New Defence Secretary

[KPax]

So, new cabinet to be announced soon. Who do you want as Secretary of State for Defence.

[passpartout]

How about somebody with military service in his/her portfolio?

Some chance of that!

[Archimedes]

The Telegraph was suggesting Alistair Darling. That'll be fun! :uhoh:

[passpartout]

"You and me, obviously Darling.....etc"

[Kiting for Boys]

Any good...?

Eric Joyce MP was born on the 13th October 1960. He lived in Perth with his family for most of his infant and teenage years before joining the army in 1978. Initially a private in the Black Watch, Eric went on to attend the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and was commissioned into the Adjutant General's Corps in 1987. During his time in the army, Eric served in the UK, Northern Ireland, Germany and Central America.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Eric+Joyce/1B9B9C34-8FEA-425D-9FB3-6FB74528749E.htm

Fairly limited pool. Labour MP ex-service

[Archimedes]

If Joyce were appointed, I suspect that members of the 'Army Means' would stage a coup d'etat if the comments about him on that forum are anything to go by. Makes Hoon look popular....:eek:

[pr00ne]

Hoon is rumoured to want to stand down as Defence Secretary and he was noticeably absent from national campaigning in the last few weeks.

passpartout,

What would the advantage be of a Secretary of State for Defence having any prior military service? He is after all a politician and has a whole host of military advisors around from CDS through the Chiefs of Staff. Surely a Def Sec with prior military service would run the risk of thinking he knew it all and ignoring his military advisors?

Lets face it, the last ex military guy to try to run the Tory party was an out and out disaster!

[JessTheDog]

Joyce is detested for his Blairite toadying and for his backstabbing. He left under a cloud after publishing a critical article on the Armed Forces and is frequently to be seen defending BuffHoon's stupid and short-sighted cutbacks.

I am sure (in the unlikely event he was appointed) he would have a very difficult tenure, with all sorts of mischief-making going on!

[passpartout]

Proone,

What would be the harm in it?

Just because the last one was no good, doesn't mean to say that retired members of the Armed Forces would not qualified to be SofS for Defence in the future.

Taking your argument further, does this mean that the Lord Chancellor shouldn't be a lawyer?

Crikey, we've had a lawyer recently, it can't get any worse than that, can it?

[Archimedes]

Pr00ne, yes - there's considerable speculation that Hoon wants to return to the backbenches, since he's realised that his chances of becoming Foreign Secretary are rather low, and the other job he'd like - Constitutional Affairs - isn't available.

[Letsby Avenue]

I thought Patricia Hewitt was more or less in the frame....:}

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Now, she'd would get it:E :E :E :E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Good Mickey]

In a heartbeat!!!!!!!!

GM

[JessTheDog]

I thought Patricia Hewitt was more or less in the frame....

Ahh yes, she late of Andersen Consulting,who fiddled while Rover and MG went down the toilet (thanks to a barking mad decision made a few years ago by Byers).

Who would be an acceptable choice from the shop-floor perspective?

Anything is an improvement on the detested BuffHoon, but I recall that George Robertson had a reasonable reputation as SoS. There must be some heavy-hitters out there that would take an interest in the MoD rather than just pretending everything is OK and the toybox isn't empty...

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Did I not hear John Reid's name being touted for SofS Defence?

sv

[A good headin]

No doubt it will be some useless tw*t who knows cock all about defence and has to rely on some poxy little (ex CND) Under Secretary to 'advise' him/her on what they are supposed to do. If he/she is as useless as the last idiot, then he/she will probably go on holiday just as the fireworks are about to fly!

Hopefully this time around(and I doubt it) the military Chiefs will start standing up for our Forces and not let the Red Flag fly too high over our once great nation.

Rant time and Cold war over I know..........time for zzzzz:zzz:

[SmilingKnifed]

Reid strikes me as a hard-nosed b'stard, which would be an improvement on the human jellyfish we have now. That and a CDS with the balls to tell the truth (like Boyce) and not be castigated for it.


As a resident of Buff's constituency, may I formally apologise for the actions of my neighbours in voting the muppet back in. As much as everyone locally detests him, they'd vote in a chimp if it wore a red rosette.:mad:

[Topsy Turvey]

Sky News reporting that John Reid is the new Defence Secretary. Said he has always wanted job after time as Min(AF) under George Robertson in Blair's first Govt.

[SmilingKnifed]

Looking for confirmation before I crack open the bubbly!

[DuckDodgers]

Another 'thug' of a politician then!

[Jordan D]

BBC News now reporting the Cabinet Reshuffle. Dr John Reid (former Northern Ireland & Health Secretary) to become SofS Defence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4523783.stm

Hoon to become head of Commons.

Jordan

[exleckie]

I remember as a youngster, Buff Hoon was trawling the streets for votes for local government.

I think that as a politician, he is completely unsuited to the defence subject.

As for a new defence secretary, what will we get?

While I personally think SDR was positive, (especially after Options, Bett, Leonard) I think that no matter who is in power, they will still try to shave the defence budget to pay for issues that Joe Public think are important to them.


Defence of the realm has changed formidably since the end of the Cold War but Joe will never understand that.

The fact is, in this day and age, we don't know who we will be fighting, we don't know where we will go to fight and we don't know when.

How can we prepare for the unknown with a reduced budget???????????

[Archimedes]

Yep, BBC say it's Reid, with Buff as Leader of the Commons. Given that TCH has no concept of leadership, this could be a poor appointment by Blair. The Leader of the House is not meant to be supine...

John Pienaar, (the BBC correspondent) has observed that Reid has always 'coveted' the Defence job. So, Defence has a man who (a) wants the job and (b) has a spine. I am led to believe that his default setting is *not* 'that's a very generous amount you're offering my department in this spending round, Gordon'.

Could be interesting...

[KPax]

The supposed reason that Reid did not get the job the last time was that Bliar did not want someone who would stand in his way when he needed to find money from someone's budget. Could be fun in the near future.

[Letsby Avenue]

Let's face it - They're all to88ers.... but I guess Reid is the best of the worst (can we stop calling him Dr now?):(

[diginagain]

Pity - rather hoped they'd add it to Fiery John's portfolio.
Would love to see the press photos of Ol' Lardy climbing about HM kit.
Might have given at least two Jags a reprieve?

