A Raised Eyebrow from Nicholas

9Comments

I thought I would pull out a comment from Nicholas in response to my wanting to slash and burn ceremonials, bands and display teams.

I must confess that I raised not one but two metaphorical eyebrows when I read your suggestion about scrapping ceremonial and the bands. The comment was even more surprising as you usually talk undiluted good sense.

I think that you should never forget the importance of national symbolism. One of the first things that Vaclav Havel did when he assumed power in Czechoslovakia was to restore national emblems to prominence. Such emblems are deeply engrained in the psyche of a nation. They become representative symbols worthy of veneration. Churchill realized that truth brilliantly well in the Second World War (remember the ravens at the Tower and many other examples?)

The Trooping of the Colour is deeply embedded in our nation’s consciousness. The British Army officer assisting the commentator said in his opening remarks, “This is an iconic, status of the nation kind of event” (or words to that effect) and his statement was so true. The morale of the British people, let alone that of the armed forces themselves, would be very badly affected by its removal. And anyway, how much would be saved by scrapping such ceremonial? Probably less that the cost of one Typhoon (£60 million, at the latest estimate). Furthermore, if the Guards regiments can manage to put on such a brilliant display after switching roles from war-fighting, wherein lies the problem? One battalion had only five weeks in which to prepare after returning from Afghanistan!

Just for clarification, I don’t want to scrap them completely but if I had a choice between an extra dozen live fire exercises, some proper spares holdings, enough body armour for everyone or a million and one other things then I chose them over ceremonial, bands and display team every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I also disagree that the morale of the armed forces would be badly affected by the removal of these things, if they bring tourists to London for example, then let the Mayor pay for them.

There might be a middle ground, sponsored reservists or similar arrangements to keep the costs down.

This was though, the less significant part of comment.

I too discount the theory that we need any defence cuts. Yes, we do need savage cuts to reduce the overall deficit but the armed forces suffered excessively harsh cuts last time round and this must not happen again. There are other areas (e.g. welfare and education) where there is immense waste. Start there. Once we have lost capabilities, we shall never get them back. General Sir Richard Dannatt tried to augment the Army by just 3,000 personnel to solve the manning problems in Afghanistan. Did he get them? No, of course not. That’s politicians for you. Let’s fight the cuts, even ask for more money, not supinely murmur, “Oh, we live in straitened economic times and must take our share of suffering.”

This is a brilliant point, I asked a question about the same issue in this post some time ago. As a blog, do we say no, defence cannot be cut any more.

Or, do we try and discuss ways of managing a reducing budget?

Or, as an off the wall suggestion, decide how to spend a 20% increase?

I must admit, I look on this with a sinking feeling. Every defence review since the war has resulted in budget cuts dressed up in a strategic view.

There is also another train of thought I had, a hefty reduction might force the MoD to innovate, live within its means and generally manage its money better.

Tags: