More Defence Spending or better Defence Spending?

Given the current geopolitical landscape it is an understandable response to demand that the U.K. government should increase the defence budget. This is consistent with the discourse where each question over the decline in U.K. public services is answered with the amount of money being spent, as if there is a direct correlation between the amount spent and the way is spent and what it is spent on.

The challenge for U.K. defence is to acknowledge two possible errors. Firstly that the acquisition of defence products, systems and service in U.K. is a triumph of process over purpose and secondly that the pursuit of massive capital projects such as aircraft carriers, F35s and, yes, the Continuous At Sea Deterrent has led to a dangerous imbalance in the UK’s defence capability. So the answer to the question posed is yes there needs to be more money spent as the capital projects will demand funds for many years to come so switching to armoured vehicles and ammunition is not feasible and yes the available budget needs to be spent in a manner that is focused on outcomes rather than process. Value for money for the tax payer is not an outcome, it is qualitative measure that is subject to opinion and bias. Tanks and ammunition and the trained people to use them are the purpose.

Admission of the errors and the decisions and funds necessary to correct them are, to say the least difficult from many perspectives. The politics will be ruthless and therefore avoidance is apparently perceived to be better than action. However events are unlikely to allow permanent avoidance.