SDSR 15
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last month I sent the following to the PM copied to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Defence and the cross party Defence Committee. Yes, I know I lost my rag a bit but . . .
"Dear Prime Minister,
It appears that one of the greatest influences on changing political behaviour over the past 30 years has been the relentless focus of rolling media on our politicians and the impact, real or imagined, of their every utterance on opinion polls. This has led to a seemingly total pre-occupation by the political classes with short term domestic issues to the exclusion of almost everything else and is confined to those areas which politicians deem important to voters. Thus, while the political classes obsess over the latest polls and plan whatever short term domestic policy measure – particularly with respect to the NHS and education - might lead to a lift in their relative positions, the outside world becomes an increasingly fractured and threatening place.
With all due respect, you and your colleagues across all parties appear to have forgotten that our peaceful, liberal democracy which permits the luxury of endless domestic navel gazing and political point scoring only exists because it was fought for on many occasions at the cost of countless lives, and it will only continue to survive if we are able to defend it. The lessons of weakness, so painfully learned by previous generations, appear to have been disregarded. That a strong, capable defence deters aggression and makes war less likely seems to have been forgotten as those areas regarded as being more important to voters receive attention while others, in particular defence with respect to which it suits politicians of all parties to believe that voters are unconcerned, are more or less ignored even as threats which have the real potential to threaten our fundamental way of life continue to multiply.
There is today a crescent of Islamist fundamentalism extending from the borders of Turkey, via parts of the Middle East through North and West Africa to the Atlantic. Entire nations are falling to a murderous creed which detests everything the West stands for. It is expanding daily, enslaving millions, and may yet threaten the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia leaving our energy supplies at the mercy of people who would do us untold harm. At the same time Russia is re-arming on a massive scale, invading sovereign nations and probing our own defences with submarines and aircraft in an increasingly aggressive manner. On the other side of the world China is also modernising its armed services on a scale that is scarcely believable. Taken together, this country and its allies face the gravest combination of potential threats, if not to our continued existence then certainly to our democratic societies, prosperity, freedom of action and way of life, since the Cold War.
History is littered with examples where wilful lack of preparedness has led to desperate conflict with a loss of life which might have been avoided or, at the very least, where the ability to continue to maintain a society and way of life is significantly compromised. But, while recognising that you have many other concerns, you and your colleagues seem determined to ignore the lessons of history and appear to believe that the status quo of the last 30 years will be maintained despite growing evidence to the contrary.
The 2010 SDR reduced the Air Force to a handful of combat aircraft squadrons, the Navy to less than 20 effective surface ships and the Army to around 80,000 personnel. Cuts that led to having to ask our allies to send aircraft to help us find a submarine close to the base of our own nuclear deterrent submarines. It is not just the cringing embarrassment of such situations but the apparent belief in political circles that this is just a side show with no real importance or significance. It seems that no politician sees any connection between the emasculation of defence in the UK and Europe and, for example, Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. Non-democratic regimes and dictatorships despise weakness in all its forms: indecision and lack of resolve in the face of belligerent behaviour only encourages further and more extreme aggression.
Defence and security of the country and its dependencies should be the number one priority of any government, not the last on the list. Our Armed Forces do not just exist in order to provide men and women in colourful uniforms for state occasions or just to be the convenient whipping post when further savings are to be made because politicians dare not touch what they perceive to be more vote-sensitive departments. The level of expenditure, however mishandled in the past, should not be the primary criteria when it comes to the defence of the nation and its interests and it is time that politicians of all parties stopped hiding behind meaningless platitudes about existing defence expenditure and committed themselves on a cross party priority basis to repairing and rebuilding our armed forces: even if this means harder choices in other “ring-fenced” areas. If the necessity of this was properly explained to the public instead of hidden away, it may actually become a vote winner.
We are not detached from what is happening in the world and, under the circumstances with the 2015 SDR looming, it is beyond belief that any Government of whatever hue would consider anything other than increasing expenditure on the Armed Forces – rebuilding a capability and expertise that, once lost, will be nigh impossible to restore. History will judge whether you and your colleagues make the right choice."
