Defence Investment Plan - Impact on DfT Budget

[Nicholas Lewis]

The launch of the Defence Investment Plan today has a useful explainer about where the money is coming from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...the-defence-investment-plan-funding-explainer

The DfT is being asked to provide additional funding from its capital budget but in rare piece of better news for rail its budget is being protected and its road schemes that are taking the hit.

As departments with larger capital budgets, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) have been asked to make further contributions.

DfT will provide savings of up to £700m from its roads funding. The Department will consult on reductions to the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) - including the potential cancellation of the A38 Derby Junctions and A46 Newark Bypass schemes, both of which are yet to enter contract and not as far along as other road schemes. There will be stakeholder consultations before any final decision is taken.

DfT will also explore limited reductions to as yet uncommitted roads funding. The government remains committed to protecting funding for local authorities to mend potholes and repair their roads, protecting investment in rail infrastructure, including Northern Powerhouse Rail, and the proposals will not impact bus or rail services.

 

[Randomer]

Honestly not the result I was expecting at all. Good news for the railway and in particular the north of England.

 

[styles]

Correct decision.

 

[D1511]

About time TBH, and £700m isn't much for DfT to stump up from RIS3. I doubt anything more than deferring the two named schemes will be needed.

 

[BrianW]

About time TBH, and £700m isn't much for DfT to stump up from RIS3. I doubt anything more than deferring the two named schemes will be needed.

That is-
'DfT will provide savings of up to £700m from its roads funding. The Department will consult on reductions to the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) - including the potential cancellation of the A38 Derby Junctions and A46 Newark Bypass schemes, both of which are yet to enter contract and not as far along as other road schemes. There will be stakeholder consultations before any final decision is taken.'

I note the word 'cancellation' rather than 'deferral'

'The railway' (incl and esp HS2) will still be expected to stay within its budget.

 

[D1511]

The need to improve the junctions on the A38 around Derby or to bypass Newark won't go away.....these schemes will go into RIS4........ in a different funding cycle.

 

[Dave61]

The need to improve the junctions on the A38 around Derby or to bypass Newark won't go away.....these schemes will go into RIS4........ in a different funding cycle.

And yet again it is the East Midlands that suffers, according to the BBC article

East Midlands mayor angry as road projects scrapped

Major schemes in Derby and Nottinghamshire are due to be axed as money is diverted to defence.

www.bbc.co.uk

Transport funding in the East Midlands is particularly low and has faced decades of underinvestment.

In 2023–24, transport spending in the East Midlands was 54% of the UK average, the lowest level of any UK region or nation.

Not to mention the poor Midland Main Line Electrification.

 

[Farigiraf]

The launch of the Defence Investment Plan today has a useful explainer about where the money is coming from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...the-defence-investment-plan-funding-explainer

The DfT is being asked to provide additional funding from its capital budget but in rare piece of better news for rail its budget is being protected and its road schemes that are taking the hit.

What's with the change of heart? Any reason why they went for the sensible choice - i.e. protecting rail & bus funding?
(Whether the Defense spending increase is justified, is another discussion)

 

[BrianW]

And yet again it is the East Midlands that suffers, according to the BBC article

East Midlands mayor angry as road projects scrapped

Major schemes in Derby and Nottinghamshire are due to be axed as money is diverted to defence.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not to mention the poor Midland Main Line Electrification.

Where will the coming 'Battle for Britain' be fought and won? Hastings? Flodden Field? Bosworth Field? Drogheda? Worcester? Dover? Derby? Newark? Clacton?

 

[PGAT]

What's with the change of heart? Any reason why they went for the sensible choice - i.e. protecting rail & bus funding?
(Whether the Defense spending increase is justified, is another discussion)

I would suspect because of GBR and being a new government pet project.

 

[Dave61]

Where will the coming 'Battle for Britain' be fought and won? Hastings? Flodden Field? Bosworth Field? Drogheda? Worcester? Dover? Derby? Newark? Clacton?

Eastern Europe probably, so the Baltic states, Poland, Germany etc
But then again that is fighting the last war again, so who knows? My point however it is the region that has the worst funding that is suffering again.

