Forces braced for more cuts .....

[golamv]

I haven't seen this posted on this site yet - although I may have missed it !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/

[The Old Fat One]

Reposted the link.

Forces braced for more cuts in defence cash squeeze (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/)

If anybody is remotely surprised by any of this, you gotta wonder what planet they have been living on for the last few years.

[Lima Juliet]

Not surprised at all. The mismanagement of the Defence Estate for one.

First of my allegations would be the Annington Homes debacle where we practically gave away our quarters and then they sold off the profitable ones where we needed them most - the end result is Defence paying for more families and single personnel living rented accommodation at taxpayers' cost plus the rest living in squalid and mouldy accommodation that is so poorly looked after (nothing wrong with the buildings they're just poorly maintained).

Second would be the sale of the MOD's "family jewells" where we sell up and move out into infrastucture that is more expensive than the sale price of what they have moved out of and it would have been cheaper to fix and maintain the old buildings than build new. The St Athan, Arborfield, Cosford, Sultan debacle coupled to the Brize debacle springs to mind - the receipts for the sale have been outstripped by nearly a factor of 100 compared to the builds. These are often VSO's vanity projects or 'legacies' that cost us dearly. The next looming on the horizon will be the sale of Henlow and Halton to save Cranwell - the buildings required for this are likely to cost over 1/2 a BILLION Pounds when the receipts for the sale of the other 2 stations will be less than a 1/10 of a BILLION. The numbers just do not add up and when the NAO look at this afterwards they will say "naughty MOD you did not get value for money" but it will be too late by then and no one will be held to account.

Other things wrong are Pay As You Dine where we pay small amounts for a 'core meal' and get what we pay for - awful food. Then where the profit is made from the a la carte stuff we end up making huge profits that are then shared with Stations as 'gainshare' - that's because we charge £1.05 for a can of Coke and then half of that profit goes back to the Station. We are ripping off our people to raise funds to be squandered by the Station on stuff.

Then there are the costs of staying in the Mess. When I stayed at Cranwell recently it cost me ~£2 a night. No wonder the Mess was falling apart and my bathroom mouldy. If I was charged a fiver or even a tenner I wouldn't grumble, but 2 quid is a joke.

Let's look at flying. The MAA has added huge expense to all areas pf flying aircraft. However, it has been applied disproportionately in my view. Trying to run a fleet of gliders (Vikings) or light aircraft (Tutors) under the same regime as a Typhoon or Chinook is just plain daft. I can fly a perfectly safe glider for £20 an hour and a light aircraft for £100 an hour under a perfectly safe civil airworthiness system - however you can multiply these figures by 10 for the glider and 5 for the light aircraft when operated by the military. Why do we insist on this worthless waste of cash by applying MAA rules to things so simple?

Then there are the regs surrounding things we do. Some military regs are not required by UK Law or to mirror civilian regs - so WTF are we doing them? Because some trumped up Staff Officer thought it would be a good idea, probably. The amount of time I hear 'the Boss will go to jail/court over this' - I usually reply 'on what basis...where is it written down that we can't do this in UK/Intl Law?'. Normally all I get is stunned silence.

Then there are the endless paperwork trails. You can be trusted with a £50M aircraft but not to claim 25p a mile motor mileage allowance without a certificate from the MT manager, your line manager and then an audit of your car insurance by accounts flight.

Why are the Scribblies still wearing uniform when some of our engineers, suppliers, air traffic controllers, pilots, MT personnel, chefs, cooks and bottlewashers are wearing Serco, Sodexho, Babcock, Cobham, VTAerospace or BAE polo shirts. I would have thought that civilianising scribblies and educators would have been the easiest to achieve. Also, the you only have to see them in their number ones to see how often they have deployed to sit in a nice comfy air conditioned portacabin dishing out dollars, laundry chits and pay statements!

Finally, PFIs and procurement. They are wide open to abuse. Either as a 'vanity project' for VSOs or aligning people for a nice cushy job in civvy street. Further political interference on what they want and what will 'be alright' for the military means that we get the equipment we don't really want for too much money. I did hear that we are all to get the L3 version of the SA-80 (L-85) soon - it is being refurbed by I believe Hechler & Kock at £2.7M for 5,000 weapons that will last until 2025. That's £540 each - we could buy new H&K weapons for about £200 more and they would last 20-25 years instead of 7!!

So to quote the next US President (whom I'm not a great fan of) that it's "time to drain the swamp". The answer will probably be to reduce manpower and lose more capability through so called 'holidays'.

