The One Click Group

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

Dr Iain Stephenson
Found Guilty of Vaccine
Research Fraud
The One Click Group

Mobilising ME/CFS Charities
To Smash Flawed
PACE Trial Results
Lara, Health Advocate

UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

Vaccination Graphs
The Awful Stats In Action
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

March 2010

One Click
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

Barbara Loe Fisher
NVIC Conference
Style, Gonads
Brass Ovaries
By Jane Bryant

New Journalism
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference

How The
Judicial Review
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Vaccines Propaganda
David Salisbury
Public Relations

David Southall
"A Very
Dangerous Doctor"
Panorama swims
with sharks
Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dr David Salisbury
Never Mind Me,
I'm Basil Fawlty!

David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown

Vaccine/Autism Case
Mitochondrial Disfunction
ME/CFS Patients

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Weird World of Wikipedia
By Martin J. Walker

Click here to email us with any thoughts or opinions you wish to share about the website.


News Archives 4861-4880
Number Title Post Date
4861 USA woman killed by polio vaccine 17/06/2011 11:12:50
4862 How much does Big Pharma pay drug dealer doctors? 17/06/2011 11:16:31
4863 Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research 17/06/2011 11:17:42
4864 N.H. doctors can now treat Lyme disease with long-term antibiotics 20/06/2011 13:34:22
4865 Lyme Disease Bacteria Take Cover in Lymph Nodes 20/06/2011 13:36:38
4866 Doctors refuse to name vaccine (now withdrawn) that allegedly caused child's death 20/06/2011 13:39:13
4867 Manufacturing consent for coercive New Zealand vaccination policy 20/06/2011 13:41:36
4868 San Marcos couple sue county for taking their children 20/06/2011 13:43:03
4869 LulzSec Declares War 20/06/2011 13:47:15
4870 Parents of disabled British children could lose 1,400 in welfare shakeup 20/06/2011 13:48:39
4871 What it's costing British taxpayers to bomb Libya 20/06/2011 13:50:35
4872 This attack on UK legal aid is an attack on justice 22/06/2011 13:45:08
4873 LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov't to discuss national Web- censorship regime 22/06/2011 13:46:45
4874 LulzSec denies detested UK census hack 22/06/2011 13:48:11
4875 Criminal charges to proceed against Detroit mom, Risperdal and vaccines 22/06/2011 13:49:30
4876 CSL influenza vaccine investigation 'inadequate' - US Food and Drug Administration 22/06/2011 13:50:43
4877 To vaccinate or not 22/06/2011 13:53:19
4878 The Forty-Year Quagmire: An Exit Strategy for the War on Drugs 22/06/2011 13:54:27
4879 Rebellious Media Conference 23/06/2011 09:34:42
4880 BEWARE: Romas/COIN Classified Intelligence Mass Surveillance 23/06/2011 09:40:45

[Previous] [Next]

What it's costing British taxpayers to bomb Libya
Share |

What's it costing British taxpayers to bomb Libya?

The UK government has shrouded the financial cost of bombing Gaddafi in secrecy and obfuscation

Ian Katz

Smoke rises after a Nato air strike on the Libyan capital, Tripoli

This weekend provided sobering reminders of the human and financial cost of the three-month bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi's regime: in Tripoli several civilians appeared to have been killed by a Nato strike; while in London the Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander, admitted that the bill for Britain's contribution could run to "hundreds of millions of pounds".

Until now the UK government has shrouded the issue of how much taxpayers are spending on bombing Libya in the sort of secrecy and obfuscation you'd expect if you asked the current location of all its Trident submarines.

By contrast, here are a few things I can tell you about how much the US's contribution to the preposterously named Operation Unified Protector is costing: as of 3 June, Washington had spent $715.9m on its military operation and associated humanitarian assistance, $398.3m on bombs and missiles alone. The Pentagon sent 120,000 halal meals ready to eat (MREs) to Benghazi at a cost of $1.3m. And by 30 September it reckons its Libya bill will have risen to $1.1bn. I know all this because it was laid out in a document produced by the Obama administration for Congress last week.

On Friday I tried to find out some equivalent figures for Britain's involvement. I called the Ministry of Defence, where a spokeswoman told me the Treasury was "doing an assessment", but no "actual figures" were available yet. She mentioned a month-old estimate "sort of within the region of £100m", but conceded that since the deployment of Apache helicopters the figure was probably significantly higher.

She thought the Treasury might be able to provide more detail, which did not amuse the Treasury spokesman I reached: "It is currently not possible to pull together real-time figures. Apparently the MoD are working on a breakdown but that's not ready to be released."

Perhaps the Foreign Office could help? Not likely: "The foreign secretary has made clear that we will present accurate costings to parliament in due course. We will not be providing a running commentary."

This from the government that trumpets its commitment on the Downing Street website to being "the most open and transparent in the world".

Fortunately, we do know a little more about the likely bill for Britain's part in the conflict from other sources. This month Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, said in answer to a parliamentary question that Britain was targeting Libya with £6m worth of munitions a week. A Guardian report in May quoted defence experts who suggested the total bill by autumn is likely to be £400m-£1bn.

Public spending comparisons can be glib, but in times of slashed budgets and brutal choices it is hard – perhaps even irresponsible – to avoid making them. So here are a few striking ones: taking the most conservative estimate, the cost to the UK taxpayer of bombing Gaddafi for six months is four times the cut to the arts budget; three times the sum saved by Ken Clark's controversial sentencing reforms; more than the proposed cuts to the legal aid budget; about the same as the savings from ending the education maintenance allowance (EMA); or three times the amount saved by scrapping the disability living allowance.

Are these reasons to conclude Britain should stop bombing Gaddafi? Of course not: any decision to go to war is a complex equation of morality, risk and national interest, in which financial cost is just one, frequently trumped, consideration. But are they relevant to forming an intelligent view on whether Britain should be involved? Surely.

Yet when it comes to military action there is a curious reluctance to apply the same scrutiny to the bottom line as we do to every other area of public spending. As the New Yorker's Amy Davidson puts it: "There is something almost pathological about the way we don't talk about budgets when we talk about war … as if brave men don't think about things like money."

Anyone who has the temerity to ask how much Britain's Libya campaign is costing is reassured that it is all being paid for from Treasury reserves, so we needn't worry our pretty little heads. But anyone who has lost their EMA or disability living allowance could quite justifiably wonder why cash can be found for bombs but not for them.

At the very least, a democracy ought to ventilate the choices it is making. Ed Miliband has been reluctant to rock the boat over Libya, perhaps because the Labour leader can see no better option. But it's time his party started asking difficult questions about our third war in a decade. And if David Cameron is serious about transparency, he needs to show he can be as open about inconvenient facts as he has been about inconsequential ones.

UK Web Hosting by Mon, June 20th, 2011. 01:50 pm