Future cuts? Another 30,000?

[NutLoose]

Not Looking good :(

Defence Cuts Could Put 30,000 Jobs At Risk (http://news.sky.com/story/1441135/defence-cuts-could-put-30000-jobs-at-risk)

[4everAD]

This after they said there wouldn't be any more major redundancies and reduced the redundancy packages (especially those on 75/15 pension schemes) massively. Stand by to be made redundant for 3 months pay!

[Lima Juliet]

More pain for the Army I expect, the Senior and Junior Services are about as 'skinny' as it gets. I still think there are some effiiciiences to be made:

1. AAC/RNAS aircraft/aircrew to the RAF including eng/log support functions, plus get rid of JHC as there would be no need for it.
2. RAF Regt function to the Army.

Basically, if it floats then it's RN, if it trundles in or on the ground it's Army and if it flies it's RAF. It makes no sense otherwise - why train a gunner in the RAF Regt to do the core work of the Army? Why train small cadres of specialist aircrew and engineers for the RN/Army when there is an efficiency of 'blobbing' them up in the RAF? Almost as mad as the RAF having a marine branch! :}

Standing by for nepotistic incoming!!!

LJ

[Melchett01]

Will somebody cleverer than me please tell me where irreducible minimum is and just when this constant insanity is likely to stop? At this rate, we'll all be on zero-hours contracts as part of a subcontract deal to G4S and on a pay-to-fly deal with Easy Jet.

I know we can't afford morale, ethos, history or tradition, and that fighting spirit is only just about kept up with the usual Thursday night punch up by the kebab van but I really just don't see where else we can go other than throwing in the towel and saying we're like Iceland.

I'm a conservative by instinct, but the quest for small state cuts has become a dangerous, dogmatic drive to get everything they possibly can off the Govt books by contracting out or selling everything off. It's gone past financial responsibility and is well in to the realms of abrogating state responsibility for state functions.

And yes, the article is just that -an article - and it most likely represents the worst case scenario and is therefore designed to soften us up so that whatever does occur will be seen in a positive light (hey I only had to give up one kidney to pay for my plane ticket to deploy to Syria, it could have been so much worse -I hear the Bn earmarked for the Ukraine had to stump up a lung too!). But the fact that they are even thinking it is worrying - especially as RUSI is part funded by MOD, so I question how independent this is and whether or not the authors have an 'inside track'. Through their systematic dismantling of the military, Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and Fallon are doing what Hitler tried but failed to do. The UK's capability may have taken a kicking at Dunkirk, but we had that very morale and fighting spirit that meant we could recover. Not now. And if defence isn't viewed as important to the average man in the street, it bloody well will be when they find they're sharing their Tunisian hotels and beaches with ISIL!

[VinRouge]

Anyone else see a UK defence Force inbound?

[VinRouge]

Melchett,it will stop when the politicians turn round to the electorate and tell them that cancer drugs for the over 80s are no longer affordable, nor is a 2 billion pound per week nhs and a state pension the country can no longer afford.

Which means it won't happen.

[Lima Juliet]

Anyone else see a UK defence Force inbound?

On paper, if we leave our own Service nepotism behind, it might work. However, there are specialisms for fighting on Sea, Land and in Air/Space which normally means that those individuals will wear insignia and different clothing denoting their specialisation. So in short, save money and put us all in PCS for day-to-day wear, or same ceremonial dress, with different hats/insignia/clothing and call us the UK Defence Force if you must. We can still keep the names of ships, regts and sqns for fighting spirit.

I'd rather do this than lose anymore FL capability, if it saves cash and a bit of support manpower then so what? If it gives the Govt something to crow about on efficiency and saving then lets do it!

LJ

[Melchett01]

VinRouge,

But that's my whole point about this dogmatic insanity - nothing seems affordable these days - regardless of whether it's defence, health, education, arts - if you listen the politicians then we can't afford to do any of it. And surely that is a problem?

If nothing else, it must raise the question of where exactly is all the cash going? And if the answer is to sort out the mess the last lot left (I really don't like the last lot, but just how long can you keep blaming them?) then the follow on question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.

[VinRouge]

Problem is, we aren't even starting to sort out the mess the last lot left. We a still spending 100 billion more than we can afford per annum.

North Sea oil is no longer economic to extract.

Oh, and multiple generations of politicians have promised more than we could ever afford, without levying the right level of taxation to pay for it.

Chickens now fully home to roost.