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Listen to yourself's wait a couple of months and then see what u think of 'Dr John'. He is a party yes man, listen to any interview and he ALWAYS gives tony's line. The first time he stands up to anyone in his new job I will eat my hat, (and then go to supply and buy a new one) :\

[Scud-U-Like]

I met John Reid when he was Shadow Defence Sec (1993ish) and he came over as a decent enough bloke. There was only him and me present, so it wasn't as though he needed to impress a crowd. He's pretty affable and has a very good brain.

I thought his reaction to Jeremy Paxman's 'attack dog' comment, during a Newsnight interview a few weeks ago, was completely OTT. He was trying to play the Glaswegian working class card and made himself look daft.

And he is a proper Dr (ie he has a doctorate), as opposed to most medical Drs (who don't).

We'll see...

[Gainesy]

Might as well start calling him TCR now.

[Pilgrim101]

Just think,

We'll now have the man who was responsible for the NHS and it's current state of peak efficiency. Another self serving Blair clone and one we can do without in these pressing times. Personal ambition is written on his every pronouncement that we've never had it so good.

As for the Glasgow hard man act, well most Jocks can see through him - why can't you English ? :}

[JessTheDog]

Private Eye refer to him as John "Oh f*ck, not Health" Reid. He at least had the wisdom to recognise that poisoned chalice for what it was!

He may do a reasonable job - that means actually giving a t0ss and not screwing up, unlike BuffHoon.

As mentioned above, it is worth giving him a chance with a few months grace before sticking a BuffHoon style nickname on him!

[Pontius Navigator]

So what does Buff know that enables him to keep a job?

[teeteringhead]

Dr Reid not a bad bloke IMHO. He was Shadow Defence pre-1997 and he made a very good and thoughtful presentation at RUSI in the run up to the Election of that year. I think he was a bit p!$$ed off not to get Defence then.

I remember one impressive occasion when he was Min (AF) and was "playing" in a weekend exercise being controlled from Whitehall. It was dreadful weather, so the exercise was a mixture of live play and CPX-ing; some of the more adventurous serials had been cancelled as too risky. As Endex approached in the early hours of Sunday morning, all high level political decisions had been taken, so the "great and the good" were departing, leaving the SO1s to finish up (and clear up!). Reid stays - chainsmoking all the time; to be told it's all right if he wants to leave.

"I'm confused by this CPX thing; are we really going to have real troops sliding down ropes out of helicopters on a ****e night like this?"

"Yes Minister"

"Then I'm going nowhere until I know all of my people are safe!"

And he did....... can't imagine many other politicians doing likewise, least of all at 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning....

[mbga9pgf]

Incompetence I imagine. Do you really expect the socialists to stick anyone with an ounce of backbone in an area so embarrasing to the Labour gvt as Defence? Could imagine they much prefer someone who is going to roll over as soon as any pressure from the treasury arose.

[Kiting for Boys]

John Reid is probably the best option...at least he's got a genuine interest in Defence matters.

[A good headin]

A pity TCR was not a real Dr as my chalfonts have been playing merry hell lately.

No matter TCH or TCR, both have been/will be a pain in the jetpipe, politicians will never understand unless of course we send their sons/daughters to fight. Hey there's an idea?

Congrats to Reg Keys for getting over 4000 votes and having the balls to look Tony Bliar in the face and make him squirm and whince. Bliar looked pretty uncomfortable, but I don't think it was guilt on his face. Maybe Bliars chalfonts were playing him up too:ooh:

[Navaleye]

It pains me to say it that John Reid is the only member of this useless bunch of incompetants that I have any time for. So I hope he gets the job.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Remember being told by a colleague that he had bumped into John Reid (in the Ivory Towers) with his head in his hands shortly after he had been told he was getting 'Health'. Apparently he didn't want to move from Defence. Well JR welcome back - I hope!! Despite my dislike for new liabour (and prOOne's incessant defence of everything new and old liabour ;) ) I think John Reid will be a massive improvement on Buff. Mind you a potato would have been an improvement on Buff! I hope John Reid stands up to Gordon Broon, Defence is going to need someone to stand up for it if he becomes PM!!!:yuk:

[BEagle]

'The Doc' sounds as though he'll be a breath of fresh air after the useless BuffHoon. Despite being in Trust-me-Tone's lot, he will hopefully prove to be sufficiently testiculated to tell Greedy Gordon to $od off and leave Defence alone!

Hardly surprising that Bliar had the smug gurn wiped off his face with the ar$e-kicking the electorate gave him. A shame he didn't do the same as Transylvanian Howard and stand down; hopefully we've got a rising prospect locally in the shape of our local MP, David Cameron, who might be up for leading the next Conservative victory.

Good news for the pi$$ed-off motorists of Oxfordshire - Labour was kicked out in droves and the County Council is no longer hung but now has a substantial Conservative majority. So we'll see how the vow to stop the 'War against the Motorist' made by the Conservative council leader translates into action........

Standing by for that dear old Trot pr00ne to spin some crap about what a resounding success New Liarbour had at the election....

[Navaleye]

BEagle, I agree 100%. Pr00ne is entitled to his views and I defend his right to hold them. Lets see how JR pans out, but I have to say that I am not hopeful - but we shall see.

[Jordan D]

I wait with interest to see what the good Doc will do for Defense - and what will be Tony's line, Gordon's line and his line.

Jordan

PS - what's TCR? (forgive my ignorance)

[Man-on-the-fence]

Beags

There were a lot of extremely unhappy Transport (anything but car) Planners at Speedwell House on Friday.

One was seem nearly in tears at the size of the majority.

If its p1ssed them off then it must be a good thing.

So much for the ITS's now :D

[Maple 01]

Standing by for that dear old Trot pr00ne to spin some crap about what a resounding success New Liarbour had at the election....

Hmmmm, weren’t you neo-Cons defeated on the 5th? Crow when you win something, that's my suggestion.......

For those with short memories

Maggie 'sweeps' into power in 1979 with a 'crushing majority' and 'mandate from the people'* - She had a majority of 43

Tony got a majority of 66 - errrr why isn't that a 'crushing majority' and 'mandate from the people?'