So, no, it doesn't surprise me at all.

LJ

[SirToppamHat]

I am sure that the VSOs wiwll be looking forward to all your GEMs suggestions Leon!

[The Old Fat One]

TBH LJ, I was more "zoomed out" than that (not implying there is anything wrong with what you posted at all).

Cliffs:


The defence procurement in question was agreed by a leadership team (Cameron/Osborne) no longer at the helm.

It was part of a Government Spending Plan that has now been very publicly binned.

It was (in the eyes of many authoritative commentators) un-deliverable anyway.

It has been replaced by...who the **** knows?

The UK economy (and its ability to create wealth/spending power) is clouded in uncertainty.

All the US procurement related costs (eg P8) might* have just increased by 10-15%

[*might, because I'm not privvy to contractual small print on currency fluctuations]

Trump is throwing a cloud of uncertainty over a cloud of uncertainty (so a sort of uncertainty squared, if you will).

This is defense procurement people...where the words "on time and on budget" rarely co-exist.

Happy **** ing New Year.

[Martin the Martian]

Leon

:D:D:D

[Lima Juliet]

STH

Don't get me started on GEMS - I find that many VSOs don't like them as it's "not invented here". The disdain I saw a SNCO's GEMS rejected to solve the current basket case that is Air Cadet gliding, was just lamentable. We saw this as well when we tried to start fitting stuff to Tornado like we did on the Jag in the mid-nineties when it became a 'mature airframe'.

Until we fix the problem that we have the 5th biggest defence budget but the 9th strongest military (taken from the Military Strength Index - where the factors under consideration for military strength and their total weights are: number of active personnel in the army (5%), tanks (10%), attack helicopters (15%), aircraft (20%), aircraft carriers (25%), and submarines (25%)) then we have a significant problem with our own military. Too many vested interests and too much nepotism.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9/#17-poland-4

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

TOFO - I like 'zoomed in' as bigger picture can be talked away with spin and waffle! :ok:

On the procurement side in the past DE&S 'hedge' on the currency markets. I would surprised if it were costed below $1.40 and no more than $1.50. This is because if the contract purchase is completed with a better exchange rate then the Programme Manager gets a nice pat on the back (and a great annual report). So they are often pessimistic with the exchange rate to come in slightly under budget...sadly probably not this time.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

I forgot to add to my list of dissapointments this year and that was NEM. We, the RAF, sold out some of our techies (Armourers were a classic) and rear-crew, and just how the Officer cadre escaped being banded according to branch I'll never know. I suspect that it was run by a branch that new it would be on lower pay band and so managed to sneak it through.

As an officer I am ashamed that we were not looked at when the WO/SNCO/OR cadre were. :ugh:

Still it will probably need to be looked at again anyway as will the pensions that are all equally unaffordable at current rates. The current drain on trained manpower (the ones that take years to train rather than weeks) needs to be sorted, and that will only happen IMHO when the pay is balanced towards the pull of civvy street.

LJ

[BEagle]

More cuts?

Maybe it's just the Government's way of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the despicable 1957 Defence White Paper?

On GEMS, I once wrote a paper proposing that the planned VC10 JTIDS should use the aircraft's EGI system rather than the standalone GPS being proposed by the system designers. That would have saved £M, but all I received was a TY&PO letter - then years later the JTIDS and EGI were indeed linked much as I'd suggested...:ugh:

[Hangarshuffle]

I've got to say LJ's post is one of the best I've ever read on here.

[1771 DELETE]

Well said Leon but:
It was a lesson in history that has obviously continued in the 10 years i have been out and the 30 years i was in. Nothing has changed. No lessons learnt.
The RAF is still top heavy in senior and very senior managers, there are very few leaders and even fewer who are occasionally willing to say NO.
The poor quality in leadership was a prime factor on my decision to exit.

[langleybaston]

F*** me gently, President Putin, I will not, can not, resist.

[typerated]

I think we will be behind the $ and manpower drag curve for the foreseeable.

Two carriers, F-35s in sufficient numbers and escorts seems a million miles away from being achievable.

Trident replacement will be a big slice of a small pie - necessary or not!

The two extra squadrons of Typhoons are a minor miracle and we also have a fair few more Chinooks than we might need!

