X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

The issue of the defence budget could force more Tory MPs to become rebels

9 March 2015

5:13 PM

9 March 2015

5:13 PM

One of the really striking claims that Ed Balls made in his speech today was that the Tories would end up cutting more from the defence budget than Labour. This is not the sort of thing that you’d expect to hear: Labour saying it would end up spending more on defence than the traditional party of the armed forces. The Shadow Chancellor said:

‘First of all, our cuts, in any part of public spending, are not going to go nowhere near the huge scale of defence cuts you are going to see under the Conservatives on the basis of these plans.’

Balls also said that it was ‘absolutely impossible on the Conservative trajectory’ to meet the target for defence spending to remain at 2 per cent of GDP. When David Cameron was asked about the issue today, he started talking about ‘what we have said very clearly’, which is always the way a politician admits that things are mired (perhaps conveniently) in confusion:

‘What we have said very clearly is that the £160 billion capital budget… the equipment budget, over the next 10 years, that will grow in real terms under a Conservative government. Making sure that vital equipment we have ordered… can be delivered. We have also said that we don’t want to see further reductions in the regular armed forces. So, we have made those very clear promises, but again, I would say we cannot make those pledges without a strong economy.’


None of this will quell the revolt that John Baron is threatening on Thursday on defence spending. The Tory MP and organiser of many a rebellion, has tabled a motion saying ‘this House believes that defence spending should be set to a minimum of two per cent of GDP in accordance with the UK’s NATO commitment’. He has a good number of signatures on the order paper already, though some Tories might hesitate to join given how many of the naughty camp are signed up (Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, David Nuttall and Andrew Bridgen are on the list, along with less rebellious types such as Defence Select Committee chair Rory Stewart, Sir Gerald Howarth and James Arbuthnot).

This is tricky for Tory MPs who do not like rebelling but who are very worried about defence spending (and the concern goes far beyond the usual suspects). And it is tricky for the party as well: how can it let a motion pass that calls for it to make a pledge the leadership does not want to make or indeed cannot afford to make? I understand, though, that there will be no whip against Baron’s motion because it is a backbench debate, and therefore the whips are happy to take a relaxed view on it. This is perhaps better than antagonising the party by being heavy-handed. But it does mean that there could be quite a number of MPs who go far beyond those naughty types who decide to express their view.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close