 

[rmHawk765]

Where will the coming 'Battle for Britain' be fought and won? Hastings? Flodden Field? Bosworth Field? Drogheda? Worcester? Dover? Derby? Newark? Clacton?

As usual, war is fearmongering, the killing of innocents, and now in the 21st century a major way to generate money for world leaders.

 

[Western Sunset]

The E Mids is an easy target for cancellation / deferral of projects. No real central "voice" like Manchester and "The North", or London and the SE.

 

[rmHawk765]

The E Mids is an easy target for cancellation / deferral of projects. No real central "voice" like Manchester and "The North", or London and the SE.

Public transport should be made more convenient than using a motor vehicle for the vast majority of cases, but cancelling road improvement programmes or making road travel less convenient directly only makes public transport less popular in terms of opinion.

 

[Annetts key]

As usual, war is fearmongering, the killing of innocents, and now in the 21st century a major way to generate money for world leaders.

Depends on who the aggressor is. If we lived in a stable, peaceful world, then we should not spend lots of money on weapons and military personal. Just like if everyone was law abiding and there was no crime, we would not need to spend lots of money on police, other law enforcement or investigating services and the courts.

But that's not the world we live in. Unfortunately there are countries who attack other countries, leaders of countries who like and want to retain, or gain more power. Just as there are people who for whatever reason turn to crime.

Therefore, we, just like many other countries need enough weapons, military equipment and military personal to defend against potential aggressors. Ideally we get the balance right so that we look and are seen as strong so that any potential aggressor decides against attacking.

I'm not sure how having a good defence makes money for our leader in this country. Yes, in dictatorships and failed democracies the leader and members of the government (and others) may well make money due to corruption.

Public transport should be made more convenient than using a motor vehicle for the vast majority of cases, but cancelling road improvement programmes or making road travel less convenient directly only makes public transport less popular in terms of opinion.

IMHO we should not be trying to build ourselves out of traffic jams and road congestion. We should actually be closing lanes to cars, vans, lorries and in some cases, roads. Although not the always the traffic calming measures that councils do in some places which just make some local residential roads busier than they were before by reducing parallel routes.

Instead we need to better encourage the use of walking, cycling, public transport, railways and other methods of transport that are more energy efficient, make better use of resources and are less damaging to both the environment and to society.

I mean, was it really a good idea to build motorways and dual carriageways through villages, towns and cities, cutting them into chunks? Why do pedestrians and cyclists have to go under roads via horrible underpasses or put extra effort in via bridges over roads? Make the motor in the road vehicle do the extra work. Yes, I know, because we plan for the motorist and making road vehicle bridges cost more than footbridges.

There is a big difference between making road travel less convenient and not spending more money on making road travel more convenient (until the "new" road fills up with traffic jams and congestion).

 

[The exile]

I would suspect because of GBR and being a new government pet project.

Or possibly because there are few rail projects at the “sweet spot” (or rather the opposite in this case) of having had large sums of money allocated (so able to be moved elsewhere) but not yet spent or even committed. There’s no much point in cancelling a £100 Million project where £50M has already been spent, and another £40M is under construction or has had contracts let which will cost you more than the remaining £10M in legal fees, penalty clauses etc. to get out of - not to mention the ongoing costs of keeping incomplete structures safe without any revenue stream. Better to go for projects that are still in the starting blocks.

 

[Jurg]

And yet again it is the East Midlands that suffers, according to the BBC article

To be fair the East Midlands has probably been the region most fervently enthusiastic about a Reform / Conservative agenda over the last few years. Doge-style cuts to essential local services in order to pay more money into war and put more cash in the hands of billionaires. I'm sure they'll be delighted.

 

[class26]

As usual, war is fearmongering, the killing of innocents, and now in the 21st century a major way to generate money for world leaders.

To prevent war you need to prepare for war. Age old truth

 

[jon0844]

To be fair the East Midlands has probably been the region most fervently enthusiastic about a Reform / Conservative agenda over the last few years. Doge-style cuts to essential local services in order to pay more money into war and put more cash in the hands of billionaires. I'm sure they'll be delighted.

