Tories Pinpoint 3 Projects for Cuts

[ORAC]

Tories pinpoint three defence projects for cuts in 'snap Budget' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6835280.ece)

Three of Britain’s biggest defence projects, with a combined value of nearly £30 billion, could face the axe if the Conservatives win next year’s general election.

George Osborne today said that a Conservative government would hold a Budget within weeks of an election victory and hinted that early casualties could be defence projects — £20 billion for the Eurofighter/Typhoon, £4 billion for 60,000-tonne aircraft carriers and £2.7 billion for A400M transport aircraft.

The Shadow Chancellor admitted that he did not know what the “break clauses” in the contracts would involve, if they were scrapped. However, the RAF already has 55 Eurofighter/Typhoons costing £3.8 billion and the Ministry of Defence has spent about £1 billion on early work on the two aircraft carriers. More than £500 million has been spent on the programme to buy 24 A400Ms, a replacement for ageing C130K Hercules planes.

As Mr Osborne was putting defence in the forefront of anticipated cuts, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, exposed a potential Cabinet clash over the fate of the Trident replacement programme which could cost £20 billion. Speaking at King’s College, London, Mr Ainsworth insisted: “There is no intention on this Government’s part of moving away from our position on Trident.”

The Government declared in a White Paper published in December 2006 that it intended to replace the existing Trident ballistic-missile deterrent by 2024. Mr Ainsworth said that the only decision still to be taken was whether the Government would order three or four submarines to carry the deterrent.

However, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, revealed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday that no final decision had been made about the Trident replacement and emphasised that nothing had been ruled out. Mr Ainsworth did not seem to be aware of Lord Mandelson’s comments and maintained that a replacement for Trident would not be included in next year’s post-election strategic defence review.

Conservative sources said that a Tory government would look at the deterrent question because of the cost of replacing Trident.

Mr Ainsworth, however, admitted that tough decisions were going to have to be made next year and revealed that there appeared to be no appetite in the country for bigger defence spending.“Quite the reverse,” he said.

Mr Osborne revealed the Tory plans for a snap Budget after insisting that cutting public spending would not choke off a recovery.

Mr Osborne told a conference organised by the Spectator magazine that Gordon Brown’s admission that cuts were inevitable amounted to a “white flag” and claimed the Tories had “comprehensively won the spending argument”. But, anticipating the next front in the election battle, he said it was important that Britain’s economic policy did not repeat the mistakes of the past. Unless spending and debt were brought down rapidly any recovery would be short-lived and illusory, he said, adding that a Conservative administration was determined not to “pump up the bubble again”.

He cited the three defence projects when asked to identify specific savings for a Budget, although he added: “There are some things we do not know. I do not know the details of some of the major defence projects which have been the subject of speculation in the newspapers. I simply do not know what the break clauses are in the Eurofighter programme or the A400M or the aircraft carriers. We do have those limitations.”

Mr Osborne will know that naming the programmes will encourage speculation he plans to cut them. The Times revealed earlier this year that the Shadow Chancellor was looking at ditching the Airbus A400M aircraft, which has been dogged by technical problems and is several years behind schedule.

In his speech Mr Osborne dismissed the Government’s VAT cut — which was opposed by the Tories — as having had little effect in bringing Britain to the brink of recovery, claiming that low interest rates had been the key to limiting the recession. Ensuring that interest rates are kept low would be an over-riding policy objective of an incoming Tory administration, he said.

[Finnpog]

The morons in charge have made the Beast with 2 Backs with the economy for over a decade, building in the hard work and foundations of their predecessors. The next election win is the most poisoned chalice in a long time.

Whoever wins it will be sodomised (as has the whole country) for many generations.

Something has gotta give - but with it must be the acceptance of risk which the removal of the capability leaves. The Tories might be happy without carriers and accept that Brazil will out gun us.

Oddly enough maybe we should give someone else a go - someone who has not been responsible for the last 30 years of insult to the services.

[NutLoose]

I will give you some savings,

scrap the whole dept that deals with motor vehicle excise and throw it on fuel, at a swipe you have probably recouped the costs and made a fairer system, more miles you do more you pay. If you want a disc in the Windscreen, make it an Insurance one.


Scrap the Welsh and Scottish and Irish assemblies as how the hell can four departments be costing less than one centralised Government.
Failing that remove all standing MP's that are not representing English posts and change Westiminster the the English Parliament, I find it odd that you can stand as an MP in England if you are Scottish or Welsh, but not the other way round........

