{"id":172328,"date":"2024-11-11T08:37:16","date_gmt":"2024-11-11T08:37:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/11\/11\/return-of-donald-trump-puts-uk-defence-spending-at-top-of-agenda-laura-kuenssberg\/"},"modified":"2024-11-11T08:37:16","modified_gmt":"2024-11-11T08:37:16","slug":"return-of-donald-trump-puts-uk-defence-spending-at-top-of-agenda-laura-kuenssberg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/11\/11\/return-of-donald-trump-puts-uk-defence-spending-at-top-of-agenda-laura-kuenssberg\/","title":{"rendered":"Return of Donald Trump puts UK defence spending at top of agenda – Laura Kuenssberg"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Return<\/div>


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"BBCBBC<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

You\u2019re probably used to politicians telling you we\u2019re living in the most dangerous times for decades.<\/p>\n

But who\u2019s going to pay for our protection?<\/p>\n

Donald Trump is a lot less willing than the current president to pay for other countries\u2019 defence.<\/p>\n

As one UK source told me, \u201cit doesn\u2019t make sense for Europe\u2019s defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.\u201d<\/p>\n

So Trump’s return puts this question right to the top of the list.<\/p>\n

The UK government does plan, eventually, to hit the target the Conservatives committed to – of spending 2.5% of the size of the economy on defence, a level last hit back in 2010.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a defence review underway, and a spending review of every penny spent in Whitehall to get through first.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re expected to come one after the other, next spring.<\/p>\n

John Healey, the defence secretary, was granted an extra \u00a33bn in the Budget, which is a chunky sum of money – but in terms of defence spending, not a transformative amount of cash.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s only a top-up for a year, with no certainty over long-term funding.<\/p>\n

A former minister said: \u201cIt\u2019s very hard to order for the years ahead – how long can we be talking, when the need is now?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\"GettyGetty Images<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Pictured with Defence Secretary John Healey (R), Rachel Reeves pledged nearly \u00a33bn in additional funding for the military<\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

The government will not say when they expect to hit the 2.5% target – and won\u2019t commit to hitting it before the end of the Parliament in 2029 – causing frustration in some quarters.<\/p>\n

A senior source said \u201cyou either believe it is the most dangerous time in decades and you fund it properly, or you just don\u2019t really believe it, so you don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

And earlier on the Today programme, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labour of making an effective \u201ccut in our defence budget\u201d by including \u00a33bn of Ukraine funding in it.<\/p>\n

If Labour reach the 2.5% target, he said he\u2019d welcome it, \u201cbut it\u2019s got to be real money with a timetable\u201d.<\/p>\n

There is little disagreement that more resources are needed.<\/p>\n

John Healey himself has acknowledged the military \u201chave not been ready to fight\u201d. A squeeze on funding over many years had made money tight \u2013 the forces \u201chollowed out\u201d, according to Wallace.<\/p>\n

The UK\u2019s support for Ukraine, which has almost universal political support at home, has added to pressure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

According to the National Audit Office, the UK has committed nearly \u00a38 billion to Ukraine – air defence missiles, drones, cruise missiles, tanks and ships, as well as clothing and personal equipment.<\/p>\n

Another former minister told me that funding \u201cis absolutely urgent \u2013 it is urgent to help Ukraine but the most urgent is where our forces are in danger \u2013 it\u2019s not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are firing at our ships.\u201d<\/p>\n

And shortly before the election, the government\u2019s new national security adviser Jonathan Powell wrote that a new administration would need to reinforce the UK\u2019s defence and security \u201cwithin the bounds allowed by a struggling economy\u201d.<\/p>\n

Some insiders argue rising threats around the world mean the UK should spend way more than 2.5% in any case.<\/p>\n

Another former minister told me, \u201cby any measure we are underspending \u2013 if you don\u2019t buy the insurance policy you end up having to pay yourself and the cost of real conflicts would be immense in comparison\u201d.<\/p>\n

A defence source told me, \u201cwe are going to have to make a move on spending or we can put our fingers in our ears and hope we get through it \u2013 the Treasury has to do the maths on this \u2013 the way to stop spending 5 percent of GDP in the future is to spend now.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\"GettyGetty Images<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Kemi Badenoch criticised Keir Starmer during PMQs for not committing to a defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP by 2030<\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