*Quite from the Conservative party at the time

[pr00ne]

Oh dear, what a bunch of bad losers!

A good headin,

I think you will find that the “poxy little advisors” to the Secretary of State are the CDS and the Chiefs of Staff.

exleckie,

What reduced budget? It’s been INCREASED in the last two budgets and Defence White papers.

I think that Reid will be a good Defence Secretary, knows the subject, has an actual interest in the subject and is his own man.
If what tetering head says is true then that just reinforces my opinion, how many of your own leadership would have taken such a stance?

BEagle,

Anything to oblige! :)

Now, let’s see, what is there to be pleased about?

Lots methinks!

A 67 seat majority, Blair increased the size of his own personal vote, a first EVER third term for a Labour Government and Blair is now counted as being as, if not more, successful a PM as Thatcher and Lord Palmerston. (to quote Portillo)

A good kicking? Come on! Most post war PM’s would have given their right arm for a majority the size that Blair has now, let alone in a third term, just compare this victory to that of The Tories in their third term, they had a majority of 21 as opposed to 67 yet that was seen as a magnificent victory, so how come this isn’t?

The supposedly most unpopular PM ever, who has been accused of being a liar, who has alienated a sizeable chunk of his own party by attacking Iraq in 2003 and the Tories still cannot manage a larger share of the vote than Michael Foot did in 1983, Michael Foot!!!

All in all a good night and a good night for constitutional politics, a comfortable working majority but now Blair will have to be a little more of a team player or his own back bench rebels will cause trouble, that can be nothing but good.

The Conservative Party? Oh dear, oh dear dear dear…………………………..

[fatjockslim]

Met him once at Cranditz and was impressed with his depth of knowledge of numerous topics. With an incisive mind and straight talking manner, he is probably the best of the bunch for this position. I also suspect that he actually cares about defence.....which is a change!

[BEagle]

pr00ne - you spout more utterly nonsensical spin than 'Comical Ali' Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf did during GW2....

And you probably even believe it.

[rej]

Does it really matter who is the minister. After another term under Mr B we will be subjected to even more cuts. The RAF will still be the RAF. Unfortunately it will stand for Royal Air Flight and not Royal Air Force.

[grobace]

There really are a helluva lot of politically naive people out there. Unfortunately, that's probably why we get people calling 36% of the ote an astounding success! Let's not forget that that percentage left Jim Callaghan with a mere 3-seat majority. The sooner we realise we live in a society governed by an oligarchy who are there because of strings pulled the sooner we might get back to something approaching democracy.
Thd trouble is, most of us Ppruners are as bad as Blair - we think we know best!!!

[Maple 01]

I’ll say, those complaining that Labour didn't get 50% so therefore have no legitimacy obviously haven't noticed that with three-way politics no-one is ever likely to again, either

Now before we hear that ‘only’ 36% voted for Labour, remember the Liberal Democrats got about 22% and the others got about 8%, allowing for the BNP and UKIP about 60% of the electorate voted left-centralist or left, which means, boys and girls, the traditionalist Tory views displayed predominantly here are not shared by the majority of the Great British public.

No need to :{ :{ :{ just end the hostility and work with whoever we get, unless you think the mil are above the rule of law, perhaps the coup d'état planning starts here?

[Impiger]

Pr00ne you are right to say that the Defence Budget was increased in the last public sector spending review but what is not generally known is the list of things the MOD were now going to have to pay for was increased as well. Major item was the cost of operations. The accepted Treasury norm is that the cost of operations sits outside the annual defence budget because we never know what will come up. Therefore costs for Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone etc are charged either to the Treasury (reserve) or the Global Conflict Prevention Fund (a mix of MOD, FCO and DfID cash). However, last time round HMT said that for some enduring operations like the the Balkans the MOD could reasonably predict expenditure and would in future have to fund these elements from within resources. Now they're not complete barstewards and they gave us the cash to do this with - trouble is they didn't give us enough and then spoke large about the increase in defence budget. Bit of an Irishman's rise really so no surprise that despite the 'longest period of increased defence spending in decades' we're still a bit strapped for cash and hence the swingeing cuts, sorry rebalancing, that are, is, taking place right now.

Still great fun though and as I used to say when teaching combat: never, ever give up!

[Scud-U-Like]

Happytruckin

I reckon 90% of those serving in the armed forces couldn't tell you how many of their comrades have died as a result of the current military action in Iraq.

Are you really surprised the PM didn't know the exact figure? He said, "Seventy to eighty". The figure is 87. He could hardly be described as being clueless on the matter. Far be it from me to defend the man, but I think this is nit picking of the highest order.

[Letsby Avenue]

I agree with you Beagle.. David Cameron would make a good leader of the Conservatives. He impressed me during a CH4 roasting with Jon Snow, held his own very well - Bit young though methinks. You're lucky to have him as your MP - I'm stuck with a 'Labour Lite' trot whose only duty to his constituency is to build 50,000 new thermo boxes in it...:rolleyes:

[MarkD]

I note JR is an ex Min NI as well as ex S/S Health. Two "Angola ministries" (coined by the current Irish Minister for Finance about Health because of the tendencies for landmines) if ever there were.

Seems like a survivor to me!

As for someone who really REALLY wanted to be S/S Defence - read Alan Clark's Diaries.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Spin? Facts old chap, just old fashioned facts, just a shame they get in the way of some peoples view of the world.

Happytruckin,

Do you think Michael Howard would have known exacty? Did you know?

[Legalapproach]

prOOne


"All in all a good night and a good night for constitutional politics,"

But not a good night for democracy, one of the two words not allowed to be uttered in New labour circles (the other being socialist).

The turn out of the eligible electorate was just over 61.2%. Labour share of the vote 36.1%.
Therefore we now have a government that has a 'mandate' because it was positively endorsed by 22.09% of 'the people'.

39.1% of the overall electorate positively do not want the present government.

You can do anything with spin - good example was 51% majority in Wales in favour of the Welsh Assembly on a turnout of about 25% of the electorate being translated as a "a majority of the Welsh (i.e. about 12 1/2 %) supporting the creation of the Assembly"

Still, at least the Iraqi's can be thankful that the we have restored them to democracy (under a system of proportional representation).