Needless to say, just had an anodyne response . .
"Dear Prime Minister,
It appears that one of the greatest influences on changing political behaviour over the past 30 years has been the relentless focus of rolling media on our politicians and the impact, real or imagined, of their every utterance on opinion polls. This has led to a seemingly total pre-occupation by the political classes with short term domestic issues to the exclusion of almost everything else and is confined to those areas which politicians deem important to voters. Thus, while the political classes obsess over the latest polls and plan whatever short term domestic policy measure – particularly with respect to the NHS and education - might lead to a lift in their relative positions, the outside world becomes an increasingly fractured and threatening place.
With all due respect, you and your colleagues across all parties appear to have forgotten that our peaceful, liberal democracy which permits the luxury of endless domestic navel gazing and political point scoring only exists because it was fought for on many occasions at the cost of countless lives, and it will only continue to survive if we are able to defend it. The lessons of weakness, so painfully learned by previous generations, appear to have been disregarded. That a strong, capable defence deters aggression and makes war less likely seems to have been forgotten as those areas regarded as being more important to voters receive attention while others, in particular defence with respect to which it suits politicians of all parties to believe that voters are unconcerned, are more or less ignored even as threats which have the real potential to threaten our fundamental way of life continue to multiply.
There is today a crescent of Islamist fundamentalism extending from the borders of Turkey, via parts of the Middle East through North and West Africa to the Atlantic. Entire nations are falling to a murderous creed which detests everything the West stands for. It is expanding daily, enslaving millions, and may yet threaten the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia leaving our energy supplies at the mercy of people who would do us untold harm. At the same time Russia is re-arming on a massive scale, invading sovereign nations and probing our own defences with submarines and aircraft in an increasingly aggressive manner. On the other side of the world China is also modernising its armed services on a scale that is scarcely believable. Taken together, this country and its allies face the gravest combination of potential threats, if not to our continued existence then certainly to our democratic societies, prosperity, freedom of action and way of life, since the Cold War.
History is littered with examples where wilful lack of preparedness has led to desperate conflict with a loss of life which might have been avoided or, at the very least, where the ability to continue to maintain a society and way of life is significantly compromised. But, while recognising that you have many other concerns, you and your colleagues seem determined to ignore the lessons of history and appear to believe that the status quo of the last 30 years will be maintained despite growing evidence to the contrary.
The 2010 SDR reduced the Air Force to a handful of combat aircraft squadrons, the Navy to less than 20 effective surface ships and the Army to around 80,000 personnel. Cuts that led to having to ask our allies to send aircraft to help us find a submarine close to the base of our own nuclear deterrent submarines. It is not just the cringing embarrassment of such situations but the apparent belief in political circles that this is just a side show with no real importance or significance. It seems that no politician sees any connection between the emasculation of defence in the UK and Europe and, for example, Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. Non-democratic regimes and dictatorships despise weakness in all its forms: indecision and lack of resolve in the face of belligerent behaviour only encourages further and more extreme aggression.
Defence and security of the country and its dependencies should be the number one priority of any government, not the last on the list. Our Armed Forces do not just exist in order to provide men and women in colourful uniforms for state occasions or just to be the convenient whipping post when further savings are to be made because politicians dare not touch what they perceive to be more vote-sensitive departments. The level of expenditure, however mishandled in the past, should not be the primary criteria when it comes to the defence of the nation and its interests and it is time that politicians of all parties stopped hiding behind meaningless platitudes about existing defence expenditure and committed themselves on a cross party priority basis to repairing and rebuilding our armed forces: even if this means harder choices in other “ring-fenced” areas. If the necessity of this was properly explained to the public instead of hidden away, it may actually become a vote winner.
We are not detached from what is happening in the world and, under the circumstances with the 2015 SDR looming, it is beyond belief that any Government of whatever hue would consider anything other than increasing expenditure on the Armed Forces – rebuilding a capability and expertise that, once lost, will be nigh impossible to restore. History will judge whether you and your colleagues make the right choice."