I honestly don't believe that we will see a budget surplus again. Government borrowing is currently preventing deflation, the debt will get bigger, but to keep the pensions companies happy, a level of budgetary cutting is expected to demonstrate we are not going to do a Greece. Of course the budget cuts will also be used to keep inflation at the "right level". All imho.

[Bigbux]

At this rate, we'll all be on zero-hours contracts as part of a subcontract deal to G4S and on a pay-to-fly deal with Easy Jet.

By the Gods! Splendid idea. Quick, get it down on paper and send it off to DC et al at No 10 with a big fat consultancy bill attached.:eek:

[NutLoose]

But that's my whole point about this dogmatic insanity - nothing seems affordable these days - regardless of whether it's defence, health, education, arts - if you listen the politicians then we can't afford to do any of it. And surely that is a problem?

And yet we still continue to devolve power from Parliament, quadrupling the bureaucracy and civil service and the costs therein, where once one infrastructure did it all, it's the only growth industry in the UK....

When will it stop? When you have Isis on the streets of London, mass public killings and politicians being murdered...



.

[BenThere]

It's not cheap to import 100k+ refugees every few months and put them on government assistance.

The defense establishment of the UK should be happy with whatever is left over in the budget for the protection of the nation.

Don't worry, though. This situation won't last much longer. It can't.

[Danny42C]

"Money spent on an army or navy
Is homicidal lunacy !
My son was killed in the Mons retreat.
How can a God let such things be? "*******(Kipling)

or

"Si vis pacem, para bellum!"

[DunWinching]

Irreducible minimum is the point where someone nasty looks at UK and reckons they can get away with something military without us causing them unacceptable grief.

[Melchett01]

So, Russia, Iran, China, Syria - I might even add Argentina to that list. And take your pick from just about any extremist group going in the Middle East and Africa that would love to take pot shots at the UK or kidnap British citizens overseas safe in the knowledge we can't do anything about it other than wheel the PM out to harrumph on the news at 10.

[dctyke]

If we are to endure more cuts there must be a hard look at the RAF Regiment. We have as many regt sqns as fast jet, this cannot be right. Sadly their role (whatever it may be now) should go to the army.

[The Old Fat One]

Melchett,it will stop when the politicians turn round to the electorate and tell them that cancer drugs for the over 80s are no longer affordable, nor is a 2 billion pound per week nhs and a state pension the country can no longer afford.

Since VR brought it up, could I point out that looking after the elderly is a problem that western free market culture has given itself. In most other cultures, looking after the old and infirm is a family obligation in exactly the same way that looking after a child is.

Unfortunately, as we are finding out, it is a problem without a solution (unless you are an advocate of Logan's Run :eek:). Cutting off the elderly from an income and support just means they will all up in A&E (as we are currently experiencing) at vast (and I mean ****ing vast!) cost to all of us.

I offer no solution as there isn't one. I just wish people would not post facile "solutions" to massive (western) global problems with this "hey, it's simple just do this" mentality.

[BEagle]

When interviewed by Andrew Marr the other day, Philip Hammond said that David Mr Cameron "Is passionate about our armed forces. He has always been absolutely clear that he is not prepared to preside over any further cuts to our regular armed forces."

"...not prepared to preside..." - that seems to indicate that, if UK voters were stupid enough to let Miliband and Balls in to ruin the nation's recovery, cuts would not be ruled out under an alternative administration

"...cuts to our regular armed forces..." - that seems to indicate that cuts to reserve forces and FTRS etc. could well be on the cards?

I gather there's another 'review' of the University Air Squadrons underway. One wonders whether that'll be another 'done deal' in the vein of the execrable Marston 'report' of 10 years ago....:uhoh:

...unless you are an advocate of Logan's Run

Only insofar as bit of fun with Jenny Agutter is concerned....:E!

[althenick]

More pain for the Army I expect, the Senior and Junior Services are about as 'skinny' as it gets. I still think there are some effiiciiences to be made:

1. AAC/RNAS aircraft/aircrew to the RAF including eng/log support functions, plus get rid of JHC as there would be no need for it.
2. RAF Regt function to the Army.

Basically, if it floats then it's RN, if it trundles in or on the ground it's Army and if it flies it's RAF. It makes no sense otherwise - why train a gunner in the RAF Regt to do the core work of the Army? Why train small cadres of specialist aircrew and engineers for the RN/Army when there is an efficiency of 'blobbing' them up in the RAF? Almost as mad as the RAF having a marine branch!