[Maple 01]

Legalapproach, what part of my post didn't you understand? 60% of the electorate rejected right-wing politics as represented by the BNP, UKIP and the Tories

The fact that many couldn't be @rsed to vote is their problem, no vote, no voice - can't complain there

Five more years! and if the rumours about the replacement for Tory leader are true.....

[JessTheDog]

A 67 seat majority, Blair increased the size of his own personal vote, a first EVER third term for a Labour Government and Blair is now counted as being as, if not more, successful a PM as Thatcher and Lord Palmerston. (to quote Portillo)

A very selective comparison!

I am trying to recall previous occasions when a party lost nearly 50 seats.

1983 - Tories 58 seats up.
1987 - Tories 21 seats down.
1992 - Tories 40 seats down.
1997 - Tories 178 seats down.
2001 - Labour 5 seats down.
2005 - Labour 47 seats down.


Inconvenient Fact #1: Labour have 356 seats, 41 seats less than the Tories in 1983. So the Tory/Michael Foot comparison is not valid, particularly with the strong third party showing from the Lib Dems.

IF#2: The list indicates that Labour are losing support at a greater rate than the Tories in 1987 and 1992, when the Tories had more seats and lost fewer. Neil Kinnock only gained 20 seats in 1987, and doubled this to 42 seats in 1992.

IF #3: Blair equals Margaret Thatcher at present, with three election victories. To surpass her, he must hand over a party capable of a fourth victory. This is possible, but if the 2005 Labour decline is repeated in 2009/2010 then they will not gain a majority. It depends how much damage Blair does in the next 12 months! This also assumes that the rate of decline does not change and that the Tories and the Lib Dems put in a similar performance in 4-5 years. If the Tories inprove their showing as Neil Kinnock did between 1987 and 1992, then the Tories will constitute the largest minority party in 2009/2010 with 263 seats.

IF#4: There are about a dozen Labour seats that were saved (with tiny majorities) because of UKIP and Respect eating into the Tory and Lib Dem votes. If not for these parties, the Labour majority would be slightly more than 40!

The election was won in spite of Blair, not because of him. There are two winners. Firstly, Gordon Brown is sitting almost exactly where he wants to be. Polling has indicated that Brown would have substantially increased the Labour lead if he was leader and not Blair. Blair has been terribly damaged and the Labour Party itself is sitting in a respectable position that can be salvaged. That depends on a tidy succession - if Bliar continues to anger the electorate, then it will be a Lab/Lib coalition in 5 years time! Secondly, the House of Commons will be able to hold the Government to account. No more juggernaut legislation hammered through with a massive majority. No more illegal wars!

A very interesting election that has sealed the fate of Blair.

[pr00ne]

legalapproach,

At the risk of repeating what Maple01 has already said more than adequately, we live in a Parliamentary democracy that has a first past the post system, we do not live in a 2 party state, we have multiple political parties and you yourself can set one up for a very small financial outlay and see if you get support. More people voted Labour than for any other party so they form the Government, that’s how it has always worked.

JessTheDog,

I’m trying to recall when a party had a majority as large as 161, it hasn’t happened very often so there have not been many opportunities for such a loss of seats and for a party to STILL retain such a comfortable working majority.

In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats


Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!

[Neeps]

I'm no politician, but it still strikes me as odd how someone can become a defence secretary with no knowledge of the services. Maybe that is just me though?

[JessTheDog]

I’m trying to recall when a party had a majority as large as 161, it hasn’t happened very often so there have not been many opportunities for such a loss of seats and for a party to STILL retain such a comfortable working majority.

In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats


Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!

I wouldn't call the majority workable. Only 34 Labour MPs need to chuck their teddies to scupper any Blairite bill. If Blair wants to push through any contentious legislation, he will be in grave difficulty. The whips may try and prod the backbenchers in the right direction, but any pleas about the Dear Leader's position will be like pouring petrol on a bonfire. Simply put, Labour have a majority and Blair does not.

Is there any significance in the "two years time" quote?
:E

Brown has a major problem. He cannot please Middle England and the core Labour party in the way that Blair did - both communities have grown wise to the smoke and mirrors. He cannot sit on the fence. I suspect that Labour will quietly ditch the "New" prefix. If the economy is in good shape, then Brown may well get a fourth term for Labour. If it is flagging, then the Tories have an excellent chance.

[Maple 01]

Can I ask a question that's been bugging me since the election?
Labour lose 47 seats but also lose 100 off their majority - now I know that the boundaries have been redrawn but I don't get how 47=100 - any explanation?

[JessTheDog]

Can I ask a question that's been bugging me since the election?
Labour lose 47 seats but also lose 100 off their majority - now I know that the boundaries have been redrawn but I don't get how 47=100 - any explanation?

Labour lose 47.

47 MPs that Labour do not have and cannot vote in favour of a Labour bill.

47 MPs belonging to other parties that can vote against a Labour bill.

47 + 47 = 94. It is double counting, ayes and noes.

It should really be 94, but I guess 100 sounds sexier!

[Maple 01]

Ah, right, I see, thanks Jess

[FJJP]

Can't wait until the next election - my MP [Con] is a Sqn Ldr in the Commons scheme. He's already flown a variety of ac, inc Nimrod and F3 to my certain knowledge.

Someone like Jonathan Djanogly would make a first rate Min of Def.

[CANTSAY]

The end is near :hmm:

By the next Election the RN, RAF and Army will be no more:hmm:

RBDF will up and running, Royal British Defence Force.

FJ drivers will be seconded from Easyjet for a year's military national service to serve 'President and Country'.

Heli drivers will be hedgehopping out of Odiham before hitching a lift to Shawbury for second tour and finally to one of HMs (or PS - President's Ship's) HMS 'Dingy's as a resettlement tour prior to joining the north sea oil taxi service.

Sailors from cross channel ferries will have to serve a year's national service in a military dinghy engaged on off shore anti-refugee duties.

Night Club bouncers/thugs will serve a year's national service on peace keeping duties.