Needless to say, just had an anodyne response . .
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Official: Third world aid spending to outstrip defence budget within 15 years
Fury as House of Commons library finds Government likely to be spending £27.1 billion on defence in 2030/31, against £28.3billion on aid
Spending on third world aid is on course to be greater than the defence budget within 15 years, according to official research, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. The forecast from the House of Commons library show at current rates Britain’s international development budget will exceed military spending by 2030/31.
Separately scores of Conservative MPs are likely to try to force the Government to commit to spending two per cent of the nation’s income on defence spending after 2015/16. A Commons debate on the commitment, followed by a vote of MPs, has been provisionally set for Thursday next week, just a fortnight before Parliament breaks for the election.
The news came after David Cameron, the Prime Minister, was forced to defend military spending after the head of the US army said he was “very concerned” about cuts.Mr Cameron said it was “very clear” that he does not want to see further reductions in Britain’s armed forces. He added: “In terms of spending, the promise we have made is that the equipment budget, which is £160 billion over the next decade, that will grow by one per cent in real terms in each year of the next parliament."
The House of Commons library was asked “for an analysis of when, on current trends, International Development expenditure might be expected to overtake Defence spending”. It found that, based on Treasury figures, defence spending had fallen by 1.8 per cent per year over the past five years to £35.5 billion, while international development expenditure had risen to £8.4 billion. It added: “Assuming that these rates of change continue unaltered, International Development spending would be higher than Defence spending in the 2030/31 financial year.”
The library said that the Government was likely to be spending £27.1 billion on defence spending against international development spending £28.3billion in 2030/31, not allowing for inflation. Conservative MPs and former defence ministers seized on the figures as further evidence that the Government should commit to spending two per cent of national income on defence after 2016.
John Baron said: “The fact that DFID spending could one day match defence spending illustrates the folly of ring-fencing departmental budgets. “We should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In a world where many countries not necessarily friendly to the west are re-arming and becoming more assertive, we should instead be spending more on our Armed Forces.” Liam Fox, a former Defence secretary, said: “There is no doubt that we need to understand that so-called soft power, is no substitute for the ability to deter threats in a hard power world”.
Rory Stewart MP, the chairman of the defence select committee, said the defence budget should be three times the aid budget. He said: It would be good to tie that relationship in so as the economy grew, defence spending would grow. The strong consensus across the party is in favour of two per cent spending of GDP on defence – partly because of the symbolic importance of the commitment and leadership Britain showed in Nato.”
Next week’s motion is likely to see scores of Tory MPs vote in favour of the next Government committing to spending 2 per cent of the UK’s GDP on defence after 2015/16.
Sir Peter Luff, a former Coalition defence minister, pointed out that in 1985 the UK spent the same amount in cash on defence, health, and education. “Thirty years later we spend three times as much on heath as on defence and twice as much on education,” he said. “To continue the trend of cuts, cuts and more cuts would be to betray the first duty of the state – to keep its citizens safe. When the world faces such deep peril it is disappointing that the case needs even to be made.”
Fury as House of Commons library finds Government likely to be spending £27.1 billion on defence in 2030/31, against £28.3billion on aid
Spending on third world aid is on course to be greater than the defence budget within 15 years, according to official research, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. The forecast from the House of Commons library show at current rates Britain’s international development budget will exceed military spending by 2030/31.
Separately scores of Conservative MPs are likely to try to force the Government to commit to spending two per cent of the nation’s income on defence spending after 2015/16. A Commons debate on the commitment, followed by a vote of MPs, has been provisionally set for Thursday next week, just a fortnight before Parliament breaks for the election.
The news came after David Cameron, the Prime Minister, was forced to defend military spending after the head of the US army said he was “very concerned” about cuts.Mr Cameron said it was “very clear” that he does not want to see further reductions in Britain’s armed forces. He added: “In terms of spending, the promise we have made is that the equipment budget, which is £160 billion over the next decade, that will grow by one per cent in real terms in each year of the next parliament."
