is a leading commentator on the economy and modern politics, a former industrialist, founder of an investment management company and a distinguished fellow of All Souls College Oxford.
The UK debate about defence usually centres around how much money we spend. This is expressed as a percentage of GDP. The enthusiasts for better defence currently argu that we need to get to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, and for us to be on course for 3.5 per cent by 2035.
The government is going slow, as 3 per cent in 2030 does not fit in with their Fiscal rules, the need to get the deficit down and their other spending pressures. They say they will but cannot tell us where the extra money is coming from. No wonder they face such criticism, as people are worried our defences are not as strong as they should be. The Defence Secretary himself has told the world that, in an unwise statement, we have 1000 days to prepare for war.
I agree with those who think we need to spend more. It would help win the battle with the government and with doubters amongst the public if instead of having an abstract debate about the amount of money we looked at what we needed to buy. When you go shopping you do not fix a cash limit on spending as some percentage of income, but seek best value for the things you need whilst recognising some of the things you would like are not affordable.
The present government is running down our forces in a dangerous way whilst stating it is increasing spending. Why is it retiring our warships so that we are only left with five Type 23 frigates? We have two or three years to wait before the new Type 26 and Type 31 frigates the Conservative government rightly ordered become available. Why hasn’t the government carried out sufficient maintenance to keep more of the older frigates going to avoid a big gap?
Why did we get to the point where every one of the six destroyers we own were unavailable for urgent sailing for a mission ? Why are we retiring River Class patrol vessels when these are useful around our coasts?
Why do we have so few troops available for an overseas task, with just 5,500 currently abroad spread out between Estonia, Falklands, Cyprus and Gibraltar along with personnel in Germany and the US? Why do we only have 155 fighter planes in a much reduced airforce? Why is the government exploring the sale of River class ships to foreign navies when we could use them ourselves?
There are three main purposes for our armed forces. The prime, overriding concern must be to ensure the safe defence of our home islands. The twentieth century gave us brutal reminders that we can face invasion from be reluctant to assist.
We need to ensure that we can ourselves counter incoming missiles, drones, bomber squadrons and invasion fleets across the Channel to cope with any unwanted and unexpected change in the global political balance. Maintaining our nuclear deterrent is crucial to national security.
We need to ensure that we have placed enough force to protect our overseas territories and bases. Not giving Diego Garcia away would be a good start and save us money.
We need to have an expeditionary capability to work with NATO and our other allies, and to participate in appropriate UN peace making and peace keeping actions as a member of the Security Council.
The UK has the Sky Sabre system against fast incoming planes and missiles, and the cheaper Skyhammer to counter hostile drones. There needs to be further spending on upgrading and intensifying the capabilities of these systems as modern warfare is dominated by drone and missile exchanges.
Offshore, our cables, pipes and energy installations are at risk from air and sea threats. We also need to have strong defences against any potential seaborne attack. This requires more destroyers, frigates, submarines and smaller vessels for coastal and underwater protection.
Our airforce, which also has to cover the needs of our carriers in their expeditionary capacit needs more planes for home defence. In all of these cases where we need to strengthen the home base, we also need to expand our defence industry capabilities in UK factories. In conflict, the loss of ships and planes and the expenditure of munitions would impose big strains on our current ability to manufacture.
Similar comments apply to the need to strengthen military personnel numbers and military assets in our bases and territories abroad. We need to have enough living there to deter a first assault by an enemy whilst we send reinforcements.
The issue of how large an expeditionary force we need is more difficult. It seems best to build it around our present two relatively new aircraft carriers. It should be a minimum expectation that one is always on a mission. The second should usually be available at short notice if a crisis occurs.
We should have sufficient planes and support vessels to be able to send a carrier group anywhere in the world without having to rely on allies to the extent we do at the moment. This would improve our contribution to NATO and give us sovereign capability if we ever need to defend our own interests without allied military help.
This all needs to be costed and given the reality check of what can the Defence Department and the supplying industry deliver. We need to expect more, whilst helping them with the money. Ministers need to ask why the Navy has around 260 Captains and 134 senior Flag Officers (one Star and above) when it only has 13 main warships available and most of those are commanded by officers below the rank of Captain.
Why does the airforce have 126 senior officers and roughly 1000 Wing Commanders for just 155 warplanes? Why does the army, reduced to 74,000 uniformed personnel, have 220 senior officers (one Star and above) and maybe 800 Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels or more?
Why does Defence procurement in the MOD have such a large staff of more than 11,000? Why do some important defence contracts for new army vehicles run up large spending excesses? Why do new naval vessels sometimes need major remediation of engines and other basic equipment? Why is the total civilian staff at 55,000? There is a need for tighter management and for buying more items that can be made with sufficient scale to bring the average price down.
These changes could provide for properly resourced bases in Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia allowing the UK to assist allies in the Gulf region and the US trade routes and sea lanes in the Middle East and off the African coast against pirates and hostile state actors attacking shipping.
I look forward to the MOD explaining their current personnel choices and urge them to improve their purchasing. The single biggest change that should be easy is to keep more of what they have got before the new replacements arrive. They are right to want to procure more from UK factories, as the evidence from the wars of the last century is that relying on imports is dangerous and difficult for an island nation in time of total war.
The military is learning the lessons of the Ukraine conflict, demonstrating the need for many more drones and simpler missiles, and reminding us of the outbreak of cyber warfare and attacks on utility systems and energy. The UK has, alongside Germany, been a leader in giving money and weapons to Ukraine.
The UK, like the US, has also been right to avoid any suggestion of war against Russia. Successive Prime Ministers and Defence Secretaries have been careful not to commit any of our forces or our directed weapons to this long and difficult war, as widening and intensifying it would be a very bad idea.