Clerks clerking in Aldershot, Devonport or Waddington.

Cooks cooking in Rosyth for first tour, then Catterick for detachment before full tour at Cranwell.

Suppliers supplying at Hereford, then Aldergrove and Bahgdad.

Techies teching at Tidworth, then Mount Pleasant and on to Devonport.

Comms communicating at Digby, then from Kandahar before finishing at Corsham in disillusionment.

Intells intelligencing at Chicksands and Cyprus and Whitehall and being totally confused.

Green uniforms, green handkerchiefs, green iPods, green ships, green aircraft, green flags, green food, green everything:hmm:

PS: And very green government ministers who were grown on green trees will be giving the orders :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[sweep complete]

Believe pitbull Reid's doctorate is in Economics so can't really see that as useful background for SoS for Defence.

I'm sure he'll continue to toe the party line as most of our spineless career politicians do.

[mbga9pgf]

better than a slimy lawyer; I like to think of economics as a more gentlemanly (and intelligent) profession than F*ckwit lawyers.

[16 blades]

More people voted Labour than for any other party

Pr00ne,

More spin of the 'carefully chosen words' variety that seem so popular with those of your ilk.

What you meant was, since you already pointed out how our 'first past the post' electoral system works, that Labour returned more MPs to the house. Not exactly the same thing, is it?

One thing is for sure - Blairism is now dead and buried. With many Labour MPs breaking cover and openly calling for Blair's resignation, the old guard of the Labour party will soon be back in the driving seat. There will be open warfare within the party soon, Brown will take over, taxes will rocket and public service 'reforms' will suddenly disappear from the agenda.

In reality, this is the best outcome we could have hoped for - it may be painful, but it will destroy the Labour party and relegate them to a couple of decades of opposition after the next election. A weak Tory govt would have been no good at all, and would probably meant more Labour after the next election. In 4-5 yrs time, with the Tories in a stronger position, and not fighting against a huge Labour majority, they will be able to go back to their right-wing roots, get some proper policies that people actually want instead of trying to pander to the pinkos, and get elected. The longer Labour stay in power, the more to the right the political centre of gravity will move among the electorate, and particularly the middle classes, who's only real attraction to Labour was Blairism.

Just for the record, Pr00ne et al, there was a significant (but not big enough) swing to the Tories nationally. In certain areas it was VERY significant. This is not the vote of an electorate that wants to be governed by Labour, but of an electorate that feels there is no credible alternative at the moment. But there will be, in the future, and socialism will finally die the death it deserves.

16B

[airborne_artist]

Pr00ne wrote:

More people voted Labour than for any other party

but not in England, where more people voted Tory than Labour.

So England, with no national assembly/parliament can be kept in place by Bliar's Celtic MPs.

Unsurprisingly, Bliar just won't deal with the West Lothian question.

[engineer(retard)]

Pr00ne

You raised the defence budget issue again, but you did not answer me the last time we discussed your claims about the claimed rise under labour, so I have cut the post back in.

Thank you for your constructive comments, my question was if you are comparing 2 different systems of accounting, how are they being compared. Your response have been

"You clearly don't understand Resource Account Budgeting"

"From 1990 to 1997 the UK defence budget fell 30% in real terms. "The defence vote is safe with the Tories", yeah right!"

"The current defence budget grew 7% in 2003 and 18% in 2004, compare this to Thatchers 3% increase at the height of the cold war."

"The whole of UK Govt moved to RAB in 2001, not just the MOD."

I could have taken your response straight from the Labour manifesto. I have a simple approach to politicians, regardless of party, I assume they are either hiding something or lying. It saves time. In your case you have used a lot of words to say nothing, are you a politician?

I understand that RAB is split into capaital and resource budgeting (C-DEL & R-DEL). With resource including matiriel assets, such as bases and in-service equipment. Now given that personnel numbers and assests such as bases and in-service equipment have retired since 97, then the R-DEL component on current capability is reduced. If this is true, then to reach your figures then the available expenditure for capital expenditure must have had the money that had been spent on resource being spent on capital and the claimed percentage rises. Therefore, the forces should be knee deep in equipment. Where is it?

However, if you are combining the C-DEL & R-DEL figures and comparing it with the previous capital only system then you are guilty of sleight of hand.

What is the definition of real, as in real increases that are being bantered about?

Regards

Retard

[grobace]

16blades:

Quote: "...and socialism will finally die the death it deserves."

You're not suggesting New Labour is a socialist party, are you?

[ladyfly]

I wonder if the Tories had won the election they would of made a huge difference to the forces future? At least Churchills Grandson was ex army and may of improved the current situation as SoS Defence.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Eng Retard

You beat me to it. prOOne and his spin yet again!! He obviously does not understand RAB. The Defence budget may have increased, on paper, but that does not take into account the savings measures that 2nd PUS and the Ministers (particularly HMT) have imposed on Defence. Once the "savings" measures have been taken into account there is a net reduction (in cash terms - and lets face it that is all that counts) in the Defence Budget - and despite all the spin I believe it equates to some £2B. If there were an increase, as some claim, why are the Navy about to lose boats, the RAF be reduced in size by 25% and the army lose large chunks of "armour" all at a time when the Armed Forces are undergoing the longest period of sustained Op Tempo since .......?

Lies, damn lies and spin!

[grobace]

... sounds like the education policies of successive governments have done ladyfly no favours.

[Legalapproach]

mbga9pgf

Not sure where that leaves me then. Gained a degree in economics, qualified as a pilot and then became a Lawyer. Bit of a downward spiral eh? :D

Legalapproach BSc(Econ)

[Squirrel 41]

The comments above about Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) are partially correct. The budget is indeed split into Capital and Resource, with Resource further split into Programmes and Administration. The important points to note are these:

1. Not all bits of the Budget are equal. Admin funding is magic (ask “Admin Guru”): Admin can be converted into Programme spending, and all Admin and Programme (Resource) spending can be converted into Capital spending. The reverse is NOT true; Capital has to be spent on Capital, and Programme cannot be spent on Admin. The reason for this is that faced with the choice of employing more people (admin) and doing stuff (programme) or buying or building something, historically the UK public sector as a whole – and defence wasn’t too different – employed lots of people and under invested in capital. Hence the Treasury set up rules to ensure that Departments were forced to invest in capital by not letting them spend investment money on resource / programme; hey presto, investment increased.

