The £6bn Ajax armoured vehicle, showcased at the British Army Expo 2025, was delivered eight years late and remains faulty. This is a stark example of Ministry of Defence wastefulness, which the right often overlooks when demanding more defence funding at the expense of welfare.
The False Choice Between Guns and Butter
The phrase "guns or butter" has been revived in political discourse, with some arguing for a zero-sum trade-off between defence and welfare. Polly Toynbee criticises this framing, noting that former armed forces minister Al Carns repeated it upon resigning. Carns suggested a need to balance welfare and defence, but Toynbee questions why these are juxtaposed.
MoD Waste and Delays
The Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly criticised the MoD for wild overspending and delays. The Ajax vehicle is just one example; Dreadnought-class submarines are a decade late, and two aircraft carriers cost twice their original price and are too vulnerable to sail. Major projects like Aukus and Gcap face potential cuts under new defence secretary Dan Jarvis.
Welfare Spending Myths
The right often claims welfare spending is out of control, but Ruth Curtice of the Resolution Foundation challenges this. Correcting errors in charts that failed to account for universal credit transfers and misclassified disability allowances, she finds non-pensioner welfare is at mid-1990s levels. The real driver is the pension triple lock, which has seen state pensions rise at twice the rate of unemployment benefits.
The Pension Triple Lock
The triple lock ratchets up pension spending, yet it is rarely mentioned in warfare vs welfare debates. The Resolution Foundation and Institute for Fiscal Studies have called for reform, estimating that linking rises to average earnings would save £12.6bn by 2029. However, politicians fear the grey vote.
A Sensible Approach
Andy Burnham recently called for more defence spending with maximum social return, such as apprenticeships, not cuts to welfare. Toynbee suggests a defence levy or patriotic bonds instead of targeting the most vulnerable. She concludes that the UK's benefits are already among the lowest in the OECD, and any talk of taking from those with least should end.