The House of Commons library was asked “for an analysis of when, on current trends, International Development expenditure might be expected to overtake Defence spending”. It found that, based on Treasury figures, defence spending had fallen by 1.8 per cent per year over the past five years to £35.5 billion, while international development expenditure had risen to £8.4 billion. It added: “Assuming that these rates of change continue unaltered, International Development spending would be higher than Defence spending in the 2030/31 financial year.”
The library said that the Government was likely to be spending £27.1 billion on defence spending against international development spending £28.3billion in 2030/31, not allowing for inflation. Conservative MPs and former defence ministers seized on the figures as further evidence that the Government should commit to spending two per cent of national income on defence after 2016.
John Baron said: “The fact that DFID spending could one day match defence spending illustrates the folly of ring-fencing departmental budgets. “We should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In a world where many countries not necessarily friendly to the west are re-arming and becoming more assertive, we should instead be spending more on our Armed Forces.” Liam Fox, a former Defence secretary, said: “There is no doubt that we need to understand that so-called soft power, is no substitute for the ability to deter threats in a hard power world”.
Rory Stewart MP, the chairman of the defence select committee, said the defence budget should be three times the aid budget. He said: It would be good to tie that relationship in so as the economy grew, defence spending would grow. The strong consensus across the party is in favour of two per cent spending of GDP on defence – partly because of the symbolic importance of the commitment and leadership Britain showed in Nato.”
Next week’s motion is likely to see scores of Tory MPs vote in favour of the next Government committing to spending 2 per cent of the UK’s GDP on defence after 2015/16.
Sir Peter Luff, a former Coalition defence minister, pointed out that in 1985 the UK spent the same amount in cash on defence, health, and education. “Thirty years later we spend three times as much on heath as on defence and twice as much on education,” he said. “To continue the trend of cuts, cuts and more cuts would be to betray the first duty of the state – to keep its citizens safe. When the world faces such deep peril it is disappointing that the case needs even to be made.”
My experience of the NHS and UK education is that both are worse than 1985 (though the NHS can now cure some rare things that would have killed people then).
Of course Overseas Aid and Defence are both elements of foreign policy, and if spending on Aid gave better protection than Armed Defence then I would have no problem with the spending changes.
But it doesn't.
Of course Overseas Aid and Defence are both elements of foreign policy, and if spending on Aid gave better protection than Armed Defence then I would have no problem with the spending changes.
But it doesn't.
It's good to see that some conservative MPs are making a noise on this issue, hopefully with some success.
However, as I said earlier, what is the attitude of the other parties, especially Labour, who may well form part of the next government after the election in May?
However, as I said earlier, what is the attitude of the other parties, especially Labour, who may well form part of the next government after the election in May?
From the horse's mouth...
Issues ? The Labour Party
Thirty issues are listed. Defence is not one of them. Nor is Policing.
Issues ? The Labour Party
Thirty issues are listed. Defence is not one of them. Nor is Policing.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what happens if the commons vote in favour of maintaining a 2% of GDP spend in their vote, next Thursday?...Rory Stuart is quoted as saying that there is near universal consensus in the Tory party,in favour of it.
Regarding the forthcoming Commons vote, what exactly are they voting on, a commitment/aspiration, or something placed in law? I believe the change to fixed length parliaments of 5 years was effectively placed into law, so the next government has to honour it or remove it from the statue books.
If 2% GDP on defence is a commitment/aspiration, then the next government can ignore it, if it is somehow enshrined in law, then the situation is as above, the next government will have to honour or remove from law. If the next government has an overall majority they can pretty much do whatever they want eventually.
That is my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation, I'm sure someone will be along shortly who is better informed and will enlighten us all!
If 2% GDP on defence is a commitment/aspiration, then the next government can ignore it, if it is somehow enshrined in law, then the situation is as above, the next government will have to honour or remove from law. If the next government has an overall majority they can pretty much do whatever they want eventually.
