Gerry, By all means criticise these positions for being outdated facets of the Monarchy, but not for being a misuse of MoD Defence Budget cash.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?