Pr00ne
You raised the defence budget issue again, but you did not answer me the last time we discussed your claims about the claimed rise under labour, so I have cut the post back in.
Thank you for your constructive comments, my question was if you are comparing 2 different systems of accounting, how are they being compared. Your response have been
"You clearly don't understand Resource Account Budgeting"
"From 1990 to 1997 the UK defence budget fell 30% in real terms. "The defence vote is safe with the Tories", yeah right!"
"The current defence budget grew 7% in 2003 and 18% in 2004, compare this to Thatchers 3% increase at the height of the cold war."
"The whole of UK Govt moved to RAB in 2001, not just the MOD."
I could have taken your response straight from the Labour manifesto. I have a simple approach to politicians, regardless of party, I assume they are either hiding something or lying. It saves time. In your case you have used a lot of words to say nothing, are you a politician?
I understand that RAB is split into capaital and resource budgeting (C-DEL & R-DEL). With resource including matiriel assets, such as bases and in-service equipment. Now given that personnel numbers and assests such as bases and in-service equipment have retired since 97, then the R-DEL component on current capability is reduced. If this is true, then to reach your figures then the available expenditure for capital expenditure must have had the money that had been spent on resource being spent on capital and the claimed percentage rises. Therefore, the forces should be knee deep in equipment. Where is it?
However, if you are combining the C-DEL & R-DEL figures and comparing it with the previous capital only system then you are guilty of sleight of hand.
What is the definition of real, as in real increases that are being bantered about?
Regards
Retard