serve overseas and changes to public sector pensions have failed to give defence fire and police services the same exemptions in the rising retirement age as their civilian counterparts.  This all shows a set of Ministers either not on top of the detail or inconsiderate of their people’s needs.

At a time when our Forces are being asked to do more overseas in new contexts they are being given less frontline resource, cuts in welfare support and limited strategic guidance. New and complex challenges collide with fiscal realities to make tough decisions and trade-offs necessary, but this must be underpinned by direction, sound financing and a compassion that drives a determination to do the utmost by those who serve and their families.  The last few weeks have shown us that the Government demonstrates none of these qualities. Incompetence is corrosive when it comes to the government’s policy on defence.  They can’t go on like this.

Jim Murphy is the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

  • Pingback: What’s going on at the MoD? | Labour Friends of the Forces()

  • http://www.facebook.com/ptanto Paul Tanto

    Delivering two aircraft carriers without planes to fly from them does, indeed, take a staggering lack of competence / attention to detail.

  • uglyfatbloke

    Just the next step in the sad tale of British defence policy since god knows when. is there a competition between the two parties to see who can do the most stupid things while sucking up to major military suppliers? The carrier programme was pretty silly in the first place and the Tories have made it even more so, but Labour has nothing to boast about here…Trident? The tank replacement programme? What next ? A new bow-and -arrow factory?
    Billions spent on kit that does n’t work and pointless operations, but we can’t pay a decent wage to our service personnel, OTH we can somehow afford more admirals than we have ships, more generals that we have battalions and – so i’ m told – more Air marshals than we have squadrons and there is no control over the revolving door arrangements of senior officers joining defence corporations as soon as they leave the service.
    So that’s great……

Latest

  • News Video Broadcasters to Cameron: Tell us a date you can do for head-to-head debate

    Broadcasters to Cameron: Tell us a date you can do for head-to-head debate

    Broadcasters appear to be losing their patience with David Cameron’s attempts to get out of appearing the pre-election TV debates. It is widely understood that Cameron has been advised by strategist Lynton Crosby not to take part in the leaders’ debates and has been dragging his feet during negotiations, making more debates each time broadcasters make new proposals. Following the initial invitation of UKIP to appear, Cameron claimed that the Green Party should also take part. Now the Greens, SNP […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Tactical voting: unless we are an open tribe, we will die

    Tactical voting: unless we are an open tribe, we will die

    So Compass holds a debate about the relevance, or not, of tactical voting in the run up May and straight away John Spellar MP and then Luke Akehurst are on to us. John accused us of calling on people ‘not to vote Labour”, Luke says we are ‘naïve’. Well first lets be clear: we have set up the space on our website for a debate; we have one article for tactical voting and one against. We wanted to see what […]

    Read more →
  • News Cooper says “slippery” Farage’s immigration speech will increase division

    Cooper says “slippery” Farage’s immigration speech will increase division

    Yvette Cooper has accused Nigel Farage of attempting to exploit concerns about immigration rather than attempting to come up with practical policies. The Shadow Home Secretary also derided UKIP for getting themselves in a “ridiculous tangle” on the issue – last week a spokesperson for the party said they would introduce a net migration target of 50,000, while Farage today claims that it is not party policy. This follows Ed Miliband attacking David Cameron for missing his 2010 immigration promises […]

    Read more →
  • Featured PMQs Verdict: Nevermind what Cameron said – it’s what he wouldn’t say that matters

    PMQs Verdict: Nevermind what Cameron said – it’s what he wouldn’t say that matters

    There are only three PMQs left until the election. Three more of these turgid, unattractive, unedifying and borderline pointless sessions to sit through before May. If this is the highlight of the Parliamentary week then Parliament can’t prorogue quick enough, frankly. Evidently many MPs feel the same, judging by the wide open spaces on the green benches this lunchtime. After a few minutes MPs had all spaced themselves out a little bit to make the place look a bit less […]

    Read more →
  • News Burnham announces charities should be “preferred provider” for NHS services

    Burnham announces charities should be “preferred provider” for NHS services

    Andy Burnham, Shadow Health Secretary, has said that charities should be the “preferred provider” of NHS services. He has said that Labour would introduce legislation, to get rid of parts of the contentious 2012 Health and Social Care Act, that would mean not-for-profit organisations would be seen as the “preferred provider” for the NHS. Contracts would be five or ten year agreements. This is part of Labour’s plan for health and social care. Speaking at the Association of Chief Executives […]

    Read more →