Why will no party criticise the triple lock?

As a former Labour defence secretary and adviser Lord Robertson has delivered a torpedo to the Labour government.  I have seen it suggested on social media that he is an adviser to two US defence companies, but I have been unable to verify this.

Defence spending was hollowed out under 14 years of Conservative prime ministers.   There were also arguably some poor spending decisions: two aircraft carriers that are sitting ducks without adequate destroyer protection and new destroyers that seem to spend most of their time in port having problems fixed.

Nevertheless the defence budget does seem to be £28 billion short of required spending over the next few years.  The Conservatives would pay for this by cutting welfare or making poor people poorer.

Yet no party will contemplate getting rid of the unsustainable triple lock because they know that older people are far more likely to vote than younger people.   It should be noted that pensions are defined as a benefit under the 1946 National Insurance Act.

Around that time one Labour politician said 'there ain't no fund' (possibly Ernie Bevin).   Pensions have to  be paid out of current taxation, a burden that will increase despite controversial age adjustments.

Yes, state pensions are lower in the UK than in many European countries, but private provision is much higher.  The state pension is an important safety net, but it should be focused on the most needy.

BTW, I think the latest attempt by the media to sack Starmer is not going to succeed.

Difficult politics

Responses to the defence review show how difficult the politics of cutting public expenditure is going to be for the Coalition Government. In my view with a cut in real terms of 8 per cent defence got off lightly. This was particularly true of the defence industries.

A spokesman for the UK Defence Association (an organisation I had never heard of before) was given a lot of air time on the BBC. Apparently a formal naval commander, he argued that as defence was the nation's first priority, it should not be cut at all. A prime example of fiscal nimbyism.

It is true that some parts of the defence budget have been cut more severely. In particular, the Navy has taken a 18 per cent hit. But this reflects what we need in a post-Cold War context when state versus state conflicts are rated as a relatively low threat.

There was also understandable concern from communities where bases look likely to be closed, particularly in Scotland. Local campaigns of this kind are, however, unlikely to affect the Government's stance.

Some Conservative backbenchers were also clearly unhappy at what they saw as too big a concession to the Liberal Democrats on Trident. Welcome to the give-and-take of coalition politics.

Today's cuts simply attempt to take back public expenditure back to where it was in 2006-7 in real terms. But even that is politically very difficult.

Liam Fox wins

Cuts in the defence budget will be less than 10 per cent after the personal intervention of the prime minister. It's a considerable victory for Liam Fox after what Michael Heseltine described 'as the letter designed to be leaked'. Even Hilary Clinton weighed in on his side.

There will be some painful cuts for the Navy and RAF, but the two aircraft carriers are safe. Cutting them would have hit jobs in what remains of the shipbuilding industry hard. There will be some unspecified savings on Trident as a concession to the Lib Dems.

The schools budget is also to be protected, at least in the sense tha Nick Clegg's 'pupil premium' for disadvantaged pupils will offset cuts elsewhere. This could mean that some schools with better off pupils could lose out.

All this means bigger cuts elsewhere. Higher education will take a big hit with 79 per cent of the teaching budget cut and £1bn off the research budget. Higher education is effectively being marketised and there will be big structural changes as a result with some universities merging or disappearing.

Although the Government is doing what it can to protect the less well off, some of these cuts, such as those in education, could hit median income families hard. However, the Government is going to give £1.5bn to Equitable Life policy holders from 'middle England', although their spokeswomen was not pleased and argued that taxpayers should have provided nearly £5bn.

And the Scottish Government has somehow found the money to abolish prescription charges.