2. RAB was introduced in two stages – and in both stages Departments worked with Treasury to establish what the baseline was. If MOD messed up the figures, they’ve only got themselves to blame.

3. The equipment programme in SDR was overly ambitious and never funded – it couldn’t have been as the Spending Reviews only cover three years at a time (the next one conducted next year will be superseded in April 2007). As a result, everyone has been assuming that all the new toys are funded; now that the bill is becoming due, there’s insufficient cash to pay for it. It looks to me like MOD has run all of these projects in the hope that the Treasury would bail them out; if Treasury haven’t then MOD has a procurement cash crisis. Again, MOD to explain.

4. Project management? MOD procurement disasters? (Err… Astute, Nimrod MRA4, Bowman etc etc etc)
So think that there are lots reasons for the current cash crunch; and looking around we can all see things that are being done badly or aren’t necessary. Lots of opportunity for the new S of S to make a difference!

[engineer(retard)]

Squirrel

I cannot disagree with anything you have written, you know more than I do. However, I wanted to stop the apples and oranges comparison that was going on about how much more is now being invested when the money is counted differently.

It would be more accurate IMHO to compare C-DEL only against previous budgets but I do not have the number sor the brains to do it.

regards

Retard

[pr00ne]

16 blades,

Whilst you are right that Labour returned more MP’s than the Tories, or all other parties combined, my original point is still valid, more people voted Labour than Tory. 9,556,183 voted labour as opposed to 8.772,598 who voted Tory, so it actually IS exactly the same thing isn’t it?

As to your little private fantasy about the future of the Labour party, dream on. The Conservatives are the ones who now need to take a good hard look at themselves and decide where they go from here. Labour has the luxury of a third term for the first time in their history with a larger majority than Thatcher had in 1979 and are about to prove that New Labour is far more than just Tony Blair.

As to your summary, remove the Blair and Iraq war effect from voting habits and you will see a very different outcome. In a few years time those effects will have passed and the Conservatives will have a real battle on their hands again.


airborne-artist,

Seeing as it wasn’t an “English” election what is your point?

engineer(retard),

No I am not a politician, I am ex RAF GD(P) and am now a Barrister, I specialised in commercial law for quite some time, as such I was deeply involved with some companies who had a very keen interest in what happened to the Defence budget when RAB was first being proposed. This was in 1993 when RAB was first put forward as the new methodology for public spending accounting and reporting and prior to the 1995 White paper.

I simply do not have the time or inclination to detail RAB in all of its glory nor to declare my sympathies one way or the other.
However accruals accounting is a recognised financial reporting tool and went a very long way to making Govt departments more accountable in terms of their financial goals and overall departmental aims than previous expenditure reporting. There is no need for me to repeat what Squirrel 41 has written other than to add that in theory RAB should make it easier to plan for major expenditure as cost is accrued when capability is delivered rather than when that capability is either purchased or budgeted for. This is more complicated but far more sensible than mere cash accounting.

Below is an extract from an old finance committee I have dug up, it sums up what I am struggling to say in a few words.

“This new system involves expenditure and income being recorded in the year to which it directly relates, irrespective of whether the cash is paid out or received in that year. Also, capital expenditure is spread out over the useful life of an asset in the form of an annual depreciation charge rather than a simple capital procurement sum.”

Roland Pulfrew,

As to savings and efficiency measures of the PUS etc, this is a sum which will be reinvested in the Defence budget so it IS taken into account in the overall size of the budget. IF the Tories had won they were going to find the additional £2.7b of front line funding by doing exactly the same thing only on top of the Labour target of £2.8b.

[moggiee]

Don't worry, if Reid turns out to be bad news - he will be moved after 9 months like he has been in every other ministerial job he's had.

Reid and Kelly are particularly clear examples of the new Labour clone - their mouth move, noise come out but nothing remotely resembling words or coherent phrases ever comes out.

[uknasa]

moggiee

I am afraid I have to disagree. I worked in MOD when Reid was Min (AF) and he was outstanding - and popular with both Service folk and civil servants. He was a great improvement on Soames - and I am sure he will be a good SoS

[Archimedes]

By the by, Bunter Soames has resigned from the shadow cabinet, so there'll be a new shadow for Reid (I'll leave puns about size to others!)

[16 blades]

New Labour is far more than just Tony Blair

Really, Pr00ne? I believe YOU are the fantasist here. Lets just wait and see shall we? 'New' Labour is dead, and with it the chances of any further terms. Blairism put a face on socialism that was acceptable to (some) of the middle classes - the people who decide election outcomes. With him gone, so is the 'project'. Watch this space - I give it 12 months at the outside, before the parliamentary Labour party implodes. And as I already stated, the Tories big mistake was in not distancing themselves enough from Labour by trying to appeal to the pinkos. Hopefully they will now elect a true right-wing leader like Davis and not make that mistake again.

16B

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

16B,
Let the lefty git rant, like Bliar his time is limited.........:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[SmilingKnifed]

Definitely have to agree about Davis; the guy seems like a real leader (a former SAS reservist also).

Interestingly enough, GQ ran an article about him being the new Prime Minister in 2010.

[Maple 01]

'Fat Boy' Soames, the most arrogant MP I've had the misfortune to witness in action has withdrawn from the front bench to spend more time with his dinner or something.....

Quotes from the BBC


Mr Yeo and Mr Soames both said they wanted to be free to play a role in rethinking the party's future.

Translated, to mix metaphors, to be free to knife Howard when he's down - nice to see nothing's changed in ‘the Nasty party’

Mr Soames says Europe and planning are also important, but says suggestions he wants the leadership are "stupid".

No kidding - Soames as leader? That will mean another five years out of power - hold on, YES! Vote for Soames!

[Squirrel 41]

RAB was debated in some detail a couple of years back:
____________________________
Never thought that I get into this dicussion here, but here's where accouting becomes important. Resource Accounting is nothing more exotic than standard commercial accounting, in which you pay for something when you commit to it (rather than when the bill arrives) and you spread the cost of things over their useful life, rather than considering it all at once. What does this do? It forces decision makers to consider the long term impacts of their decisions, and helps them make beter ones.