Then get rid of all of these damn managers the NHS has in abundance for wards etc, promote Senior nurses to the post of Ward Matrons and give them the power back.......

All immigrants arriving in the UK and claiming Asylum should be deported back to the country they came from immediately........... you are not fleeing persecution if you have arrived from France! The Swiss do it, if you have not arrived from a country direct that is persecuting you, you are deported back to the country.......

Unemployment benefit will be paid for the first 2 years and after that will cease..... America did it and some 65 percent went back to work.

Make it a requirement as in the USA that elected parties can only stay 2 terms in office....... that way you do net get these barking ideas they come out with to spend money.

Scrap the ID card scheme, was a none starter in these eyes, the London Underground Bombers would have been legitimate carriers of them and anyone visiting the UK does not require them....... makes it all a farce really, especially when the first one is forged.

:)

[Another St Ivian]

I got this far....

The Shadow Chancellor admitted that he did not know what the “break clauses” in the contracts would involve, if they were scrapped.

I would be very surprised if those behind the contracts at the beginning didn't guard them well against political sways.

[gpn01]

I will give you some savings,
:)

I vote NutLoose for Prime Minister.

Some serious doses of common sense in there old bean!

[glad rag]

These political parties are all as bad as each other.:ugh::ugh:

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Folks,

Some Home Truths:

We can't aford what we've got.
We've Lost Billions (Possibly Trillions but they'll never admit it) on backing Sh1te Banking practices.
We Don't actually 'Make' Anything anymore (Apart from Lattes)
We have a generally poor work ethic.
We have a poor State Education System, which has been shown recently, to be no more effective than the 1970s, only average students get better grades, and it costs 7 times as much.
We have a system that Pays peolple to be useless.
We invite other useless people to our country, and give them the aid we should be giving our own.
We have developed a culture, where grown adults cannot formally engage with any youngster, for fear of reprisal.
We have developed a culture, where every child in the land knows that no adult has any 'effective' control over them.
We have an un-elected PM.
We lose at most sport (Symptom, not cause).
On the rare occasions we win, we behave so badly, no one will invite us back.
We flim everyones closes motion, with the biggest and most comprehesive system of 'Security' (Spy) cameras of any country, but have a poorer conviction rate for basic street crime.
We can't have the traditional 'English' Summer Fete on the village green, because of Health and Safety.
Kids Can't play 'Conkers'
Men can't see their estrained kids, and become bankrupt, because their wife has an affair.
Young Mothers are bullied out of £170 to release their car from a clamp, which would normally have resulted in a £20 fine (later).
Firemen, who are freakin public servants, and get the same pension (today), Strike, so unqualified personel from the services, throw Health and saftey to the wind, and do their best.

So, all is well then. I hope Mr Cameron has a good manisfesto.

When it come to the Military, no doubt about it, we're not a bread-winner or a vote-winner........... we're FLIPPED

Advo

PS- Does Anybody think that the Researchers in 'Politics House' read this site? And if they do, are they so lame and stupid as to think all this 'advice' from experienced millitary types is useless? I presume they do.

[Postman Plod]

What would they replace all 3 with?? Its not like we can do without the A400 or something similar? Its not like we don't need fast air for stuff - be it Afghanistan or UK air defence?

Carriers - OK, I'm not so convinced, but I bet if they did cut the carriers, the Navy wouldn't see any spending on any other ships, of which are arguably far more useful.

I'm also not seeing any mention of what support they would provide the military with? Only cuts?

[soddim]

The home truths posted by advocatusDIABOLI just about sum up this sad remnant of our once glorious Great Britain.

But how did we get here? Was it forced on us or did we vote for it?

Before this thread goes to Jet Blast, let me suggest that we arrived here through the negligence of the electorate - and that's about all of us who should be reading this at this time of night.

Maybe it is about time that we put down the Sun, turned off Coro, left the tinnies unopened and paid more attention to who we vote for.

I sincerely hope that the next election produces a high turnout of well-informed voters.

I can but dream!

[Jimmy Macintosh]

I'm stunned at the defense cuts, normally the get out clauses are more expensive than just taking the aircraft on, sell them on afterwards if needed. Taking money from the budgets just passes on the retrofit costs to the next government and are inherently more expensive to add something after the fact than to install/buy it new...Nimrod?

