There is a worrying and increasingly unquestioned assumption in British political debate at present, which is that higher defence spending is unavoidable, and that it must be paid for by cutting back care, public services, and social security. We are told this is the price of security in a more dangerous world. That claim is rarely interrogated, being nodded through by interviewers as if it is a foregone conclusion, and yet it should be challenged, because once examined, it unravels very quickly.
If defence spending requires austerity elsewhere, the first and most fundamental question is not financial but moral and political and is instead what exactly are we trying to defend in that case? It should be obvious that a country in which public services are degraded, poverty is allowed to rise, and insecurity becomes a normal condition of life is not a society organised around shared purpose or mutual care. If, at the same time, as would appear to be the assumption, the interests of the wealthy are protected from sacrifice, the message is unmistakable: defence is not about collective security but about preserving an unequal status quo.
This matters. The discussion is about defence, and a call to arms, but people do not fight for abstractions. If they are willing to fight at all, they fight for places where life feels worth living, where citizenship carries meaning, and where burdens are shared fairly. A state that hollows itself out in the name of defence, while insulating wealth and power, is not strengthening itself. It is eroding the very social foundations on which legitimacy and loyalty rest. That is not a country that many would willingly defend. This form of funding demand is, then, wholly counter-productive in defence policy terms.
The claim that we face an unavoidable choice between military capacity and care also rests on a profound misunderstanding of how the economy works. It assumes that there is a fixed pool of both financial and physical resources available to the government, and that spending on defence necessarily crowds out spending on health, education, housing, and social security. The reality is that this assumption is false, and we all know it is because the UK economy is (and has been for some time) characterised by persistent under-use of resources. Official unemployment remains around five per cent, and when under-employment and insecure work are taken into account, the waste of human capacity is far higher. Skills are unused, labour is idle, and social needs are going unmet by policy choice. The argument that available physical resources are the constraint on action is, then, entirely incorrect.
There is, in fact, no economic reason to force an either-or choice between defence and public services. The real constraint is not the availability of government finances (which, in fact, always exist, as modern monetary theory explains), but the availability of real resources: people, skills, materials, and organisational capacity. Where those resources exist, as they do in the UK, a currency-issuing state can always mobilise them. The conclusion is obvious: if the preservation of the state genuinely requires additional defence capacity, then the state can run a deficit to secure that aim without dismantling the care systems that give it social meaning. Treating defence spending as financially constrained while tolerating the underuse of available economic resources is not realism; it is ideology dressed up as prudence.
History makes this even clearer. The idea that military spending necessarily precludes social investment is not supported by experience. In the 1950s and 1960s, Britain maintained a large standing military within the pressures of the Cold War while simultaneously undertaking vast programmes of public investment. This was the period when the National Health Service was established, public housing expanded, transport systems rebuilt, and access to education widened dramatically. Defence and development were not seen as mutually exclusive because policymakers understood that social resilience is itself a form of security, and a precondition of successful defence policy.
History also provides another precedent, this time from World War II. If additional tax is required to constrain resource use for consumption as a result of required defence effort, then those who must pay that additional tax were then, and should be now, those with the greatest capacity to do so, precisely because it is their excess consumption that can and should be forgone if greater allocation of resources to defence is required. Those with the least should not be asked to make that sacrifice: they do not have the capacity to bear it. This was Keynes' prescription in 1941, and he was right: this was how to fund the defence of a nation. The lesson has been forgotten, but should not have been.
The evidence from all this is obvious. What has changed since then is not what is economically possible, but what political elites are willing to imagine or admit. Scarcity narratives have become a tool for disciplining public expectation while leaving wealth untouched and power unchallenged. When defence is framed as requiring austerity, the real effect is not greater safety but a weaker, more divided society.
The real question, then, is not whether we can afford defence and care together. We can, if we need to. The question is whether we are prepared to reject the false choices that justify austerity, protect privilege, and steadily undermine the social fabric on which any meaningful notion of national security depends.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Its interesting to talk to former RFA Officers (Royal Fleet Auxiliary who provide the fleet supply train) they have pointed out that we can only crew three at the moment and some of that is only by taking crew from the SERCO (Ex RMAS) harbour tug fleet.
Clearly either we are not ‘motivating’ enough people to join the Armed Forces both in terms of pay and conditions AND ‘psychologically’ – perhaps understandably Young People are no longer motivated to join up.
Compare and contrast with the young men and women trying to join the Police and Fire services
Oh & I gather the Irish Armed Forces have hit rock bottom in terms of staffing so its not a problem unique to the UK
Agree with your entire premise, Richard.