Here's how. Let's assume that the RAF has a knackered fleet of jets. It has two choices: (a) do a big overhaul and mid-life update, giving 15 years more service or (b) buy new jet with 30 year life and lower direct operating costs. Now, let's assume that option (a) costs 2/3rds of (b). In the world of cash budgets, departments tended to select the lower cash cost -- despite the fact that it was poorer militarily and poorer value for money. Because the new accounting system makes you consider the whole cost of the programme, the decisionmaker would chose (b) -- because the better value would be clear from day one, not just later.

-- the cost of capital charge forces people to make choices about what they invest in and how. It is currently set at 3.5% (reduced from 6%) and budgets were increased to cover the capital charge a couple of years ago. Now, if departments are smarter about the amount of capital they use -- mostly land and buildings -- then money is released for other things. Again, all the incentives are there for MOD to concentrate on the front line rather than on the administration of the organisation. And that should include looking at the Group Structure, (required now?) the number of bases and their location (if 16AMB are in Colchester and Wattisham, why not stick transports at Woodbridge / Bentwaters) and the number of civilians / service personnel doing administration and what may politely be describes as "non-core activity"!

Does this demand a different set of leadership skills from yesterday -- yes. Is this a good thing -- absolutely, as it demonstrates efficiency and value for money to the taxpayers who fund this. And the climate is such that demonstrable efficiency is key. Does it mean that the overblown promises of kit in the SDR need looking at again? Yep! But is this a bad thing? No.

Forgot
___________________________________

The point is that as long as the baseline is correct, then the system works. If MOD got it wrong, then there is a problem, and a quick look at the "shadow" RAB accounts - the two year practice period that all departments had to get it right - shows that MOD improved with time but were still all over the shop. Tough on the front line, but hard to see why MOD should be given a freer ride by the Public Accounts Committee than any other department - and this is what drives me nuts: poor administration and atrocious project management in MOD are responsible for poorer kit on the front line for those that need it.

A new broom would be most welcome!

S41

[engineer(retard)]

Squirrel

Again I am not disputing the facts of whether RAB operates more efficiently or provides an accurate whole life cost, but it does prevent direct comparisons of how the budget operates to the pre-RAB days. That is why I disbelieve Pr00nes claim about increases in the defence budget, particularly if you are making in year comparisons such as:

"The current defence budget grew 7% in 2003 and 18% in 2004, compare this to Thatchers 3% increase at the height of the cold war."

From your explanation if I have understood it correctly, the 3% increase quoted for the Thatcher year would only be for the intial procurement of equipment. However, the 7 and 18% increases in 03/04 are to pay whole life costs and are amortised over the life of the system. The wet finger ILS models that I recall, stated about 50% of project cost was spent on procurement and the remaining 50% on through life support.

Therefore, in real terms the budget has decreased because funding for the next 20 years or so is now being accounted for in the initial provisioning of project cost and allocated to a single year.

I do not entirely agree with your decision making scenario, the proocurements I dealt with in the mid 90s accounted for changes in LTC, so the impact on the next 10 years was looked at.

"poor administration and atrocious project management in MOD are responsible for poorer kit on the front line for those that need it. " I think that you can say that about most government departments. Look at all their IT buys - shocking.

Never thought accounting could be so interesting. :D

regards

Retard

[Roland Pulfrew]

And just to add more confusion to this already off thread topic....

When RAB came into being many senior personnel (who did not fully understand RAB) set about the wholesale disposal of spares, not just the excess that the system was partially designed to counter, but items that were required. This saw "spare" engines being sold off to maintenance companies/manufacturers because they would attract RAB depreciation charges. We would have the assets off our balance sheet (despite having paid for them) and would go to "just in time" spares systems.

Anyone remember the armoured Land Rovers fiasco? We would have paid RAB depreciation and cost of capital charges on the vehicles even if they were in storage ready for use when required, so they were disposed of at, IIRC, £3K each. Hey presto, no depreciation RAB or cost of capital charges (that is the amount of the Defence budget that is then paid back to HMT to cover the cost of capital ie the interest charges levied on each government department for them buying equipment - in effect each department is borrowing money from HMT). Then of course we needed armoured Land Rovers for Iraq so we bought them back again IIRC at £6K each. Now we originally owned the Land Rovers so we (the tax payers) have now bought them - twice!!

RAB is an accountants dream, because nobody (and not even the Treasury) understand all the implications. It has led to many barking mad decisions in all government departments as much of it is based on commercial best practice, which IMHO is not a way of running the Armed Forces. Defence cannot afford to be at the behest of suppliers, we need kit in storage ready to use because we do not know where we are going to be operating next! Desert? Arctic/Mountainous? Tropical? All have their own different kit requirements and yet the Armed Forces are expected to just go and get on with it - now! Hence insufficient desert boots and desert clothing for GW 2 despite the fact the last major conflict involving UK forces had been fought in the desert and we had personnel permanently based in the Middle East since 1991!

Much of prOOnes assertions about an increase in the Defence Budget are purely smoke and mirrors (and I do not just attribute this to New Liabour but all mainstream parties). If you look at the pre-RAB Defence Budget it stood at IIRC £23B, it is now quoted as £32B. There HAS NOT been a £9B increase in cash available to MOD!! Much of the quoted 7 and 18% increases is the money that is paid back to the Treasury.

And prOOne you are wrong on the savings measures. Much of it is NOT reinvested in the Defence Budget it is returned to the HMT to pay for Liabours other bloated sacred cows, Health, Education and Social Security. Now I would like to see some savings targets placed on those departments!

[Squirrel 41]

Engineer
IMHO accountancy actually isn’t very interesting, :D but the policy implications of it can be. My understanding was that the 2002 Spending Review restated previous years’ spending in a RAB world and that the subsequent increases were quoted on a like-for-like basis. The problem has been the bow-wave of project spending on Typhoon, CVF, Astute and all the rest of it which all came in together.

