The House of Commons Defense Committee on Wednesday wrote to the men vying to be Britain’s next prime minister, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson.
And Committee Chairman Julian Lewis was clear: Hunt deserves praise for pledging to increase defense spending to at least 2.5% of GDP, and Johnson should do the same.
We’ve written to @Jeremy_Hunt and @BorisJohnson to ask about their policies on defence spending. We’ll publish the replies as soon as we get them. pic.twitter.com/Xr611IWSmv
— Defence Committee (@CommonsDefence) June 26, 2019
At present, Johnson is campaigning for conservative primary voters on a middle class tax cut platform and not defense spending. But Lewis and his committee have long recognized that boosting Britain’s defense is an obvious priority.
Russia continues to build capabilities that would allow it to conduct a rapid invasion of NATO member states in Eastern Europe. Russian forces are also increasing their activity in the air and waters around Britain, preparing for a wartime effort to cut off the European continent from American reinforcements. This is why President Trump is correct to push NATO members to increase their share of alliance burdens. As America’s closest ally, Britain must play a part in that effort.
That said, a rising Chinese challenge, and remaining a globally leading power post-Brexit, offer other compelling rationales for increased British defense spending. It’s also clear where the additional funds could be spent. Britain’s 10-year defense spending projection indicates the following major allocations: submarines ($56 billion), combat aircraft ($23 billion), ships ($24 billion), air support ($21 billion), helicopters ($13.5 billion), land equipment ($24 billion), weapons ($17 billion), Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition & Reconnaissance ($6 billion).
And while that might seem like a lot, Britain desperately needs more anti-submarine warfare air capabilities, airlift capacity, and air defense potency. A boost to 2.5% GDP defense spending offers that.
Hunt and Johnson could boost defense spending, cut taxes, and reduce the deficit all at once. It’s just that doing so would require them to boldly challenge the vast welfare state in a way many Britons would not accept. But the math is clear. Were the government to cut overgenerous pensions for wealthy Britons and end non-responsibility-based welfare payments to those who would rather watch TV than get on their bikes, it could comfortably save $50 billion a year.
That money could then be used to boost defense, to improve the health service, and reduce the deficit. Problem solved.
