UK Military Rhetoric Doesn't Match Fiscal Reality
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Not long before World War I, HMS Dreadnought, a battleship that made all existing vessels obsolete, was launched at Portsmouth in the presence of the King-Emperor Edward VII. Fire-breathing patriots soon took up the cry, 'We want eight and we won't wait.' Winston Churchill, then a young home secretary in a government committed to spending more on welfare, wryly noted of the popular clamor for a naval race with Germany: 'The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight.'
British debates about defense spending follow a familiar trajectory, although this time it's politicians, rather than civilians, insisting that more should be spent on firepower. A military revolution in warfare is underway, too. Drones, off-the-shelf technology far cheaper than Dreadnoughts, are being deployed to lethal effect on the battlefields of Ukraine and further afield - the daring 'Spider Web' raid last weekend destroyed as much as a third of Russia's strategic bombing force based thousands of miles away from Europe.
But the UK needs to replace expensive military hardware too, and make good shortages of munitions. Economists fear the government can't afford the outlay without large tax increases. Who will prevail?
In a speech prior to the publication of his government's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) this week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer sounded eerily reminiscent of an old-fashioned jingoist, circa 1914. Britain, he said, faces a threat 'more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War.' The UK needs to move to 'war-fighting readiness.'
Alas, reality and rhetoric don't match. UK defense spending is planned to rise to only 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, with a notional ambition to reach 3% by the mid-2030s. In the 1980s, at the end of the Cold War, it stood at almost 4%. When the dogged Defence Secretary John Healey attempted to impose a fixed timeline for a bigger military budget, he was immediately slapped down by the Treasury.
Within days, however, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization trumped Starmer. The Western Alliance has reached near consensus on a 5% commitment, with 3.5% going directly on the armed services and a further 1.5% on related spending. On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, ordered Starmer to saddle up, saying 'it is important that the UK gets there.' On Tuesday, German Defense Secretary Boris Pistorius talked of raising expenditure by annual increments to reach 5% of GDP, aimed at creating the strongest conventional army in Europe.
At home, the popular hue and cry is not for an arms race with Russia, which remains a niche preoccupation at Westminster and in security circles, but for reversing cuts to pensioners' winter-fuel allowances. Labour's backbenchers oppose projected welfare reductions. Meanwhile, the economists warn that the bond market won't countenance more borrowing to pay for guns or butter - gilt yields remain elevated amid jitters over the Trump administration's ballooning deficit. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves rules out raising taxes in the autumn — though few believe her. Something's got to give.
UK prime ministers have a habit of over-promising and under-delivering on military commitments. Starmer's Conservative predecessors squandered the Cold War peace dividend for over a decade even as Russia rearmed and attacked its neighbors.
Wishful thinking can also lead to embarrassment. Starmer recently proclaimed 'a coalition of the willing' ready to take the place of the US in policing a ceasefire in Ukraine by dispatching a 'reassurance force.' Washington, however, refused to offer air cover — and in any case the British army has shrunk to 70,000, levels last seen before the war with Napoleon — so the UK can no longer assemble an expeditionary force. The best it can offer Ukraine is a support mission.
As for crippling the Russian war effort, the UK, like other European nations, sanctioned Russian oil and gas after its invasion of Ukraine. But according to a new study by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), the value of Russian crude oil and liquid natural gas shipped under British ownership or insurance since the war began tops £200 billion ($270 billion). A dark fleet of ships working for the Russians supplements the trade. The government is wary of severing these links for fear of triggering another energy price rise spiral and a round of the ruinous inflation and cost of living crisis that sank its Tory predecessor.
To be fair, the SDR has met a mostly warm reception from military specialists. At least it puts the focus back on the European theater — previous reviews suggested fanciful scenarios in which British aircraft carriers, without a full complement of aircraft and naval escorts, might be deployed to Asia. With commendable honesty, the authors of this week's report also own up to 'the hollowing out of the Armed Forces warfighting capability' and cite inadequate stockpiles of munitions after years of 'underinvestment.'
