The video tests Healey's claim that the government inherited 'runaway' defence expenditure against the spending chart shown on screen. It then follows the £2,000 million ceiling, the claimed £400 million or 16 percent saving, and the assertion that three quarters of the reduction came from better value rather than lost capability. Actual expenditure soon moved closer to £3,000 million, so the stated ceiling was not sustained. The argument is especially sceptical of treating emergency reinforcement by air as a cheap substitute just as surface-to-air missiles and shoulder-fired weapons were spreading. Its central criticism is that the financial target appears to have preceded the assessment of commitments and forces. If overseas obligations could not actually be shed, the government would either need to restore money or admit that the reductions had been fiscal choices rather than a strategy-led balance.
Chapter · 40:29-46:55
Testing Healey's claim of runaway defence costs
A close reading of Healey's statement challenges whether the White Paper's financial target followed from the spending data it invoked.