[Melchett01]

I pretty much agree with everything LJ said, other than the idea of civilianising / contractorising - we are a fighting force required to operate anywhere at any time, and that requires a fully uniformed force rather than half hearted Defence on the cheap - not a dig at individuals, but the concept. But LJ's points, whilst valid, are to my mind symptoms. I think the problem can be summed up in one question:

We have one of the largest economies in the world and one of the largest Defence budgets in the world: somebody in authority please explain just who is getting all the cash because it sure as hell isn't the front line Services.

We discussed the SDSR in a previous thread, and without checking, I'm pretty sure I suggested it was smoke and mirrors. The equipment budget was secured, but the personnel and operating budgets weren't. Why? Who on earth thinks that a military organization equipped with small numbers of exquisite platforms but lacking the manpower or funding to operate them on a daily basis is nothing but a paper tiger. But until VSOs, Mandarins and Politicians - of all cap badges, Ministries and political persuasions get that into their heads, failure - in the sense of a failed SDSR just 2 years after settlement - is the inevitable outcome.

So just where is all the cash going? We plainly can't afford all the platforms we need across the Services, so it's not going on excessive numbers there. And every unit I have been on for the past 15+ years has been engaged in cost cutting, a process which seems to do nothing other than prevent units from doing what they were actually set up to do. With ever reducing numbers of units, all of which are required to permanently reduce operating costs, someone needs to explain where this cost cutting finally stops. Manning has been decimated, if not literally then figuratively, and in conjunction with pay freezes and restraint it isn't going on wages. Coupled with a new personnel structure that is clearly focused on recruiting personnel on short term contracts rather than long term careers, then military pension liabilities should be stabilising if not reducing in the long term with the move to career average and as APFS 75 recipients numbers gradually decline.

Given that this controlled flight into terrain has been a constant theme under various governments, and using the term in its loosest sense, leadership, I can only assume there is a pan-party / service common theme. My initial inclination is to look at those in charge and conclude that they are at best second rate minds with limited grasp of the requirement for strategic thinking. I acknowledge that running a country or national level organisation isn't simple, but would suggest it is why those organisations are dominated by the supposedly intellectual elite and renumerated accordingly. However, it would explain the absolute shambles in many areas of government and the dubious handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. That would also explain why people seem to think that having a few examples of very high tech kit but insufficient numbers of personnel or the funding to operate them is the way ahead.

Until we get away from thinking based on short term gain at the expense of long term strategy we will never be in a position to develop a sustainable, well trained and motivated military. For now, the uncertainty created by this mismanagement comes at an unwelcome time in an increasingly uncertain world. I can't see Putin worrying unduly going into 2017.

[Random Bloke]

LJ, you missed out 2 of the other great money pits: Regional Prime Contracting where a single organisation gets to look after the estate and charge £350 to change a light bulb that the SWO's gang would do for nothing as part of their role. The second is the mandated use of HRG for travel and accommodation bookings. HRG regularly cost Defence much more than is necessary for these services. My last second-class return train fare to London cost £185 through HRG; I could have purchased a first-class return on the day for £45. Then there's air travel, which, by the time you've got 2* approval has trebled in cost. I am fed up of challenging these issues and being told that Defence gets a good deal. Well, somebody in Defence gets a good deal, or perhaps one of their relatives does.

[Chugalug2]

Leon:-
Let's look at flying. The MAA has added huge expense to all areas pf flying aircraft. However, it has been applied disproportionately in my view. Trying to run a fleet of gliders (Vikings) or light aircraft (Tutors) under the same regime as a Typhoon or Chinook is just plain daft. I can fly a perfectly safe glider for £20 an hour and a light aircraft for £100 an hour under a perfectly safe civil airworthiness system - however you can multiply these figures by 10 for the glider and 5 for the light aircraft when operated by the military. Why do we insist on this worthless waste of cash by applying MAA rules to things so simple?

The MAA is part of the problem and not a solution. The same VSOs that you rail against above are the reason that military aircraft fleets became unairworthy and why it is cheaper to scrap them than to return them to airworthiness. Ages ago, like when I was around, we had a silent dedicated army of skilled engineers such as our own tucumseh who ensured that the aircraft that I flew were airworthy when released to service and remained airworthy until finally withdrawn from service. Those dedicated engineers were replaced by unskilled non-engineers who were prepared to suborn the regs and thus make savings at the cost of safety. Those savings have long since expired and now the cost in blood and treasure continues in their place.

The Royal Air Force was designed as a uniformed bureaucracy outside of the station gates. Like the savings made by attacking Air Safety, those of the 1920s have long since turned to waste. Once the three Service ministries had been subsumed into Mountbatten's MOD, that bureaucracy headed by RAF VSOs has done for airworthiness and thus has almost done for the Royal Air Force.

