Who should pay for the defence of the nation? The wealthiest, in the form of higher tax, or the poorest having their benefits cut?

The UK Minister of Defence said, in an interview with the Telegraph, the "kind of Conservatism I was brought up on says that the first priority of the government is defending the country and maintaining law and order. Those are the two top priorities for me” . Which seems reasonable. There is no doubt that paying for the banking crisis required us to cut defence spending, probably beyond what is prudent. However, he then goes on to say the people from whom money should be taken to pay for Defence are not those with the most money (including bankers), but those with the least. 

The minister went on to say: “There is a body of opinion within Cabinet that we have to look at the welfare budget again. The welfare budget is the bit of public spending that has risen the furthest and the fastest and if we are going to get control of public spending on a sustainable basis, we are going to have to do more to tackle the growth in the welfare budget.”

At least he is being consistently true to the "kind of Conservatism [he] was brought up on". Defence and Law&Order are the "two top priorities" apart from keeping tax down.

They pick us off one at a time. Public servants, then teachers, then 'skivers and strivers'. So who is next? Nick Clegg, Iain Duncan Smith, and various 'think tanks' are softening us up to the idea of cutting benefits to the elderly. Are pensioners so feather-bedded they can afford to lose their benefits?

Fortunately the Office of National Statistics (ONS) is still manned by ordinary Britons driven by maths, and still manages to publish their statistics regardless of the bums on the ministerial seats. They know they need to be careful: The National Audit Office's (NAO) criticisms of various government departments including, among so many others, HMRC and the Department of Works and Pensions resulted in the government's decision to abolish it. Following the NAO's abolition it will be for the various government bodies to appoint their own auditors. We need look no further than the banks to see what happens when organisations are the paymasters of their own auditors. 

So let's appreciate some of the truths brought to us by the ONS while it is still alive and counting:

a) The UK has similar percentages in poverty to the EU average for those up to 64 years of age (children and what used to be 'working age' before retirement ages were pushed up). However, the percentage of over 65's in poverty is much greater than the EU average.

b) The reason poverty has fallen in the UK since 2008 is that the definition of 'poverty' sets it at 60% of the median income. So when the median (average) income falls there are fewer people in 'poverty'. 

"Poverty" falls even though the poor are actually worse off than before as inflation pushes prices up. A report by Lloyds Private Banking shows the value of money has fallen by two thirds since 1982. Regardless of the definition of poverty, it is a case of having less money when money is worth less.

c) The UK has a significantly higher percentage of its population in poverty than Germany and France. The UK is kept off the bottom of the pile by such economic paladins as Spain, Italy and Latvia.

According to a study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, part of the University of London, the British Army already focusses recruiting in schools with children from the poorer families.
Having already targeted their children to defend the nation is it reasonable to also target their benefits?

If the Tories regard defence and law&order as their "top two priorities", then they should put their hands into their own pockets in the form of taxes.