Going on from John Boxall’s comments – which clearly reflect the reality in the UK – there is a way to address the issue. As in Norway and Finland, there is a relatively high level of trust in the government (and in teachers, institutions, in society at large). Start by gaining trust and creating – and defending – a society which we are proud to be a part of. Both countries mentioned have a form of cradle-to-grave systems and have proportions of people who feel lucky to live in their respective country because they feel relatively well-off. Correspondingly they (largely) trust their governments, are proud of their country and in the vast majority of cases are perfectly willing to do their national service, join classes to help in the event of attack, support crisis response, etc.
Fundamentally we have a government that does not enjoy much trust, is devoid of ideas and does not entertain MMT. By all means invest in defence, develop our own technologies…and create growth. But not at the expense of our already woeful services.
Thanks, and much to agree with
This is a very timely reminder about the false narrative about government money and how dangerous it can be. This cannot be said often enough in my opinion.
When Wilson came to power in 1964, defence spending was 7%.
The US currently spends 3.4%.
I agree with the arguments. Related question: Defense spending on what? To defend what? Against whom?
Traditionally Ruzzia was the “enemy”, but recent events have shown that in fact, the USA is not & never has been a “friend” of Europe – support of Europe 1945 to 1990 was due to the existence of the SovU. US looting of the SovU/Russia in the 1990s led to Putin (who became Europe’s problem – not the US’s). The departure of the UK from the EU whilst not impacting initially on arms projects – now does (EU & SAFE). Which means UK defense spending (bangs for bucks) becomes more expensive – cos it’s locked out of collective SAFE-based projects. The Deform rabble/Fart-rage will gibber about US partnerships – but that looks hollow & ridiculous given current/on-going events. Problem: Starmer & his cabinet-of-imbeciles are incapable of engaging politically on this subject. Putting some numbers on this: the Euros will spend well north of Euro500bn (possibly Euro1trn) on weapon systems – & the UK will not get a look in. Clever.
Defend what? Take a look @ the north sea: oil, gas, wind turbines, electricity interconnectors. With Ruzzian ships chugging past on a regular basis. Think the USA gives a stuff about this? They don’t even have the systems to address threats. UK defense spending & partnerships needs a radical rethink (& a good 1st step would be to turf out all the Israeli defense companies that operate in the UK – oh & confiscate their tech whilst we are at it).
Defense spending on what?
We are expected to believe that the lessor of the Trident missiles has carelessly failed to implement a control mechanism which prevents the lessee from using the missiles against the lessor or its occasional allies. Which raises the question: are there any circumstances in which the lessee could use the missiles autonomously?
I suspect there are none.
A substantial tranche of defence spending is a posture for the outside world, namely the tens of billions spent by a toothless former empire on its nuclear Viagra.
Without the appalling cost of a weapons system no sane prime minister can think about and then sleep at night, a formidable set of conventional armed forces could be built without the need to starve civilian services and infrastructure.
We waste all this money in the name of saving face.
On the subjects of affordability and government spending, there was a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 More or Less this morning.They pointed out that UK spending on welfare (benefits for unemployment, sickness etc.) was not above that of comparable OECD nations. Although spending had gone up as in the other nations, because the benefit rates are so low and mean in the UK the overall costs are no greater than elsewhere. On inequality they showed that the top 1% share of income has increased slightly but on wealth has increased more because of lower capital gains tax. Also put into perspective migration statistics.
Our benefit spending is well below directly cikmparable nation’s levels.
Our tax levels are much lower too. Despite being the “highest ever” the average tax rate as % of GDP is 5-10 percentage points lower than the likes of France, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries etc. Per the IFS, the difference is mainly due to the UK’s relatively low taxation of “median earners”.
The IFS famously don’t do macro.
Re “The IFS famously don’t do macro” – I can’t comment on this as I’m not an economist. But I can observe that this obviously doesn’t address the observations about relative tax takes and the causes thereof. Are you disputing either element of the claim (which also flows from OECD and OBR analysis) i.e. i) UK tax take is “low” and/or ii) the major driver of this is taxes on “median earners”?
1) is true. 2) is a horribly narrow and entirely inappropriate perspetive based on some direct taxes alone.
What do we want to defend – and how – and from whom? I take your point on the economics of the issue but believe that there is much more to this than just “defence spending”.
There used to be a time when we believed that our country and government supported the UN Charter, and “International Law”. For a long time, and more obviously recently, it has become clear that this has been undermined, and that our government and others in positions of power prioritise the interests of the United States and its chosen causes.
For many years it has been the case that certain parties have attempted to manipulate us by persuading us that immigrants are our “enemy”. They still do. But in recent times certain parties have been attempting to manipulate us by persuading us that Russia is our “enemy” (see “interests of the United States” above).
Once upon a time our governments believed that their purpose should be to ensure employment, homes, health care, social security, public services and so on in a stable society.
Bombs, missiles, guns and platoons of conscripts will be of no use in defending our society from the corruption of neoliberalism imposed upon us and capture of our politicians and media over the past 45 years.
I agree with your conclusion.