revulsion over British deaths in Helmand, but here are the facts. In his 2001 Budget, Mr Brown set aside 24 billion for defence from total public spending that year of 394 billion. Thus defence accounted for 6.09 per cent of the state's annual outlay. This year, Alistair Darling pencilled in 38 billion for defence from total public spending of 671 billion, or 5.66 per cent. In the nine Budgets, 2001 to 2009, the average was 5.5 per cent. Never mind fine words peddled in Parliament to give an impression of a greater priority for kitting out those in the front line, the Government's spending patterns tell a different story. In 2001, total social security (welfare) payments were 4.6 times bigger than defence spending. This year's social security payments (rebranded "social protection" in 2003), will be 189 billion, or almost five times more than the entire defence allocation. Whom would you rather fund, the Karen Matthews set or British soldiers? Yes, defence spending has increased in money terms under Mr Brown. But its place in Whitehall's food chain has, at best, gone sideways. The Prime Minister can flip the figures hither and thither, but his "new priorities" do not include a meaningful promotion for Tommy Atkins. He's stuck in the second rank: way behind welfare, health, education; and only marginally ahead of what the Treasury defines as "personal social services" (31 billion). As if a lack of sufficient funding to fight foreign wars were not injury enough, Mr Brown has added