Actually as long as those personnel & budgets in the New Maritime and Ground support commands come from their Parent Service then I don’t see a problem.
So heres another Idea…
We gradually re-man the RAF with personnel from the other 2 services. Keep the RAF Hierarchy and positions such as CAS etc but eventually these appointments will be taken over by Blue or Brown jobs. Reorganise the RAF into 3 Commands
Ground Command – Manned & Budgeted by the Army
Maritime & Home Command – Manned & Budgeted by the RN
Home Command – Manned Jointly, Responsible for Trade training, Support systems for A/C etc

Advantages
Best working practices from all 3 services
The right people in the right environment
Savings through commonality of support
Drop of one uniform type!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ground Command; Maritime & Home Command; Home Command

Ye Gods Man! That's 3 more commands than the RAF has today!! :ooh: Surely you mean Ground Group, Maritime and Home Group and Home Group!

Oh and wasn't it exactly this structure that lead to the formation of the independent air force in the first place...... :rolleyes:

[Wyler]

Politicians do not think like us.

They see no massive coordinated conventional threat to this country. They recognise that the electorate will not tolerate another Iraq/Afghanistan type debacle. They know that there are no votes in Defence. That makes us ripe for more cuts without political pain.

I have said that we are heading for a UK Defence Force for some time.

The Nation will get poorer as time passes. Our debts are unsustainable. We are only headed in one direction and that is down. Great Britain is no more and I think those in power do actually understand this. They cannot afford to come out and say this as it would lead to social melt down. Instead there will be a steady erosion of living standards (I doubt my Grandchildren will enjoy a State Pension or NHS like it is now) and - to get back to the original point - the Armed Forces are smallfry and ripe for the chop.

Come back in 100 years (or less) and we will be just like Greece, but without the weather.

[romeo bravo]

VinRouge. Does that mean I can get my job back in the RAuxAF Defence Force that I lost under Options for Change back in '94.

They were the days; protecting Brampton, and the bunker that can't be named :p

[Heathrow Harry]

of course we could go back to paying the tax rates we had in the past.......

In 1973, for instance, the marginal rate for earned income went from 30% to 75% by steps of first 10% and then 5%. There was an investment income surcharge of 15%.

You could pay up to 98% on certain income

but I don't hear anyone on here asking to pay more tax..................

[GeeRam]

BBC have just done an article highlighting the ups and downs of UK defence spending since the end of WW2.

BBC News - Five years that shaped the British military (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31750929)

[papajuliet]

I would certainly like to see higher income tax rates - it seems to me the most effective way to restore the economy and, that way, services and jobs are preserved. I would, however, reduce VAT.

[Melchett01]

but I don't hear anyone on here asking to pay more tax..................

Damn right, UK citizens are already far too heavily taxed. Given that governments of all shades have shown themselves to be profligate and wasteful, in some cases negligent with what money they do receive, why on earth should we pay more when they should be getting their houses in order first?

Some of the headline figures on dubious use of UK taxpayers' money are eye watering:
EU contributions ~ £12bn pa
International aid budget ~ £11.5bn pa
UK tax gap ~£34bn for the last published year's figures
Costs of running and managing the NHS as a market ~ £5 - 15bn pa depending which figures you use

There's ~ £60-70bn pa of questionable spending; even if the govt saved 20% of that each year that would be close to ~£12-15bn that could either go to deficit reduction, to departmental spending or interest payments.

So no, you probably won't find many people arguing for higher tax rates given the levels of wastage already in the system. But I do appreciate it's just easier to continue to be wasteful, implement further cuts and then go after individuals rather than sorting out the systemic problems that are swallowing billions each year.

[VinRouge]

Heathrow Harry, no, but I would be keen to cut the state pension in half for those that didn't pay enough into the system in their lifetime. That includes benefits I would receive in future.

I don't see why the current generation needs to pay for the previous generations fairytale promises.

While at it, cut nhs expenditure for the same generations.

[hulahoop7]

Income tax and VAT doesn't touch the huge wealth accumulated by the top 1%. We need a new way of gathering revenue and get serious about tax avoidance.

[jimjim1]

@Melchett01 - where exactly is all the cash goingThe cash is going to the 1%, or the 0.1% or 0.01% if you prefer more precision.

Everyone and everything else is being wrung out to pay for it.

