The prime minister has promised to increase defence spending by 2027 to update the UK’s ageing armaments and prepare for potential conflict. Some of this will be found through cuts to foreign aid and national infrastructure, but would tax rises make more sense?
Yes
Francis Tusa, the editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter
Defence spending needs to be higher and has needed to be higher for at least a decade. Raising taxes seems inevitable for this to be achieved.
As well as simply turning the taps on, we need to see that what the UK pays out for defence is spent more efficiently. My calculations estimate that there is £3 billion to £5 billion of wastage in the amount we spend on equipment procurement, maintenance and support every year.
If only half of this were recoverable, that’s still a serious amount of money that could be ploughed into enhancing defence.
But even if inefficiency and waste can be reduced, it is clear that the 2.5 per cent the government wants to spend on defence is no longer enough. The UK needs to raise its defence budget further.
As the cost of equipment and hardware has risen, we have seen the amount of cash being available to the Ministry of Defence shrink and we now need more money to be funnelled in.
Whether that be to take spending up to 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), to 3.5 per cent, or even more, is up for debate but it is clear that our armies and navies need more.
If we follow the government’s plan to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, it would mean that the defence budget would increase from £53.9 billion to about £68 billion by 2030.
It is saying that this will be achieved largely by cutting the overseas aid budget.
To get to 3.5 per cent of GDP, a figure that is being looked at by European countries that border Russia, such as Finland and Estonia, the UK would have to raise its defence budget to £95 billion.
The consensus seems to be that the UK is already in a debt spiral, and taking on extra debt, with higher annual payments, is not the way to go. This leaves only raising taxes as the way of plugging that gap.
A 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax would raise about £7 billion, so taxing to raise an extra £27 billion would need a 4p rise in the basic rate, taking it to 24p in the pound.
This may be a political bridge too far but in reality, it is what is required in this climate. For 25 years, lower defence spending allowed higher social and welfare spending, but defence is no longer optional, particularly with an aggressive Russia and a US government that seems increasingly reluctant to intervene in Europe.
No
Sophie Bolt, the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Just as we shouldn’t accept welfare cuts, nor should we increase tax to boost military spending. In fact, we shouldn’t increase military spending at all.
If the government wants to raise cash, one of the ways it could do this is to scrap Britain’s failed nuclear weapons system. It’s a dangerous and obscene waste of public funds, and makes up 14 per cent of the total defence budget.
In 2023 the ten-year spending forecast for nuclear weapons was £118 billion — nearly £8 billion over budget. The costs are out of control. Even the government’s own watchdog has branded the programme to replace the ageing nuclear submarine fleet unachievable.
Then there is Britain’s nuclear dependence on the US. While the prime minister may indeed press the nuclear button, the ballistic missiles are leased from the US, the warhead is a US design and the whole nuclear weapons system is under US-led Nato command.
Increasing military spending won’t make us safe. Spending billions on more lethal weaponry only makes the world more dangerous. And it can’t solve the urgent problems we face, such as the need to halt climate change; it will only accelerate these dangers.
It definitely won’t kick-start the failing economy, as chancellor Rachel Reeves argues.
This is because military spending is one of the least effective ways of boosting jobs and living standards. Economic analysis by the Scottish government suggests that investing in health is two and a half times more “jobs rich” than pouring money into military spending.
If the British government wants to keep the population safe and build a sustainable future for us all, it must end this dangerous drive to war. It certainly shouldn’t create a situation where we are being forced to pay more in taxes to help to fund it.
Instead of putting up taxes to bolster the defence budget, it should prioritise the health and wellbeing of its population, and meet its international obligations on nuclear non-proliferation, climate and development.