I am sure they were until it affected them. Now they'll be shouting about the 'war on the motorist' and I'm sure the right will be seizing on this very soon if they haven't already.

 

[Harpo]

including the potential cancellation of the ……and A46 Newark Bypass schemes

To be fair the East Midlands has probably been the region most fervently enthusiastic about a Reform / Conservative agenda over the last few years. Doge-style cuts to essential local services in order to pay more money into war and put more cash in the hands of billionaires. I'm sure they'll be delighted.

And of course the MP for Newark (rude anagram available) is RPI-extraordinaire R Jenrick.

 

[The exile]

And of course the MP for Newark (rude anagram available) is RPI-extraordinaire R Jenrick.

A good reason to enable people to bypass Newark if there ever was one!

 

[Magrar]

Therefore, we, just like many other countries need enough weapons, military equipment and military personal to defend against potential aggressors. Ideally we get the balance right so that we look and are seen as strong so that any potential aggressor decides against attacking.

You've been successfully duped then. None of this money is going toward fixing the long standing chronic problem of us having not enough personel, other than an untested claim that automated warfare requires less humans.

This money isn't even going toward building a huge war fighting stockpile of weapons or equipment. In equipment terms, it is merely sacrificing one type (destroyers) for another (smaller vessels). Not a strategic decision, since the Navy wants both to fight a real war, but a financial decision. In weaponry terms, it won't as some might assume build a stockpile of automated weapons, since those become obsolete rapidly.

IMHO we should not be trying to build ourselves out of traffic jams and road congestion. We should actually be closing lanes to cars, vans, lorries and in some cases, roads.

We are where we are. Cancelling schemes that simply ensure the current way the road network is designed, doesn't collapse into a GDP and climate destroying traffic jam, goes against all of the government's previously stated priorities.

All we have done here is divert money we needed eslewhere, to provide for more R&D, testing and training, and most importably of all, a rapidly mobilised drone manufactureing capability, to prepare for a day when Putin invades a NATO country.

The genius strategy being straight from WWI. Make it cost him enough in men and material for small gains, to make him stop. In a world where apparently he wasn't smart enough to not start it in the first place.

Since that is still only a very small risk, ironically markedly reduced now that he has seen how ineffective his Ukraine invasion has been, but the risks of stalled growth and climate change from gridlocked trunk roads remain real, it is an illogial approach to strategic defence to say the least.

 

[duffield]

Correct decision.

I'm surprised they didn't "pause" the MML electrification again.

(After "unpausing" it for 30 seconds).

Can you tell I'm still bitter about this?

 

[styles]

I'm surprised they didn't "pause" the MML electrification again.

(After "unpausing" it for 30 seconds).

Can you tell I'm still bitter about this?

That project sticks in my mind for its absurdity.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure how having a good defence makes money for our leader in this country. Yes, in dictatorships and failed democracies the leader and members of the government (and others) may well make money due to corruption.

I found out yesterday (via Youtube channel A Different Bias) that the largest shareholder in defence company Quinetq is Christopher Harborne, who donated £5m to Nigel Farage.

You've been successfully duped then. None of this money is going toward fixing the long standing chronic problem of us having not enough personel, other than an untested claim that automated warfare requires less humans.

It won't apply in all situations, but use of drones and robots in Ukraine is one reason their casualty rate is much less than Russia's, and they are able to fight their side with fewer people that would traditionally be needed for a conflict of that type. This is also one reason why Ukraine my deter future conflicts - but only if it is seen that the potential victim is doing what Ukraine did.

 

[Annetts key]

You've been successfully duped then. None of this money is going toward fixing the long standing chronic problem of us having not enough personel, other than an untested claim that automated warfare requires less humans.

This money isn't even going toward building a huge war fighting stockpile of weapons or equipment. In equipment terms, it is merely sacrificing one type (destroyers) for another (smaller vessels). Not a strategic decision, since the Navy wants both to fight a real war, but a financial decision. In weaponry terms, it won't as some might assume build a stockpile of automated weapons, since those become obsolete rapidly.

We are where we are. Cancelling schemes that simply ensure the current way the road network is designed, doesn't collapse into a GDP and climate destroying traffic jam, goes against all of the government's previously stated priorities.

