What ‘warfare versus welfare’ gets wrong about real‑life economics |
Lord Robertson’s claim that the UK cannot defend itself with an “ever-expanding” welfare budget has resonated loudly, given his previous positions as a Nato secretary-general and UK defence secretary. Following up on the UK’s 2025 strategic defence review, which he led, Robertson warned that low investment is leaving UK security “in peril”.
The comments have instant appeal in one sense. Defence is indeed awarded a far smaller share of the pie than social protection: 6.5% of total managed expenditure for 2026/27 against 28%, according to estimates.
The UK’s budget deficit is adding to already high public debt, and the IMF has forecast that Britain will be hit harder than other countries by the economic effects of the Iran hostilities. The government is already seeking savings from other departments as it tries to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027.
But the idea of a simple trade-off, with more weapons requiring less welfare, confuses two very different types of public spending.
Defence is part of “final” public expenditure, funding armed forces’ pay and the weapons and equipment they work with. This takes up money that can’t be assigned elsewhere in the budget, and consumes a share of national output when the government spends it.
In........