Future cuts? Another 30,000?
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...
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?
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?
then we could return them to impartiality and stop things like 'the TV political debates' and nonsense like the current 'Clarkson-gate' going on.
As for 'Clarkson-gate', I've got no argument with you there.
Mr Melmoth
Best tell Lord Grade, then...
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.
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".
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".
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
All AAC & FAA to merge with RAF under air.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Shot One
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.
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?
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
The judical system must be "defence"?
Maybe they could include a levy into council tax as well?
OAP
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?
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?