The only modification to Nutlooses suggestions are the unemployment benefits pay for the length of time that you were employed upto two years.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Jimmy Mc - I'm also agag at the proposed cuts, but as the man says, until they are in the hot seat and have full access to the ins and outs of the cancellation clauses its all really a bit pie in the sky. That said, if they can cancel these projects can you really blame them when you consider the mess the current holders of the purse have left the country, even after having an oft quoted "longest period of sustained economkc growth"? Once again Labour have ruined the country and the Tories will have to make the hard choices (though I'm a little annoyed they seem to have ruled out cuts to overseas aid), then no doubt down the line Tories will be voted out for a 'caring' Labour party and the whole sorry saga will start again.

[Jabba_TG12]

I find myself totally agreeing with Advo and Soddim.

But, in fairness and yes, I fully understand scope creep, etc, BAe and EADS have got away with far too much for far too long. Its about bloody time the tail stopped wagging the dog.

If this means cancelling A400M and buying another off the shelf solution instead, so be it. If it means cancelling the carriers, so be it.

We need to understand first and above all, what the hell we want our service personnel to do, what their role is, whether the UK still sees itself as the worlds PCSO, or not. THEN decide what you're going to need to fulfil that remit and budget accordingly.

If that means the likes of Westlands finally biting the dust, BAe closing Woodford, etc, then sorry, but thats the price you pay. Deliver the shagging thing on time on budget or we go to someone who will. We should all be heartily sick of these companies taking the piss out of us.

Dunno if Osborne will actually be able to do anything about it... knowing Osborne, probably not. But thats not to say that he's not thinking along the right lines.

[Tester_76]

Deliver the shagging thing on time

It would help if the RAF/RN/MoD "Requirements Manager" didn't change his or her mind every few months, and even more when the next in post didn't have a wholesale change of concept. I accept that we in industry don't do ourselves any favours, but the change of mind doesn't help us.....

[TBM-Legend]

Tough Choices Ahead for Defence ? Ainsworth (edited excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/108110/uk-defense-minister-warns-of-tough-choices-ahead.html)
:ugh:

Haven't seen any press releases from Osama Bin Sh&t 4 Brains and his merry men about cutting their budgets.....

Let's put the pollies on a one way trip to the two way rifle range and see what they say...:mad:

[The Real Slim Shady]

I have invited the Conservatives and the Liberals Democrats to take part. I hope they will participate in the spirit in which the offer was made. In my view, the defence of the nation should always come before party politics.

"We've completely screwed it up on our own are taking flak as a result so now I intend to spread it around a bit"

[Jabba_TG12]

"It would help if the RAF/RN/MoD "Requirements Manager" didn't change his or her mind every few months, and even more when the next in post didn't have a wholesale change of concept. I accept that we in industry don't do ourselves any favours, but the change of mind doesn't help us....."

Yes, I know that happens. I know the IPT's get too cosy with some of the suppliers. I know that sometimes they're wet behind the ears.

What I'm also saying is that exploiting it, whilst not illegal does leave a very sour taste. The only one who gets royally screwed is the poor sap at the end of the food chain who has to use the kit, quite possibly in anger to save his life. The supplier or the IPT dont give a toss, they've been paid, their boxes have been ticked... "Not my fault."

Show me an ethical defence supplier and I will show you an honest politician.

[bvcu]

Be interesting to see if any figures available for how much extra cost has been added for the treasury slowing down projects to save money in particular years? Also cost savings have probably made some projects totally unviable . Would the Nimrod 4 ever have gone ahead as a programme with the numbers now being procured ? I think not as it could never be cost effective as a programme . Looking at transport , ref the critisism of A400M , not that i disagree , but looking at the 'off the shelf'' options, how many years after first flight was C130J cleared to carry out everything that the C130 it replaced was. Although a good machine surely in the longer term the more modern machine has to deliver much reduced costs , after all the C17 is doing that as compared to the a/c it replaced.

[Doctor Cruces]

Unlike the politicians, I have a memory and I well remember how Maggie and her cronies dealt with the last recession and I am sh1t scared of what they're gonna do when they get in again.

I was cushioned last time, being in the RAF. This time I'm out in a different world and worried about my job, my livelyhood and my home.

From what I've seen of the shadow chancellor, he's an idiot.
I'm fed up of noo labor coming on the box and the radio telling us scare stories about the Tories and nothing about their plans.
I'm heartily sick of the Tories coming on saying that Labour are now bankrupt of ideas and wo betide us if they get in again.

I'd like some of them to tell me exactly what they are planning to do to fix the situation we are in at the moment and not try ans merely frighten me off the "other lot", because I knw that whoever gets in is going to screw me, you and everyone else who works in order to give billions away to the unwashed, whilst starving front line services (civil and military) of cash.