How it’s spent<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n

But it\u2019s not just about how much money goes to defence – it\u2019s also about how it\u2019s spent.<\/p>\n

Recent history is littered with examples of Ministry of Defence projects that overrun and overspend, some in eye-watering proportions.<\/p>\n

One insider told me, \u201cthe worst thing we could do is spend more and spend it badly \u2026 the number needs to go up but we absolutely need to get a proper grip of procurement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several sources mentioned with some pride, and indeed surprise, the way the MoD had worked effectively and quickly with Ukraine to get the right kit into their hands quickly.<\/p>\n

One said the MoD had \u201cproved it can spend cash well but it needs to show it can do it consistently\u201d.<\/p>\n

Another said the British military had to shed its culture where \u201conly the most exquisitely perfect products may be bought\u201d.<\/p>\n

The MoD reckons it can crack down on waste and improve the way things are bought and paid for with new more centralised methods \u2013 even hiring a new national armaments director to manage this.<\/p>\n

As methods of warfare evolve on the battlefield, so too do the ways militaries respond with kit.<\/p>\n

A former minister said: \u201cforget your big new fantasy regiment \u2013 we can make what we have more lethal\u201d instead.<\/p>\n

The government says it wants to shake up and sort out the mess that defence procurement has become. But there is no doubt that is easier said than done.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Power era<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n

While as a political party, Labour is instinctively uncomfortable with Donald Trump\u2019s re-election, when it comes to defence there is some sympathy with his attitude towards European defence funding.<\/p>\n

One insider said, \u201cput on your incontinence pants, don\u2019t listen to the rest of his politics, it\u2019s none of our business.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another source told me, \u201cTrump set a challenge to Europe last time and he was in part right to,\u201d pointing out that after his term in office the number of Nato countries which hit the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence did go up.<\/p>\n

Twenty-three now meet the 2% target, up from just six countries in 2021.<\/p>\n

Rather than worrying about what Trump might do in office, they said, \u201ca precondition for Trump to take European defence seriously is for Europe to take its own defence seriously.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to see how that does not mean more countries on the continent spending more of their own cash.<\/p>\n

\u201cLet\u2019s not kid ourselves, Nato does deter Russia, and we have to make sure that happens,\u201d said a defence source.<\/p>\n

America\u2019s role in our security is vital. But sources in government acknowledge that Europe, with conflict on its fringes, must play a vigorous financial part.<\/p>\n

Eager to be seen as the leader in Nato, the UK is taking steps to boost defence cooperation across the continent \u2013 leaders recently signed a \u201clandmark defence agreement\u201d with Germany<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Donald Trump\u2019s return to the White House sets nerves jangling across the Atlantic about what it will mean for Nato, what it will mean for the US committment to support for Ukraine in terms of diplomacy and cold hard cash.<\/p>\n

There is instinctive political unease here with his behaviour, his attitude to the law, convention, and the truth. But perhaps in the words of one source \u201cit\u2019s not a rule of law era, it\u2019s a power era\u201d.<\/p>\n

Before the Trump victory, there were already profound questions for our politicians about how they protect our interests.<\/p>\n

The imperative to answer them is stronger now the unpredictable president is on his way back.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the UK and the rest of Europe may need to display and pay for more of its own power to have a chance of getting the Trump White House on board.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\"Subscribe<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
\n
\n
\"Grey<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

BBC InDepth<\/i><\/a> is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we\u2019ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we\u2019ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We\u2019re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BBC You\u2019re probably used to politicians telling you we\u2019re living in the most dangerous times for decades. But who\u2019s going to pay for our protection? Donald Trump is a lot less willing than the current president to pay for other countries\u2019 defence. As one UK source told me, \u201cit doesn\u2019t make sense for Europe\u2019s defence […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":172329,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/bbcx\/grey-placeholder.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[603],"tags":[12348,912,51,4946,4945,4357,3950,2436,1846,52],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172328"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172328"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172328\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":172330,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172328\/revisions\/172330"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/172329"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}