Enshrined in Law - implications for other priorities?

[petagny]

We might not be very impressed by his see-through motives -  the UK defence budget is under extreme pressure at the moment -  but Liam Fox is fundamentally right when he says in a leaked letter that it would be folly to set the 0.7% of GDP commitment to development spending in law. This is the kind of rigidity that we march around the developing world advising against, so why shackle the budget priority setting process at home? DFID needs to make it's case in the expenditure round just like the other ministries.

Of course, his case might be rather stronger if the Ministry of Defence hadn't made such a balls-up of the strategic defence review, which seemed to be as far away from being strategic as one could get!

[John Short]

The UK is about to enshrine in law the 0.7 per cent of GDP OECD target to the Foreign Aid budget and a military covenant - which will provide a duty of care to those serving in the armed forces.  It is likely to state that soldiers (presumably all three branches of the services) who are called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - and that they and their families should expect fair treatment and to be valued, respected and properly rewarded which in practical terms, may mean they should be able to be entitled to adequate housing and health care.  Presumably this means that an element of the defence budget will be ring-fenced based on an indexed linked package applicable to the number of people that qualify.  Will this mean that the defence budget will expand to honour this provision or will other elements of the defence budget be cut to ensure that it is met?  Two different budget heads but with two different methods of calculating expenditure amounts which will have implications for other sectors in an expenditure cutting environment.  Thoughts?

[petagny]

John,

I just posted under another topic on the legally binding 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid. Liam Fox is right to question this, but we might question his motivation.

I had not made the connection with the Military Covenant - yes, another rigidity.

Petagny

[John Short]

Scary - I made my post without seeing yours!  It was early in the morning!

[Napodano]

no worries, now the two topics are merged here.

[John Short]

I thought that there was an invisible hand of a Scillian type El Duce involved and that my mind was still (relatively) sound!

[STONE]

yeah maybe - isn't it the same as fiscal responsibility acts - enshrine something in law and the see if your majority in parliament votes against the first reading (budget speech) because its only 0.64999999999% of the independent body's assessment of what GDP will have been in the year to March 31st, er, next year? - all twaddle.  Fox is not making the right argument - it is daft to legislate this - he just thinks his current MDA should get more money - I'm sure Mitchell feels the same.

[harnett]

Does it matter that much anyway? It seems that the ability to switch spending between DFID and defence is pretty lax - witness the closing of 50% DFID offices and the significant increase in spending on Afghanistan.  Yes - Fox wants more for his MDA.