I'm not a fan of Broon per se, he has no charisma on the box, but I doubt very much if Dave will be any better in the driving seat.

Just my personal thoughts and in no way meant to put down anyone elses'.

Doc C

[Bladdered]

The bottom line remains, if we want to be a third world country unable to project our influence around the world then cut spending on Defence to 1% of GDP and scrap all of the expensive programme in place or about to be put in place. If however, we still want to be a world player, and remain on the UN Security Council and be able to protect our interests around the world then retain the current plans - oh, this will also keep millions of hardworking britons in work and help feed the economic revival.

A few what ifs:

What if China starts to exercise its economic and military superiority against the west in order to expand its interests - particularly to gain natural resources (including water)

What is the Soviets simultaneously do the same.

What if Israel takes action against Iranian nuclear power assets and the result is Iranian agression and Iranian sponsored terrorism worldwide

What if N Korea invades S Korea

What if we find enormous reserves of oil off the Falklands (quite likely) but then we are unable to defend our interests against another Argentinian Invasion.

What if we need to protect essential assets such as the gas pipeline from Norway, North Sea Oil assets, and all other similar off-shore 'stuff' when our naval and maritime air assets have been decimated.

I could go on - we all know the muliple scenarios that could/may occur. We are heading towards being a military neuter and I do not like that! If all other friends do this, we will be poorly placed to defend ourselves and our interests at home or around the world.

[The Real Slim Shady]

We no longer have the influence to be a global power, or have the subsidiary requirement to project that lack of influence: we do, however, have to acknowledge that we have interests in a variety of relatively inaccessible places, the FI being the most notable.

The case for 2 or 3 flat tops, with adequate air wings and marine support, is therefore perhaps more pressing than that of Trident replacement.

Perhaps and analysis of the benefit of smaller SSBN boats with the CVNs and joint RAF / RN fixed wing and joint RAF / RN / AAC rotary wing assets deployed on board would be a compromise solution. Compromise has to be the answer as we don't have any family silver left.

The expense of developing a smaller SSBN may be the stumbling block but Barrow does have a history of submarine building and it retains jobs in UK PLC.

[Madbob]

This thread is so depressing!

The really fightening thing is that, and here I may be wrong, but I believe that PPRuNERs represent a pretty wide, and well balanced cross section of our society. (I would say that as I'm including myself here!)

The views articulated here are generally from well-meaning, informed people whose expertise and views ought to be taken heed of by ANY government. Why is it that ALL our polititians appear to be such ignorant, ill informed ***kers especially they seem to find any excuse to jet off (at taxpayers' expense) to go on "fact-finding" missions to Afg, Iraq, FI or wherever takes their fancy.......

Maybe it is a middle age thing but I may be getting rather cynical but they all seem the SAME no matter what side of the House they sit on. They also seem to be able to totally dismiss the reported "displeasure" by Her Majesty the Queen as reported here on another thread.

The scary thing is that in an historic context spending c. 2.5 - 4.0 % of GDP on defence ought to both be considered prudent AND sustainable for a developed nation. One thing, as Bladdered alludes to above, is that History never can predict the next threat a nation might face with sufficient warning to do anything but address the threat with the "tools" i.e. weapons/platforms etc. already in the "cupboard". Even temporary reductions in spending will leave the "cupboard" totally bare as it's pretty empty already, with only old and broken toys, (C130's, Nimrods, Tristars, Pumas) left to play with.....

Effective Defence Policy is not about ignoring the threats and hoping for the best. Instead threats need to be assessed, both quantitivly and geographically, strategic and tactical considerations factored in and resources (both maerrial and financial) deployed accordingly. The alternative is we step down from the Security Council at the UN, we resign from NATO, downgrade the armed forces to coast-watch, internal unrest and ceremonial status only and declare ourselves Neutral!

Somehow I can't see any of our polititical masters being willing to up-staged by other countries' leaders, who (currently) they would prefer
call "minor states" although Cyclops seems to have a pretty thick skin following his recent "spat" with a certain Colonel in the wake of the al-Magrahi affair.

Once the UK's armed forces were truely great, never in sufficient numbers or with the best kit, the actual troops were always well-motivated (in spite of poor pay and conditions but with good leadership) and their "can-do" spirit legendary. Now all I can see happening is a mass Exodus, with the best people, as always, getting out first.

