Government spending is about choices – and this Government has chosen not to fund our armed forces

In an era of escalating global threats - Russian grey-zone aggression, Chinese industrial expansion, and persistent instability in the Middle East - Britain's military leaders convened a "very difficult meeting" with the Ministry of Defence this week. The stark reality? The Armed Forces cannot fulfil the ambitions of the recent Defence Review without substantial additional funding. This is not mere bureaucratic hand-wringing; it is a confession that the United Kingdom lacks the resources to deliver the defence it claims to need. Yet, amid NATO allies’ growing doubts about our reliability, the government persists in prioritising unchecked welfare expenditure over the hard power essential for national security – THE first duty of government.

Consider the contradictions laid bare by the Autumn Budget. The Chancellor speaks boldly of protecting defence spending, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) exposes a £32 billion black hole beneath the government's own pledge to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035. This is no minor oversight; it represents unfunded promises that risk delaying critical procurement programmes and eroding the real value of budgets through persistent inflation. As UK Defence First has repeatedly argued, current spending hovers around 2.3 per cent of GDP - barely above the NATO minimum and woefully inadequate for rebuilding capabilities in a hostile strategic environment. The government's target of 3 per cent by 2030, whilst a small step in the right direction, falls far short of what experts deem necessary to rebuild our armed forces after decades of cuts.

Worse still, while defence receives rhetorical safeguards, the broader national security apparatus faces real-terms cuts of over 3 per cent annually. Departments such as the Home Office, counter-terrorism policing, border security, and elements of our intelligence community are being hollowed out. How can Britain credibly deter adversaries when resources to combat extremists, hostile states, and organised crime dwindle? The OBR underscores these vulnerabilities: inflation eats away at procurement budgets, historic capital underspends threaten delays in vital equipment, and major pressures go unaddressed. These include £15.3 billion in projected asylum accommodation costs over the next decade, a £1.4 billion Home Office shortfall by 2028–29, and a £14 billion deficit in special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) funding that strains local authorities' resilience.

The government's creative accounting only compounds the deception. Vital military assets - missiles, complex weapons, even warships - have been reclassified as capital items, offering illusory relief without generating new capabilities. This sleight of hand masks mounting pressures on Ministry of Defence (MoD) coffers, forcing service chiefs to chase "efficiencies" that no spreadsheet can conjure into deterrence. You cannot efficiency your way to security, nor cut corners to build credible hard power. Senior MoD figures have warned of the possibility of direct conflict with Russia within five years, yet this Budget fails to fund essential measures: restocking ammunition reserves, bolstering NATO commitments, or accelerating readiness programmes.

This fiscal myopia stands in egregious contrast to the unchecked expansion of welfare spending. Britain sustains record levels of open-ended benefits, disbursing billions with scant verification, fostering a system that incentivises inactivity and exploits loopholes. Long-term

dependency is rewarded, while hardworking taxpayers - many in uniform or defence industries - are taxed relentlessly to sustain it. This is not a critique of genuine need; those who require support must receive it. Rather, it indicts a broken culture where political expediency trumps national security. The government funds votes through handouts but starves our armed forces through underinvestment, propping up apathy at the expense of those who protect us.

The consequences are dire and immediate. Our Royal Navy struggles to expand its fleet amid export successes like the Type 26 frigate orders for Norway and the AUKUS submarines -opportunities that highlight Britain’s defence-industrial capabilities yet underscore domestic shortfalls. The Army cannot modernise without a robust funding lifeline, as outlined in UK Defence First's 10-Point Plan, which calls for elevating spending to 5 per cent of GDP to rebuild capabilities comprehensively. The Royal Air Force operates at breaking point, its Typhoons and F-35s stretched thin. Defence chiefs now endure crisis meetings because the arithmetic does not add up. Our adversaries - watching from Moscow, Beijing, and beyond - see not strength, but strategic drift towards irrelevance.

Britain possesses the talent, ingenuity, and courage to lead; what it lacks is political will. If we can afford welfare fraud, generational idleness, and endless entitlements, we can surely fund the men and women who safeguard our sovereignty. The choice is stark: a welfare state that breeds complacency, or a warfare-ready nation that ensures survival?

In the most perilous geopolitical landscape since the Cold War, optimistic spreadsheets and tough talk will not suffice. The government must close the £32 billion gap, shield the entire defence and security ecosystem, and commit to fully funded defence budget. The time for half-measures has passed; national security demands nothing less.