Between that and the mad mullahs so beloved our our press and governments there won't be much left of the UK in a couple or three decades. I reckon that anyone[1] under 40 or even 50 who doesn't aspire to poverty and prayer should be planning an escape route. Of course if you have a ridiculously overvalued million pound house you may feel insulated. That won't last long, you will be next.

[1] Well not the super rich obviously.

[Gemini Twin]

Inertia has taken over and I would be surprised if there is anything anyone can do. Sorry.

[Melchett01]

jimjim,

Have you read Robert Peston's book 'Who Runs Britain?' ? It sounds like a re-run of that with the state existing purely to facilitate big business and the personal aspirations of a few at the top. Which is somewhat out of kilter with the meritocracy Cameron et al appear to be advocating. Of course, Clegg and Beaker aren't immune from criticism as they seem to want to squeeze the middle to redistribute downwards.

[Heathrow Harry]

"I don't see why the current generation needs to pay for the previous generations fairytale promises."

I'm afraid that is exactly the way the UK State pension sytem has always been run - the cash paid in today by the workers is used to pay for the current pensioners

it would have been better if in 1913 they had set up a proper allocated pot sytem but it would have been 30 years before any pensioner had accumulated enough to live on

as they needed to do something straight away (and they needed the votes of course) they went for a current funding model

theoretically this has some advantages - you don't have to invest the cash for 30 years and you can quickly change the pension payments (in & out) if things get good or tough

[AnglianAV8R]

Or, to simplify what HH just said... The state pension and public sector pensions for that matter, are ponzi schemes. If you or I tried to set up a pension scheme on the same basis we'd in the same category as Bernie Madoff.

[Biggus]

I'm not a millionaire, neither am I defending the super rich, but bear in mind that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 30% of income tax, and that figure has been rising in recent years.

UK Budget 2012: Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html)

Indeed, many of the lowest earners in society aren't net contributors to the system at all, as they get more back in benefits than they pay in taxes. Indeed, it is largely the "rich" who actually pay their taxes that are keeping this country afloat.

As for "taxing the rich until the pips squeak", well you're in danger of killing the golden goose, as seen by the many wealthy French currently living in London, and spending their money in UK rather than France, due to high tax rates in France.

Lets take the case of a millionaire living in a large house in Surrey. We can argue whether or not he is paying a "fair" amount of tax. However, what happens if tax rates rise enough for him to decide to leave? Does he clean his own house, tend his own garden, even do his own laundry? No, he helps employ at least 4 or 5 others, who will lose that work if he leaves.

Getting the balance right is tricky.

There's some sort of economic rule about taxes, how you can increase them and increase them, and more revenue comes in, but a tipping point is eventually reached, where further increase in tax actually generates less income, because the tax rate is now punitive enough to make it worth avoiding, but whatever method, including leaving the country if necessary!!

[melmothtw]

The state pension and public sector pensions for that matter, are ponzi schemes.

Couldn't agree more Anglian. Was discussing pensions only the other day (riveting, I know) and the exact same thought about it all being a giant ponzi scheme occurred to me also.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Biggus

Indeed, hence this oldie but goodie:

Every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100… If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free; but what about the other six men? – the paying customers.

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay . . . and so

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving)

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving)

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving)

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving)

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving)

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving)

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man ”but he got £10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2 . . . the wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Lima Juliet]

Well said RP...:D

[Danny42C]

Quote:

"The state pension and public sector pensions for that matter, are ponzi schemes."

Aneurin Bevan said it sixty years ago:

"The secret of the National Insurance Fund is - there ain't no Fund !"

D.

[Melchett01]

According to Newsnight the PM is now so concerned about the 2% corner he's painted himself into, he's asked for an investigation to see whether other elements of spending such as the Intelligence agencies can be counted as Defence.

It's rare I'm lost for words ...

[skydiver69]

According to Newsnight the PM is now so concerned about the 2% corner he's painted himself into, he's asked for an investigation to see whether other elements of spending such as the Intelligence agencies can be counted as Defence.


Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind...

[Sandy Parts]

Didn't they already use this accounting fudge once when the cost of the Deterrent came into the main MoD budget? Bumps up the headline percentage figure but with no actual increase in cost... Someone probably got a knighthood or peerage for that one...

[Lima Juliet]

Does that mean that Military Intelligence (MI) sections 5, 6 and 8 will fall under the Ministry of Defence? MI5 is currently a Home Office asset, MI6 is Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MI8 (GCHQ) is a blur of Home Office, Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence funding (under the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs). Or does that mean that Defence Intelligence (DI) is about to get bigger?