Someone, please tell me that I've got this wrong and actually things are not as bad as I paint them!

MB

[CirrusF]

The really fightening thing is that, and here I may be wrong, but I believe that PPRuNERs represent a pretty wide, and well balanced cross section of our society.


I don't agree - posters on here are overwhelmingly pro-military. I'd guess that the majority of society would rather see the money spent on hospitals, schools and fighting crime. The Tories would not be suggesting such cuts if they thought it was an overall vote loser.

[Finnpog]

Whilst most posters might be pro-military - I tend to think that most of us are cynics in relation to the reality of the Poli's versus the Military. After all, a cycnic is only an idealist with real world experience.

Being ground down by the high jinks of the ruling, sorry 'Political', class I am of the view that they should get only what they pay for.

No investment = no capability - however hard they try and spin it.

I do subscribe wholeheartedly to the concept that 'those who would lead must first serve'. There should be a qualifying period prior to standing for parliament - and that should not include being a staffer / flunky / intern felching from friends of the aged Ps.

[Finnpog]

Ethical arms supplier?

kabar|https://www.kabar.com/index.jsp

Maybe?:E

[XV277]

I find it odd that you can stand as an MP in England if you are Scottish or Welsh, but not the other way round........
)

Err, yes you can, I can think on English pepole who are MPs or MSPs for Scottish constituencies

[NutLoose]

I stand corrected and thank you for that, I was previously misinformed and have since checked

Scottish Office: Scotland's Parliament (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/government/devolution/scpa-11.asp)

[cornish-stormrider]

Cirrus, We might all be pro military but that does not mean we come from a wide variety of backgrounds etc. I would rather as much money as possible is spent on NHS, I will be in hospital on saturday for surgery, 4 days from diagnosis and 10 days from injury. This is what my taxes pay for and I was hugely impressed.

What I want (and I believe the country needs) is a force of well trained and equipped professionals who, though small in number punch well above their weight due to havings awesome skills, a good amount of decent kit and united leadership.

money that is spent on defence goes around, money that is wasted on benefits does not.

We all want good schools, clean hospitals, a gp you can ring up and see the same day and coppers on the streets to nick thieves and even firemen to cut us out of cars and put out fires.

IT IS TIME TO TAKE THE RUNNING OF THE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THE HANDS OF MEDDLING AMATEURS.

1. accept the fact the NHS does not make a profit, you put money and sick people in and get healthy and fiexed people out to go and earn more money.

2. cut the beauracracy down first, if any doctor spent more than half an hour a day doing notes or paperwork they are being wasted. If a techer has to write more than a paragraph a term on each child they are writing too much,

3. get away from this obsession with league tables, statistics are all lies and each auditor looks at each item differently.

4. Let the boss fire someone who is lazy and useless, that should be reason enough to dismiss them

5. pay someone what their efforts are worth, laziness will get no wages.

6. get the coppers on the streets.

7. have a bunch of lawyers go through the laws and tear up most of the last 12 years of labours balls.

Don't vote for me. I am too grumpy to be a politician, I'd offer world leaders outside.

[airborne_artist]

Cornish - rapidly going off-thread, but the problem with NuLabour is it can't differentiate between chucking money at a problem, and making sure that the problem gets solved.

My daughter's secondary school has has loads of money pumped in, but results have not improved. Finally the Head walked (early retirement) when an inspection showed this. Until then she spouted all the right NuSpeak buzzwords, but with no end result.

The same is largely true of the NHS, at which GB has tossed £billions. It was crap, and large bits of it are still crap. I know, as my wife and my mum are both very dependant on it, and they've had slack, sometimes incompetent service for years that is far too common, I understand.

If the MoD's procurement process is half as bad as some of my experiences with other government departments then it too needs to change.

Overall budget increases might be desirable, but if they don't deliver, then they and the baseline budget are being wasted to a greater or lesser extent.

[charliegolf]

Cornish I'd offer world leaders outside. Storm rider gets my vote.

:D

CG

[hello1]

bvcu,

Ref extra costs resulting from Treasury interference, there was a small article in the Torygraph a little while back saying that the ADDITIONAL cost of leasing the original batch of C17s then buying them was £500M. I recall that the one-eyed gimp insisted on the RAF taking this expensive route rather than the common-sense approach.:ugh:

[ian16th]

The Times moderator allowed my comment to be published. It was really just some simple maths in response to an earlier comment.


Anthony Times wrote:
Defence is very over-rated. Most of the time you don't need it.

How true!

