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.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
9 Comments
When it comes to discussing the merits of Army bands, i am not one to blow my own trumpet, so i feel i must point out that the quotes you have pulled come from Mike W’s response to my commenst, they are not my own words. I do however violently agree with Mike W’s view. The only thing I would add to what has been said is to emphasise one important thing about the bands is that they do double duty as medics. A large number of bandsmen have served in Afghanistan and they’ve done an excellent job too.
Did any political party campaign on increasing defence spending at the last election ?
Do you think there would be general uproar country wide if ceremonials were massively cut or dropped ?
I don’t think the British public as a whole could give a flying frak about the military, be it ceremonial or combat !
Can you imagine the debate – mmmm’ lets see, withdraw from Afghanistan, stop the trooping of the colour or massively cut the aid budget to a nuclear power (yes I am picking on India again…) ! I can just imagine our gutter press diving into that one.
It actually would not be that difficult to argue for a slight increase in budget if it was tied to a withdrawl from Afghanistan which is fairly unpopular with the general public, the increase being sold as a ‘reset’ of the forces. When you could post stats about how the size of the US Forces has increased during this period of ‘global war on terror’ (with the supplementary spending bills that went with it) versus our constant piecemeal cuts, I don’t think it would constitute political suicide or anything – do you ?
Sorry that this response is so late.
I think, admin, that you and I will have to agree to disagree over the matter of ceremonials, bands, etc. Personally, I don’t think that sponsored reservists would be able to do a quarter of the job that those superb Guards regiments, with their tradition and years of accumulated knowledge) do at the Trooping of the Colour.
Jed, I think that you are being rather too severe on and dismissive of the British public’s attitude towards their armed forces. I thought exactly the same as you at the beginning of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. There seemed to me to be not a flicker of interest from the public in the military and it was all very depressing. However, as those campaigns progressed, the British people seemed to show themselves in a better light and to display a much greater appreciation of how much the military matters (witness the huge turn-outs to welcome home regiments and to pay respects to the fallen at Wootton Bassett). If the Trooping were to be cancelled, I can imagine, for instance, what the response of right-wing papers (“The Telegraph”, “The Daily Mail, etc.) would be. They would go to town with a vengeance.
Now to my suggestion that we should oppose defence cuts rather than weakly accept them. I can see admin’s point very clearly. What should our attitude be? I must say that after I had written the comments, I thought deep down that cuts, almost certainly large ones, were inevitable and that it might be better to be realistic about them.
It is a real dilemma. However, I do not think that there has a to be a doctrinaire “blogsite view” on this site. We do not have to either fight the cuts or discuss how a reducing budget may be managed. The blog should be capable of accommodating both points of view as well as a mixture of both.
I think my anger is mainly directed at the good Doctor Fox, who appears to be the first government minister to come our and say yes, we are only too willing to cut and cut ruthlessly, when ministers from other areas which cost much more (welfare, education, health, pensions, foreign aid, transport, etc. etc.) have been conspicuous by their silence.
I have been very critical of the war in Afghanistan. Hitherto, I saw it as a huge waste of money, because our tactics have failed to address the fundamental sources of Taliban funding, recruitment and training as well as failing to neutralise their safe havens. Iran is looking like an increasingly significant threat and Pakistan could easily succumb to a revolution that might result in its nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. in short, the region is fundamentally unstable, if not a powder keg of uncertainty. So I bite my tongue and agree that we HAVE to be there. That is why we cannot afford to cut anything to do with defence right now.
So I tend to agree that Doctor Fox’s medicine is likely to go down badly here at Think Defence, especially if his priority is to cut the deficit before ensuring national security. It is obvious that the good doctor is an ambitious politician who fancies himself as a future Conservative leader. However, if he reveals himself to be someone whose sole motivation is only doing whatever is politically expedient to secure his own political future, he will all too quickly induce a cynicism that this new government is no better or different from the one it has replaced.
By my calculation ending all public duties would free up the equivalent of three infantry battlions (which cost roughly £1 billion each), a brigade headquarters worth of staff and save in excess £3 billion a year.
It would also save the cost of horses, specialist accommodation, fancy dress uniforms and legions of hangers on such as Silver and Gold Stick.
If the Mayor and the Royal family want a London based ceremonial unit or units let them fund it from their budgets. In my view the tourism argument is nonsense, people still go to Rome to see the Colliseum, they dont expect to see real Roman Legionaires changing the Guard.
Hi Gerry,
Can you tell me where you got your figures from? Are you really claiming that each infantry battalion costs £1 billion pounds a year to run?
The yearly defence budget is only £35 billion or thereabouts. We have 36 infantry battalions at present. By your calculations therefore, our infantry battalions alone would cost more per year than the entire defence budget! Do you mean millions rather than billions? There is an immense difference, although obviously an infantry regiment would cost more that £1 million a year to run. I mght have got something horribly wrong and am prepared to admit I am mistaken, if proven so.
My argument for retaining pageantry is based on symbolism and national pride, not tourism, although it obviously helps the latter.
The Army is funded to the tune of £9bn a year, with extras for Afghanistan.
I’ve FOI’d a breakdown as to the cost of an infantry battalion, but nothing yet.
I cannot agree with the comments made by Gerry Harkin as the units involved in public duties still do normal duties so they would not be freed up at all. Also as pointed out by Mike W the figures appear to be and can only really be finger in the air overblown guesstimations not calculations by any measure. I’m clearly not denying that there would not be any money saved but nowhere near the billions mark more like a few million to a few tens of millions and yes this is me guesstimating as well.
Overall though I think cutting the public duties of the military could result in a net loss financial loss to the nation as I believe it does generate revenue from tourism. However the net financial loss would be rightfully bugger all compared to the damage to morale and national pride felt by quite a few people. There is also the already alluded to high probability of the media not just here but abroad going to town with a vengeance with support from various chunks of the population namely core conservatives. So a supposedly semi-conservative government going after the most traditional and highly visible bits of Britishness in the military seems a bit like political suicide or at the very least would piss off core conservative voters.
Well said Euan. To which I would add that Gold Stick and Silver Stick are appointments made by the Royal Household not the Ministry of Defence. They are honorary positions and do not carry any salary from the MoD. The roles are purely ceremonial and are usually held by senior officers who may occupy other senior military positions, e.g. Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, who is also Colonel of the Life Guards; and the Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, a patron of some 200 charities, including Save the Children and the St. John’s Ambulance Brigade, as well as being a UK representative on the International Olympic Committee.
Gerry, By all means criticise these positions for being outdated facets of the Monarchy, but not for being a misuse of MoD Defence Budget cash. Furthermore, infantry battalions are very unlikely to cost £1 billion each per annum. By far the highest cost would be the salary bill. Based on 650 men earning an average salary of £30,000 per annum, total salaries would amount to circa £18 million. If accommodation, ammunition usage, transport and equipment were to add more than an additional £50 million to the total cost, I would be surprised.