Roland
Your examples demonstrate typically short-term thinking – and a shocking waste of public (ie yours and mine) money. What RAB does – and it can be a useful tool – is to demonstrate the real cost of owning things; all good – until you sell things that you might need…. like the Land Rovers or engines.

When government went onto RAB, the capital charge was added as additional resource to cover the capital charges on the capital base at that time (2002, I think) – so there was initially no effect. Hence, there was no need to sell off anything in the war reserve or elsewhere that might be needed! The incentive on Departments was that if they got rid of unnecessary buildings and what not, their budgets would not go down, but the capital charge would not need to be paid, and therefore they could spend the capital charge on other things – and the savings ARE reinvested in the Departments rather than nicked by the Treasury, so prOOne is right about this.

However, what RAB does mean is that planning and foresight of what’s actually required, is vital!

S41

[engineer(retard)]

Squirrel

Thanks for the clarification. It appears that you are saying that the only like for like comparison that has been made is from 02 to 03.

I have experienced a RAB type system running a bar in the FI, where the cost of my stock appeared on the left hand side of my (previously) cash book with the credits, and the right hand side included the cost of stock once sold with the profit margin that was applied and the debits. But my cash book no longer told me how much money I had in the bank to go and buy beer unless I did a complete stock check and off book calculations.

Buying beer in short order was very important to the continued state of my health. Especially as it was for the armourers, and the accounting system made this v diffcult to do. I suspect that the government departments are in the same boat, they cannot work out how much money they really have without lots of work.

Regards

Retard

[Squirrel 41]

Engineer

It’s possible to do the conversions based on the estimates and the annual reports – Jacko could always get stuck in (though this may al actually be available from the Treasury under Freedom of Information if anyone was really interested) – but I suspect that the easiest figures to calculate real growth rates are going to be 2002-03 to date. :cool:

On spending, I’m not convinced that it fundamentally change the terms of engagement, as the equipment programme was already a mess by 2002.

Cheers

S41

[engineer(retard)]

Squirrel

It sounds like death by a 1000 cuts to me, I'll leave the beancounting to those who are allergic to sunshine.

Unless someone can demonstrate how the defence budget has really increased by contracts placed, fine pay rises or equipment delivered, nobody with any common dog is going to believe these claimed massive budget increases and the political spin that goes with them.

Regards

Retard

[althenick]

looks like the man (http://www.news.mod.uk/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=3235) has done his first visit....

He's making all the right noises anyway :ok:

[soddim]

I know from my previous experience that after the initial courtesies, most servicemen and women will tell you exactly what they think."

Well, he's listening!

[moggiee]

Well, he SAYS hes's listening!

[tablet_eraser]

The demise of Buff is one of the best things to happen to the Forces for some time - whatever people think, John Reid is not the sort of man to bend over and take a reaming from HMT. Not without a fight, at any rate. As with Health, he will demand the resources he needs for his people.

He is a bulldog politician. All politicians toe the party line, that's something we just have to get on with. Reid, however, will tell the PM what he thinks. There were, apparently, blazing rows when he was moved to health. He is extremely keen on defence, and sees it as his own project - we finally have a man who is interested in defence, knows about defence, and cares about it - not a wheedling, lily-livered jellyfish of a man who can do nothing but roll out the trite party phrases while systematically reducing Britain's ability to punch above its weight.

Whether John Reid will deliver remains to be seen. But I'm feeling confident, as are most of my colleagues.

I think this quote sums the man up:

It's unfair to blame servicemen and women for the judgement of politicians. I believe the judgements we made were right, but if others think they were wrong they should lay the responsibility with me not with those in the Armed Forces who are working so hard to make things better for the people of Iraq. I hope I can encourage the press to see this is an important distinction.

Not exactly the sort of line you'd expect from Geoff "It's not my fault!" Hoon.

[Stan Bydike]

tablet_eraser,

I saw that quote too and was fairly taken aback. At last a politician who will call it as it is. (Possibly)

I look forward to his announcements once he has got his feet under the desk but it is certainly a good start. :D

[Pontius Navigator]

What do those in the know think of Geof Hoon's farewell message to the forces?:mad:

[Pontius Navigator]

A whole day and no one bit.

Buff, as far as I know, has not sent out any farewell and thanks message. Probably Sir Humphrey didn't feel the need.

[vicky10]

I will have the dubious honor of meeting Mr Ried on Monday 16/05. Ill let you Know how it went:ooh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Doctor Reid Vicky and I predict it will go very well.

[vicky10]

They give Doctorate's away nowadays do they?
This is not a slight to those who have worked hard for their's :\

[BEagle]

Born in Scotland in May 1947, John Reid went to school at Coatbridge. He read History at Stirling University, staying to take a Doctorate in Economic History.

Seems a good bloke for the job - even if he is one of Phoney Tony's...

[Southern Scottie]

Ref John Reid's announcements, remember these are written by professional spinners, not by him. Me...cynical...?:yuk:

[vicky10]

On the face of it he actually came across as a straight to the point bloke. A rent acrowd was invited to attend at 10:30 this morning around a 150 all ranks cup a tea in one hand, shortbread biscuit in the other. Not much chance of glad handing amazing. He was asked a couple of questions fro one group and one overheard the reply from Dr Ried ' GIVE ME A BLOODY CHANCE IVE ONLY BEEN IN THE JOB A WEEK BUT I WILL GET BACK TO YOU' By the way whats your name :oh:

[Zoom]

pr00ne
You're a barrister, not a Barrister - unless you think that you're a very important barrister. Nit-picking maybe, but these things have to be said.

[Scud-U-Like]

Surely 'Barrister' is correct. Barrister-at-Law (a member of the Bar). Not sure it warrants a bitch though...

[Navaleye]

I'll give John Reid the benefit of the doubt and see what he actually delivers. Nothing will happen overnight but he does seem to have a real interest in the subject. As for the conservatives, I would go starboard 35, steer a course of 090 at full ahead.

[tablet_eraser]

Given that Reid's comments were spoken to a journalist, not written in a statement, I'd say that the cynical claim that they were "written by spin-doctors" does the man a disservice.

[Gainesy]

Doesn't mean he did not learn and practice some answers to fairly obvious Qs either. Spin doctors train them to do so.