Unless and until the Military Air Regulator and the Air Accident Investigator are made independent of the MOD, and of each other, there will be no change in that trend. The words chickens and roost come to mind...

[Four Turbo]

I spent 30+years flying in the RAF. In that time the number of likeable (or even pleasant) VSOs I met was remarkably small. I worked for an unpleasant one for two years. Meeting him socially 3 months later .. 'I know you from somewhere don't I?' Conversely my boss at a civvy airline remembered all about me and my family ten years later. I should have left years before I did.

[Heathrow Harry]

The vast bureacracy in itself costs money, and it costs even more as every step of the way there are investigations, studies, testing, discussions, consultations that take years and cost, cost , cost

I would be tempted to scrap the MoD top to bottom and see if anything got worse - I doubt it TBH

[Lima Juliet]

All - completely agree with ALL of your POVs. Sometimes I wonder where we go wrong and I think its because we skitter around ideas and never really commit to anything. The latest mantra from the Conceptual Component (which is a rather grand name for a 3-4 person think-tank) is "Thinking to Win" (T2W) - http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/28DBDA58_5056_A318_A8AA043B147E9F02.pdf
Whilst I believe the intent is right, we just don't have the numbers of people with the spare time to deliver much against this. The bright ideas that we keep coming up with belies the fact that we are only 31,000 strong that's trying to deliver what we used to do with 45,000. If T2W is really going to succeed then we need to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and that means more trust in the basics - why on earth do we need 2-star approval for a £100 EasyJet flight to Inverness for a staff visit to Lossie when to drive for a 1/2 day visit will be a 3-day extravaganza in an MT vehicle? If I didn't have to chase the paperwork to justify this then I might spend the 1-2hrs on prepping for the visit or doing more ASIMS analysis. It also means taking the glaringly obvious solution. The idiotic estimate process taught at the so called "College of Knowledge" at Shriv is another excuse for weak minds with low levels of expertise - someone with experience in that particular field being 'estimated' knows the answer in seconds! Also, as Melchy pointed out we seem to be encouraging shorter careers which means that our Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) turn into SQePs or even SQPs where the experience is non-existent. We saw this with the creation of the Flt Ops branch where ops rooms used to be filled with the 'old and bold' aviators/ATCOs/Engs but now is filled with Flt Ops personnel that are suitably qualified but have very little first-hand experience relevant to the actual operational task. That's not their fault, it's just that a 14 week course is never going to give the E in SQEP. Then these individuals end up working in diverse posts ranging from SFSOs to the Aerodrome Operator with few ever having the experience of being an operator. A similar issue has happened in Chug's area of concern where SQEPs have been thinned out to an alarming level. When you lose the E in SQEP you lose sound balanced judgement and qualifications alone will not give you that.

When we consider SQEP this extract from the Flt Ops webpage really worries me:
The Flight Operations specialisation is still very much in its infancy. Nevertheless, graduates have already made positive impressions in the ops rooms to which they have been posted. The successful transition to having ops rooms run by professional ops officers has meant that 350 more posts have recently been transferred from the GD (Air) branch to the Flt Ops specialisation.
Because it echoes this from Chug's post:
Ages ago, like when I was around, we had a silent dedicated army of skilled engineers such as our own tucumseh who ensured that the aircraft that I flew were airworthy when released to service and remained airworthy until finally withdrawn from service. Those dedicated engineers were replaced by unskilled non-engineers who were prepared to suborn the regs and thus make savings at the cost of safety.


Further, the 'Whole Force' appears equally flawed. Until we actually start treating Regular, Reserve, Civil Service (CS) and Contractor in the same manner it will always be a 'Divided Force' - this means allowing our contractors and CS to do the other stuff that we do such as secondary duties, ceremonial events, sports activities, community work, etc... These cost us next to nothing but allow the CS and contractors to feel more included. However, if we pay them JNCO wages then really we should only be giving them responsibilities at that level; otherwise you will be attracting quite a few individuals who perform at the level that you pay them. The old "quality vs quantity" comes into play here and I would rather have a one good individual paid twice as much as having two mediocre individuals.

Now you may be thinking "LJ why don't you just leave?". In answer to that is I believe that is the cowards way out and as many of my friends are now reaching the dizzying heights of 1, 2 and even 3 star then I hope that a discussion over a beer or coffee may bear some fruit in the future. If we all do our bit in a respectful manner with old mates then we may be able to influence a brighter future.

