In todays Telegraph Philip Hammond is interviewed and lays down a marker that he won’t allow the Chancellor to cut ‘his’ defence budget beyond moderate “efficiency savings” for the spending plans beyond the next general election. It seems a bit strange that any Government Minister is prepared to suggest that there are efficiency savings which are moderate, yet have not already been made, bearing in mind this is the Government that constantly claims to be the authors of efficiency. Philip goes on to suggest that apart from making these moderate savings unless there is a further cut to the welfare budget the defence budget stays as it is.

It is clear that is all about posturing. If you want to really influence change you do it in the context of the cabinet if you are a member or in Parliament if not. That is what Ministers constantly tell us when they deign to appear on our broadcast media. This sort of behaviour is usually the domain of children – I won’t tidy my room unless everyone else does the same etc. In any case it presupposes that Philip will be the Defence Minister past the election. However it does help us to understand how unsuited Mr Hammond is to his current role.

In the first instance any collective decision-making stands and falls by the willingness of those involved to understand that they are of one piece. Once the internal trade offs become public you are looking for a new team. In effect Hammond is not taking on IDS and his welfare budget or even the Lib Dems and their priorities, but Cameron and Osborne and their control on No 10 and No 11, in much the same way as the child is throwing down the gauntlet to its carers who need to impress how the bedroom must be cleaned irrespective of the perceived state of other rooms. 

Secondly this shows a total lack of understanding of the way in which society as a whole works. The role of welfare is to support and sustain those who are unable to fully support themselves, either because the cost of housing or other expenses outstrip ones ability to earn a reasonable income, or else that one’s health etc places one outside the pool of those who can be employed within the mainstream of the market. Sadly we live in a society where many of those who leave our forces then find they have to take advantage of the welfare system when re-adjusting to the society that they have fought to protect. This means that the people who Philip wants to protect on the frontline, will in effect become his targets when they leave it, but perhaps he is not so well acquainted with the realities of the welfare system. 

It is probable that with his extensive business interests Mr Hammond will never need to personally claim money from the welfare system, and as a Millionaire MP in the Surrey commuter belt he may have limited access to the experience of those on benefits. On the other hand he has shown he has a good appetite for the very generous state funded second homes provision for MPs and one can presume he will be happy to claim his Ministers Pension when the time comes. Let us hope that he and the other ‘Union of Ministers’ either lose their front bench roles at the next election or else get a bit of reality check from some of the soldiers and officers he is currently happy to be photographed with. Alternatively if he is as commited to protecting defence budgets as he is suggesting, perhaps he could at least offer to resign if the Chancellor does not abide by the Strategic Defence Review. That at least would have a sense of integrity about it!