Unfortunately, 'Most of the time' does not equal 'All of the time'.

When subtracting 'Most of the time' from 'All of the time', we are left with ‘Some of the time’.

During ‘Some of the time’, a functional and fit for purpose military is needed. Usually this happens at extremely short notice. To meet this ‘Some of the time’ requirement it is necessary to keep the military functional during 'Most of the time'.

When 'Most of the time' is added to ‘Some of the time’, we end up having to maintain our military for 'All of the time'.

[NutLoose]

Other changes for the environment would be any companies discharging into rivers would be required to carry this out up stream of their water source, therefore ensuring that what they discharge is clean.

The 99 plastic wheelie bins would go, the recycling bins, bin police, chipped bins would be reduced to naught.........
I cannot see any sense in blowing the budget to recyle plastics and packaging which makes up the majority of household waste..........

all that extra expense in an instance gone off our council taxes bills and the real culprits in this, the companies producing all this excess packaging in the first place would be fined if they did not reduce it, you do not need to recycle what has not been produced, recycling a paper box is pointless if due to a reduction in packaging that paper box is still a tree. It is better to save what you have, rather than produce something not needed and THEN try to recycle it.

God i'm sounding like a tree hugger, but how did we ever get to the point of wrapping our rubbish up in a plastic bin bag before we dump it?...... that has got to be the most idiotic and also most succesful brainwashing campaign ever...... want to throw some garden waste away?, allow me to sell you a plastic bag so you can throw that away with it too.......... I would also simply make carrier bags illegal.

[8-15fromOdium]

We can afford Defence spending and a lot more besides if the proposals put forward by James Tobin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/27/turner-tobin-tax-economic-policy)were adopted. The money this would raise would be eye watering and have the added advantages of stopping stock markets over heating and getting the people who helped to cause this mess to pay for it. I also find it odd how the Tories are not looking at PFIs which are doing so much to 'silt up' (I believe the phrase is) defence spending.

[VinRouge]

Tobin tax wouldnt work. All the big firms would offshore, working from the UK but having accounts abroad. The internet is a wonderful thing in some ways, not good in others.

BEsides, we better get used to the idea that any money saved is going towards debt repayment for the past 10 years and not investment.

[Biggus]

I have no great knowledge of economics, but I like to think I am a reasonably intelligent guy, and my understanding of the current UK financial situation (with it's consequent impact on the defence budget) is as follows:

UK is in debt to the tune of about £800bn at the moment.

The UK annual deficit is currently about £175bn per year.

The current government (Labour) state they will halve the deficit in 4 years. BUT THEY ARE REFERRING TO HALVING THE ANNUAL DEFICIT, i.e to about £90bn per year.....

So when, as a nation, are we actually going to pay back some of the debt? I realize that as well as paying interest we are probably paying some back every year, but we are borowing to do so, so the overall figure for UK national debt still keeps going up.

So, under current Labour plans, by 2013/14 we will owe about £1,300bn (over 100% of GDP) and only be borrowing £90bn a year more than we spend, surely an unsustainable situation, and why economic commentators say the burden of debt will be around for 30 or 40 years.

Against this background, can anyone take Labours talk of investment (I know Gordon has finally used the word "cut") seriously, and does anyone think the defence budget, like ALL others, will not suffer.

If I have got the wrong end of the stick feel free to say so, preferably in a polite manner please!

[VinRouge]

I think they are hoping for hyper inflation to wipe out the debt. Little problem is, the world is going to be deleveraging for a good 2-3 years yet, whilst the BOE is going to hit the QE buffers pretty soon with the bond investors.

Pretty much, we are well and truly F*cked.

Doesnt matter though, because all those daily mail readers will have houses worth three squillion pounds each.

Shame it didnt work out for Zim so well.... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Biggus, we are only paying off interest only at present. The sad fact is, I bet some of the cash is being borrowed to pay off the interest. Nice.

[cornish-stormrider]

Will all possessors of big shoes, comedy flowers and spinning bow ties please report to 10 downing st, you have been recruited by "The Government" . Clowns might not be better but they would be funnier.

in 1997 a crack comedy unit escaped to the London Overground,
Today still wanted by the populace they survive by wasting Billions and stealing expenses,
If you have a probem, if no-one else can help, and if you can bribe them maybe you can hire...................

dakka dakka daaka

Gordy's Gang. (but if you aint rich then poke off,)

DOO DOO DOO DO DO DO, DOO DE DO DE DO DO DE DO

Etc.