All we have done here is divert money we needed eslewhere, to provide for more R&D, testing and training, and most importably of all, a rapidly mobilised drone manufactureing capability, to prepare for a day when Putin invades a NATO country.

The genius strategy being straight from WWI. Make it cost him enough in men and material for small gains, to make him stop. In a world where apparently he wasn't smart enough to not start it in the first place.

Since that is still only a very small risk, ironically markedly reduced now that he has seen how ineffective his Ukraine invasion has been, but the risks of stalled growth and climate change from gridlocked trunk roads remain real, it is an illogial approach to strategic defence to say the least.

Fact - battleships are obsolete. No modern navy operates them. They are expensive capital ships that are far too vulnerable to attack aircraft from aircraft carriers and guided missiles from ships, aircraft and land.

The war that Russia started against Ukraine, a country that does not have many conventual ships in it's navy and which was not thought to be a match against the Russian Black Sea Fleet has turned conventional wisdom on naval war on it's head. Look at the number of ships that Ukraine has damaged, destroyed or sunk.

So our Royal Navy needs to learn from this and adapt.

I have not studied the details made public regarding the defence investment plan yet, but it may well be the case that large destroyers may also become unsuited (obsolete) for modern war.

Similarly, our army and the RAF need to adapt.

It's hard to say at this point in time what will happen with the role of humans on the front line, but Ukraine is using less and less soldiers on the front line and more and more UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles).

 

[Mikey C]

The East Midlands politicians (of all parties) definitely are justified in their complaints, with MML electrification cancelled and now road projects being cancelled in their area, and nowhere else.

Plus while Northern Powerhouse Rail is still going ahead, and Burnham wants to reinstate HS2 phase 2 to Manchester in some form, the East Midlands section of phase 2 is now long forgotten.

 

[edwin_m]

It's politically unfortunate that the two schemes most prominently mentioned for cancellation are both in the same region, but within the last couple of decades the East Midlands has had a fair number of road schemes (compared to very little on rail other than like for like renewals and some regional service enhancements). Improvements to the A6, A50 and A453 make it much easier to pass round the south of Derby, reducing the importance of the A38 and its cancelled junction works. The A46 Newark scheme looks like a classic case of improvements elsewhere in the form of the A46 Widmerpool to Newark dualling just moving the congestion problem somewhere else, but may have more local impact than the Derby junctions. Meanwhile spades are in the ground for A52 works round the south of Nottingham.

 

[Magrar]

Fact - battleships are obsolete. No modern navy operates them. They are expensive capital ships that are far too vulnerable to attack aircraft from aircraft carriers and guided missiles from ships, aircraft and land.

The war that Russia started against Ukraine, a country that does not have many conventual ships in it's navy and which was not thought to be a match against the Russian Black Sea Fleet has turned conventional wisdom on naval war on it's head. Look at the number of ships that Ukraine has damaged, destroyed or sunk.

So our Royal Navy needs to learn from this and adapt.

I have not studied the details made public regarding the defence investment plan yet, but it may well be the case that large destroyers may also become unsuited (obsolete) for modern war.

Similarly, our army and the RAF need to adapt.

It's hard to say at this point in time what will happen with the role of humans on the front line, but Ukraine is using less and less soldiers on the front line and more and more UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles).

What would be easier for the UK to build quickly, if it turned out it needed them for an unforseen strategic reason?

A large hunk of sea going metal, or a drone fleet?

People will of course assume ships are obsolete due to missiles and drones, because they probably have no clue that naval vessels these days are basically just mobile missile platforms.

If we come up aagainst an enemy whose missiles are unstoppable by any intercept technology known to man (all of which can be mounted on a destroyer, and works most effectiveley when you have multiple platforms spresd across large areas), then we aren't going to win a war with them whatever we use.

But that's only a handful of countries currently. But pretty much all countries know, or should know now, that if the UK can't land an invasion force on their shores (which you can't without a proper navy), they can wage war with us.

 

[thelongestroad]

I can't wait to hear how much Kemi suddnely loves and cares about East Midlands road projects in 3, 2, 1....