This always was a bit of a mess working to the Cabinet Offices's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) across so many departments, stand alone organisations and budgets.

LJ

PS. While we're at it, we could have back MI7 (the BBC) and sort out that bunch of clowns - then we could return them to impartiality and stop things like 'the TV political debates' and nonsense like the current 'Clarkson-gate' going on. We might even get them to report the right manning figures for FF2020 in their online articles? :ugh:

[melmothtw]

then we could return them to impartiality and stop things like 'the TV political debates' and nonsense like the current 'Clarkson-gate' going on.

The TV debates were/are being driven by the politicians, so hardly fair to lay the blame for that debacle at the Beeb's doorstep.

As for 'Clarkson-gate', I've got no argument with you there.

[Lima Juliet]

Mr Melmoth

Best tell Lord Grade, then...

Broadcasters are breaching impartiality rules and "playing politics" in the row over election debates, says Lord Grade.

The ex-BBC, ITV and Channel 4 boss said it was "not acceptable for unelected journalists" to replace David Cameron with an "empty chair" if he refused to take part in any televised debates.

Writing in the Times, Lord Grade said if broadcasters could not persuade one party leader to participate in a debate, it "cannot go ahead".

He said: "Ah, I hear the broadcasters retort, that would give one party leader a veto on any broadcast. Yes it would, and so what?"

He said placing an empty chair to represent Mr Cameron would be a "political act, in direct contravention of [the broadcasters'] duty of impartiality".

[melmothtw]

I'm sure I could cherry pick quotes from politicos accusing other politicians of politicking with these political debates, but that's more than enough politics than I can stand already.

[Lima Juliet]

Are you a bit politically sensitive, old chap? :p

[muttywhitedog]

I think its nailed on that we are heading towards a smaller UK Defence Force with Air/Sea/Land commands.

All AAC & FAA to merge with RAF under air. This in turn will free up capacity to cut the number of helicopter Sqns. GR4s to be reduced to all but the diamond fleet and a couple of Sqns with 8-10 aircraft, and phased out within the next 3 years.

All RAF Regt to transfer to Land Command, but with less regular Sqns and more reliance on Aux Sqns.

[Red Line Entry]

All AAC & FAA to merge with RAF under air.

Oh Mutty, thank you! You've quite brightened my day. Be sure to mention this idea to First Sea Lord, won't you!:ok:

[Corporal Clott]

RLE

Time to revert back to the correct title of "Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force", methinks.

CPL Clott http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/loisirs/dehors/mauvaisepeche.gif

[ShotOne]

How is including the deterrent in our Defence budget, in the context of the 2% argument, an "accounting fudge" Sp? If nuclear submarines and missiles aren't defence, which budget should they come under?

[Melchett01]

Leon - look on the bright side, grandson of MI4 is alive and well at Wyton, and last time I checked is run by the RAF!:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

I thought that MI4 was No 1 AIDU and Feltham's DGC? Surely, Wyton is now what was MI15 that was based at Medmenham originally?

LJ

[skydiver69]

Shot One

How is including the deterrent in our Defence budget, in the context of the 2% argument, an "accounting fudge" Sp? If nuclear submarines and missiles aren't defence, which budget should they come under?

It does sound like it would have made sense for the nuclear deterrent to have been paid for out of the defence budget but it wasn't until a couple of years ago. Given that it is now the 2% of GDP that is being touted as being for defence is going to have to spread more thinly than if it wasn't included, particularly if MI5 or armed forces pensions are also now going to be included in the 2%. That can only mean more cuts to the army, navy and air force.

[Onceapilot]

I guess the cost of UK border "control" could be lumped onto "defence"? Come to think of it, UK police are "defence", as are "customs" and GCHQ.
The judical system must be "defence"?
Maybe they could include a levy into council tax as well?;)

OAP

[Sandy Parts]

Shot One - I agree with you. However, as SkyDiver said - it wasn't so. Therefore to not include it for years and then add it when it looks like you might miss the 2% target might look like a fudge. As they say "you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment..."
As an aside, my understanding is that the separate accounting was due to the RN demanding that measure when they took over the deterrent role. Stopped their portion of the Defence budget being gobbled up entirely by the hugely expensive purchase of the initial SSBNs. Also allowed them to not have to include the cost for the replacements from their share of the pie - not sure how that will work now?