Without a rapid improvement in military housing and in the absence of conscription, army numbers are unlikely to rise. With its suggestion that the UK should build up its maritime forces — namely the Trident nuclear deterrent and the commissioning of 12 new attack submarines — the SDR implies the UK is set on going back to a strategic stance familiar to Churchill and his contemporaries in 1914, known to historians as the British Way of Warfare, avoiding a continental military commitment at scale.
Today, however, the Royal Navy no longer rules the waves as it did in 1914. That means cutting back on the rhetoric and working closely with allies to deploy the few troops available for land-based conflict. 'This is a once-in-a-generation inflection point for collective security in Europe,' concludes the SDR. Unless British public opinion changes, however, the UK's neglect of its military needs and obligations looks set to continue.
More from Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Resolve to make India a world leader by 2047: Amit Shah
Godhra/Gandhinagar: Union home and cooperation minister Amit Shah on Saturday called upon India's youth to resolve to make the country a global leader by 2047, marking 100 years of independence. Speaking via video link at a development programme for Shri Govind Guru University in Vinzol near Godhra, Shah emphasized national pride and historical legacy. Paying tribute to tribal freedom fighter Govind Guru, Shah said, "Around 1,512 tribal brothers and sisters were martyred in that struggle against the British, and Mangadh (Gujarat) became an important place in the history of India's fight for independence." He added, "Our youth and children should make a resolution of creating an India where it attains the first position in every field in the world when the country celebrates the centenary of its independence. " Shah highlighted that the idea of Govind Guru University was conceived by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his tenure as Gujarat CM. Infrastructure projects worth Rs 125 crore were launched, including a centre for excellence, sports complex, synthetic track, football and cricket grounds, artificial lake and hostel. You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad In Gandhinagar constituency, Shah inaugurated several development projects across Sanand and Bavla talukas. In Adroda village, he unveiled a model cooperative complex under the Model Cooperative Village initiative, housing a bank, community hall and health centre. In Juwal village, Shah inaugurated a new primary school building with eight modern classrooms and sanitation facilities, benefiting 387 students. He also opened a panchayat house in Fangdi village and participated in a tree plantation drive at Oxygen Park in Sanand GIDC. During a meeting with Sanand GIDC industrialists, Shah encouraged CSR initiatives. Ajit Shah, president of Sanand Industries' Association, said, "It was a fruitful meeting… The Union minister has assured us that the govt is committed to resolve any issues affecting the industry." Residents welcomed Shah with flower showers and chants of "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" and "Vande Mataram" during his visit.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Karnataka police to wear blue peak caps once again
Bengaluru: In a nod to the long-standing demand from police ranks, chief minister Siddaramaiah approved the introduction of blue peak caps for constables, head constables and assistant sub-inspectors. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The announcement, made Friday, marks a significant uniform change for the state's lower-rung police personnel. Interestingly, the blue peak cap is not new to Karnataka police. It was first introduced in the early 1980s by then CM Gundu Rao, replacing the colonial-era khaki slouch hats. However, the caps were short-lived, vanishing within six months due to discomfort and practicality issues. Despite a recent committee led by ADGP-KSRP Umesh Kumar recommending against replacing the existing slouch hats, the govt chose to move forward with the change, citing persistent requests from personnel on the ground. The new design is modelled on the Telangana police cap, selected after reviewing caps from several states including Maharashtra, Delhi, Goa and Tamil Nadu. "The slouch hat has been part of the constabulary uniform since British era, but many officers find it outdated and uncomfortable," a senior IPS officer said, adding: "The demand for change has been strong, but whether this new cap will stand the test of time remains to be seen." The govt is expected to place an order for over 85,000 blue peak caps to cover all eligible personnel within the department's nearly 1 lakh-strong workforce.
