Obviously the exact difference varies given the relative exchange rate between the Pound and the Euro, but most estimates suggest that the UK spends slightly more than France on defence, especially when calculated in net terms. Either way, the difference is not significant. This is not an attempt to get into another UK vs France debate - far from it! However, when you consider all the additional areas that French 'defence' spending covers (such as their paramilitary police) when compared to what is funded out of the UK's defence budget, then the picture is even more complicated. In reality, I would imagine that the two levels of spend are so similar, that a couple of good or bad procurement decisions / negotiations is probably more significan than the relative difference in the two countries' defence budgets.

 

On the subject of equipment shortfalls, lack of support for troops etc., I would add one word of caution. The MOD and the various branches of the armed forces are superb manipulators of the media. The balance of stories highlighting their bravery, effectiveness and general heroism combined with the odd outrcy over a lack of helicopters, body armour, rations etc. is an excellent way of fighting on going budget battles. In Whitehall, for a department such as the MOD to declare itself happy and content with any pay review settlement without sowing some seeds of discontent is tantatmount to budget suicide at the next round of spending reviews. The old story of local councils rushing out to do road works at the end of the financial year to ensure that they've spent all their money and thereby helping avoid budget cuts the next year holds true higher up the financial tree. There will nearly always be stories of overstretch, need for new capabilities etc, its difficult to justify a £6 billion odd procurement budget otherwise.

Health is, of course, the ultimate black hole. Vast amounts of exta cash thrown at it, are the improvements commesuate with the spend?  Military health is another interesting subject, the armed forces used to run their own hospitals, problem was that to be accredited by the BMA as capable to give drs 'proper' experience and hence comply with BMA rules, the service hospitals had to provide a full range of specialities, given the armed froces popualion this resulted in considerable exta cost and service families stiill didn't really load all the elements, so in UK they took 'top up' from the NHS.  In the end the finance of the whole thing caused MoD to give hospitals away.

 

NATO countries are supposed to state their defence budgets on some agreed comparable basis.  Its useful to remeber that it was arounf the time the Cold War ended that GCHQ and SIS budgets ceased being 'hidden' in the defence budget and became lines in the Cabinet Office budget.  Now where are the French equivalents put?

 

Another point is the European conscript armies, now mostly gone.  As in UK conscription they were only paid a token salary.  This is how Germans get their 'regulars', the option is 15 months at peanuts in the Army (or 24 as a conchy objector in hospitals, etc, also at peanuts) or 3 yrs in the Army at proper rates of pay.  And people wonder why the German govt tries to keep German soldiers at the safer end of town - most of them are 'volunteers' thru financial arm twisting (and, of course, a large chunk of German social services would collapse if conscription was abandoned.

 

Its a fair question as to why the Brit army doesn't operate with larger establsihments to give units a bit of 'fat', even if the price was less units.  I think there are two reasons, first more units gives more flexibility even if the do have to be topped up, and the fear that the essential fat could be sliced away 'silently'.  This gets to the other great fear, the loss of capability to fight anywhere in the intensity spectrum.  Taking the big picture view, its easy to shed capability but difficult to create it, it may take a decade to re-create and a lot can happen in that time.  Of course this sort of thinking is beyond quite a lot of politicians and cuts no ice with Treasury.

Neutraliser

 

I'm not yet ready to give up on the NHS. We are only in the second year of a major spending programme, and as you indicated further on down your post with regard to military spending, it does take time for extra spending to have an impact. In fact I would go so far as to say that we are already seeing improvements - do you remember all those stories from around 5 years ago about bed shortages etc. Note how they are no longer in the papers. This could be because the media has moved on, but I genuinely suspect that the problems are slowly but surely being dealt with. This on top of an ever increasing population of elderly people!

 

BRoger

 

You're rightly pointing out weaknesses in comparing different countries military budgets. I still think its a valid tool though for the Treasury to use in forcing the Armed Forces (as well as the Policy makers who determine the roles that the military carry out) to justify the money that they get.

 

I also accept your points about people exaggerating the impact of shortages of funding to maintain or increase future budgets. Looking at Afghanistan though does seem to indicate to me that the forces are operaitng at their limits and taking sizeable risks in doing so.