SDSR: if you're going to make an omelette…

If you're going to make an omelette you need to break some eggs — or in this case, put them back in the cupboard and go hungry whilst they go off.

The SDSR announced by the Prime Minister this week has shelved the Maingate decision — the decision to place the contracts that would see a replacement to the current Trident nuclear deterrent built — until beyond the 2015 general election.

The Value for Money review has apparently also been completed. The meaning of all of this? Starting with the VfM review the government is so focused on, several claims are made: extending the life of the current Vanguard class submarines and re-profiling the programme — but surely this costs money? Are they saving money or simply offsetting it? Working with British industry to improve efficiency and optimise capacity to build and support submarines — has this not been said for years, and has it ever actually happened? A new Astute class submarine (number 7) is to be ordered to avoid losing the industrial drum-beat — see the logic; see the cost saving. Deferring spending of up to £2 billion over the next ten years — so around £200 million a year, and 'up to'. Neither convincing nor a significant saving.

The 'Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme' is expected to yield £900 million in savings — though this appears to be the same people, same firm (BAE) and same client (MOD) under a new name, possibly a rebranding of the Future Integrated Project Team.

There are many holes in this approach. This is a poor attempt to say something new about where we have actually been for the last four years, while deferring the real decisions. One Conservative MP suggested this may be a poor attempt to pander to the Liberal Democrat vote, to maintain their support for other spending cuts until they potentially lose favour with voters in 2015 — leaving a majority Conservative government to approve Trident replacement by a clean vote.

This is unlikely to save costs in the short or long term and may actually increase the overall bill. Nor does it present the UK as a mature and forward-thinking nation when it comes to nuclear deterrence.