That is my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation, I'm sure someone will be along shortly who is better informed and will enlighten us all!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know, Biggus, but I suspect it's an aspiration; the commons expressing their representative will of the people, I guess. But if they vote in favour, it simply piles yet more pressure on the morons to stop trying to pull the wool over all our eyes and actually address the issue.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col. Bob weighs in:
Defence chiefs told by Col Bob Stewart: 'Resign in protest at cuts'
Well, it would certainly cut the payroll costs a bit.
Defence chiefs told by Col Bob Stewart: 'Resign in protest at cuts'
Well, it would certainly cut the payroll costs a bit.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure whether a resignation by those listed would make any difference at all. It would make headlines for a day and then be fish & chip paper. There are plenty of yes men waiting in the wings to pick up the promotion and pension. As has been said before, there are no votes in defence.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Stewart 's advice may carry further weight were he to sign in support of the EDM requiring the UK Gov to maintain 2% of GDP spending. It may be that as a member of the HCDC he is prevented from doing so, although Rory Stewart, Chair of the Committee has done so.
Alternatively, he could resign as an MP, or cross the floor over the same issue as he has advised the Service Chiefs couldn't he?
Alternatively, he could resign as an MP, or cross the floor over the same issue as he has advised the Service Chiefs couldn't he?
Waking up this morning to Radio 4, thought I heard that Philip Hammond has been quoted as saying that there are no votes in defence. Didn't hear any other mention of it, so I may have been imagining it. Otherwise, true though it may be, seems a rather reckless thing for a Foreign Secretary and former Defence Secretary to say.
Martin, that is correct. Lots of coverage of his words in the Torygraph/ Times the other day. Interesting words too in the link provided by Kitbag. It alludes to an autumn SDSR as opposed to a rumoured May event?
I must admit that I haven't yet found he time to read all of the link that kitbag provided. However, surely an SDSR in May was never going to be a player when the general election is the same month, and we are likely to get a government change?
A question I have asked on here before (but don't normally receive a response), is quite simply, is SDSR15 merely the intention/brainchild of the current government? As far as I am aware that is no rule/law that requires a UK government to hold an SDSR every 5 years. SDSR15 and FF2020 are merely plans put in place by the current government. For example, if UKIP were to form the next government, and decide to double defence spending, all staff work already done for an SDSR15 would be torn up, and the planning would have to start again.
My own personal prediction for the next UK parliament is for a minority Labour government, kept afloat on critical votes by minority parties, especially the SNP. Surely any new incoming government is going to want to get its feet under the table, tell MOD its defence policy (i.e. how much it's willing to spend) and only then can MOD respond with its plan - making September probably the earliest this could happen.
A question I have asked on here before (but don't normally receive a response), is quite simply, is SDSR15 merely the intention/brainchild of the current government? As far as I am aware that is no rule/law that requires a UK government to hold an SDSR every 5 years. SDSR15 and FF2020 are merely plans put in place by the current government. For example, if UKIP were to form the next government, and decide to double defence spending, all staff work already done for an SDSR15 would be torn up, and the planning would have to start again.
My own personal prediction for the next UK parliament is for a minority Labour government, kept afloat on critical votes by minority parties, especially the SNP. Surely any new incoming government is going to want to get its feet under the table, tell MOD its defence policy (i.e. how much it's willing to spend) and only then can MOD respond with its plan - making September probably the earliest this could happen.
Cameron is giving mixed messages out. He stated on the Andrew Marr show that he did not wish to see any further cuts to the Army and that he thought the next SDSR would require just a 'gentle touch'. To my mind, this would support a late spring SDSR with little change to the 2020 plan. Frustratingly, he will not commit to the 2% GDP minimum spend.
UKIP appear to be strong supporters of Defence and heaven only knows what Labour and the Lib Dems are thinking.
UKIP appear to be strong supporters of Defence and heaven only knows what Labour and the Lib Dems are thinking.
Biggus - the SDSR will happen - all main parties are committed to it. What is likely to happen is that the spending review will come up with how much we've got to spend, then the SDSR will work out what we can do with it.