Features editor
D-Day is approaching for public sector cuts: the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review is due in little over a month’s time. Speculation is, of course, rife over where the axe will fall: will projects be trimmed little by little, or are entire big-ticket schemes at risk? Today’s comments from the Commons Defence Select Committee reveal that concerns over the way the review is being conducted are running even to high levels.
Conservatives tend to be on the side of the cutters, but the head of the select committee, Tory MP James Arbuthnot, has gone public with his group’s worries over the review. It’s being carried out too quickly, he said; its criteria are driven by money, rather than retaining defence capability in the light of current and future operations; and mistakes are likely to be made.
Defence, of course, isn’t just a matter of military operations. Although many would rather it were otherwise, it’s a major part of the UK’s industrial base and intimately bound up with the country’s engineering sector. And, equally obviously, defence engineering is expensive. This could make it a quick and easy target for the Treasury’s cuts. Stop developing new technology: save a few million.
But these cuts should not be quick or easy. There are important questions of sovereignty — the ability of the UK to be self-sufficient in defence — in these projects. They help industry to retain a leading position in certain technologies, such as the working of titanium and advanced manufacturing techniques. Trimming back might help in the short term with Britain’s deficit, but the price could be paid in the future as expertise and facilities move overseas.
There’s a difference between costs and investment. Rather than being seen as a drain on resources, engineering and technology should be seen as a seed to keep resources coming in. That’s as true in the defence sector as in any other.
REMEMBER THE FALKLANDS.
The Falklands conflict was a direct result of the Conservative Government refusing to fund the £1 million cost of a re-fit of HMS Endurance which was the only Royal Navy and UK Government presence in the South Atlantic. Argentina took this as an acknowledgement of their claim to the islands and moved in. This action cost 250 lives and Royal Navy and civilian ships sunk. The ministers deliberating the current cuts were not politically aware at the time being of young age so I trust that the older Cabinet members will insist they read up on the whole Falklands episode before wielding the knife to make sure we are not left with a bare cupboard again.
If the defense budgets are to be trimmed it should start with the update of the Trident system. What use is a weapon such as this when the terrorists come from Bradford or Luton; what are the military supposed to do, Nuke them?
With so much of the automotive industry moving out of the UK should we not be looking to invest in what remains?
Many military products (vehicles, ships etc) are currently built here but it wouldn’t take much to upset this and it is unlikely we would ever recover.
Cutting these lifeline industries will only increase unemployment. I see no logic in the proposed plans!
We should have learned in recent times that a service-based economy does not generate real growth, wealth or stability; ultimately it’s just a cost. With this in mind, it would be unwise to further decimate the UK’s value-adding engineering base in any way.
Perhaps we should look at this differently, if we created technologically advanced ssytema and manufactured them here, we could re-arm ourselves and sell products to our competitors. This would create revenue from exports, UK jobs, and secure the nations security.
Further evidence of MP’s ignorance of the interaction between industry, defence, education, exports and the economy. The politicians have supervised the emascualtion of manufacturing to rely upon services which, as they have now seen, is a weak support. They should look into Europe where governments, especially Germany, have avoided to avrying defress the same trap. If a country only takes the advice of those who manipulate money than then that country will cesase to prosper. Maggie Thatcher has a lot to answer for.
Given that defence is driven by foriegn policy, in that foriegn policy drives the use and deployment of the miltary overseas, surely the Defence Review should not have been started until a complete reveiw of Foriegn Policy is completed. As this is not the case it is clear that this defence review is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise. The debate has to be more about how we retain a strong engineering/manufacturing base when we are led by career politicians who have no idea of how sustainable wealth is generated in the real world, and who are far too close too the financial sector.
Its too late, the die is cast. This country has been decimated by incompetent politicians for half a century. An overemphasis on the performance of “the city” has resulted in the banking industry being in a position to hold us all to ransom. Add to that the “Oxbridge based” class problem where making things was deemed beneath them; and you have the current result. This country has gone beyond it’s “tipping point” and all anybody can now do is sit back and watch its inevitable and continuous decline. The only people who cannot see this are the political classes who continue to waste our taxes on strutting around the world stage pretending that they have some influence!!
Fantastic, the Committee consists of 5 Career Politicians, with ex – economist,miner,social worker,barrister, 2 soldiers, and YES!, 1 ex Engineer.
They REALLY ARE going to know what to do !!!!! 🙂
I think Elliott, Graham, C. Harrison et al are absolutely right – engineering is not a word that is understood – other than perhaps how to spell it! – by politicians.
Sovereignty, self-sufficiency in defence might be an aspiration and not an objective!!!!!
“This country has gone beyond it’s “tipping point” and all anybody can now do is sit back and watch its inevitable and continuous decline”
I couldn’t agree more, we are heading towards third world status faster than we could ever possibly imagine.
We have played around on the world’s stage for too long getting involved in things we just shouldn’t have and with very little strategic advantage. As alluded to above, the cost saving on HMS Endurance led to rather expensive (in lives and equipment) retaking of the Falklands. I remember the risks prior to that particular cutback being featured by Bob Langley on Pebble Mill at One!!
Our health care is now 2 tier, private and NHS, education is becoming 2 tier, the roads are breaking up, the rail system has a long way to go before it gets sorted, the list is endless.
A wise old relative once told me “when people forget how the money’s made, there’s none left within 3 generations.” How prophetic.
We just need to invest in Toyota Hilux’s, fasten a big gun on top of the roof and we are complete.