LJ

[downsizer]

The OF5 I work for continually talks at us to say how CASs top priority is his people. Has anyone seen any evidence of this yet? I haven't!

[Chugalug2]

Leon, with respect (and that isn't just a throw away line) the only way that you can change things is to become one of the VSOs that you mention. Change will only happen from top down (unless a Colonel's Coup happens!). Every VSO appointment that has been welcomed in this forum has not produced a change in the downward decline that we are all so painfully aware of. I suspect that the reform (or even scrapping, as HH recommends) of the MOD (and indeed perhaps of the Royal Air Force itself) will only happen as a result of Government action. We are left to the tender mercies of the politicians to lance this boil. It won't be tender at all I'm afraid, but the waste must stop and the Defence of the Realm assured.

In the meantime don't beat yourself up by staying in, thinking that change can come from respectful discussions over sippers. It won't in my view. I took the "coward's way out" by PVRing years ago. I've never regretted it and feel that more can be done from outside anyway.

Sorry to be so blunt, but too many good people have been trampled on by trying to defy these cretins and losing their health and peace of mind as a result.

[Lima Juliet]

Chug

No offence taken at all and my 'coward' term was more metaphoric.

If we look at the 'marginal gains' mantra then I beg to differ on the thrust of your post. In the past I have managed to reverse some pretty dumb decisions through careful politicking some old bosses at even 4-star level. I haven't won them all, but I like to think that they have made a difference (maybe I'm in denial !!). My litmus test is to consider how much worse it would be if I had not managed to manoeuvre my POV (or a collective one from amongst peers). One of the wins means that we can continue to carry over up to 15 days of leave each year; which came perilously close to being binned ~8 years ago after someone's bright idea. One of the failures was the reversal of the decision to rusticate Group HQ posts to Force HQs - howver, I see that some of the posts have been re-established at HQ Air in a semi-reversal. So was the dissolution of the Inspectorate of Flight Safety - now we have the RAF Safety Centre again then things are improving. The sad thing is, as per my previous post, the OF-2, 3, 4 and 5s as SQEPs could all see that it would was doomed to fail but were powerless to stop the vanity project that became the Defence Aviation Safety Centre (DASC). Now 15 years down the line we have a RAF Safety Centre, Air Clues and even Pilot Officer Prune back. :ok:

I also opine that the chances of MOD being scrapped is next to nil, as turkeys don't vote for Christmas! :ok:

LJ

[Chugalug2]

Never say never! The MOD is not known as the Ministry of Waste for nothing. The results of such incompetence are well known and seriously compromise governments of all hues. It is quite likely that the manifesto of a "populist" party will include major surgery of such Departments of State. Everything is possible and the experts seem to be caught out time and time again. Of course the MOD turkey won't go for it, but if a mandate to its reform is in the hands of a new PM then game on.

I see your MO now, a thousand mile march and all that. Well, all very good, but I make the point that the success gained can be lost at a stroke, just as airworthiness, IFS, etc was. Somehow the interests of the Services must be paramount. I strongly suggest that they are not under present arrangements. Airworthiness is obviously a pre-requisite of any Air Force, for one that goes to war ridden with unairworthiness is doomed. That is what happened to the RAF, and it was done by RAF VSOs in the MOD. That cannot happen again, it must be prevented from happening again.

That is why we need a Separate and Independent Regulator. That is how Flight Safety is supposed to work, ie find out what went wrong and take action to prevent a recurrence. Not a lesson understood by the MOD or the RAF High Command, I fear.

:(

[Davef68]

We have one of the largest economies in the world and one of the largest Defence budgets in the world: somebody in authority please explain just who is getting all the cash because it sure as hell isn't the front line Services.
>
>
>
The equipment budget was secured, but the personnel and operating budgets weren't. Why?

I think the second part answers the question in the first and vice versa.


The cynic would suggest those in authority keeping their friends in industry sweet, and lining up all those nice retirement directorships and consultancies.

And spending on shiny equipment always makes better headlines than spending on fuel, food, clothing, accomodation etc

[typerated]

D68 and Mel,

I think the universal lesson that gear takes far longer to develop and is far more expensive each generation is only superficially understood.

Effectively the military has negative growth (set against rising costs) and the compounding effect of this is ignored (by the MOD, politicians and the military themselves) - it partly comes out in the squeeze on personnel when the budget does not work.

Our response to this is like an untrained glider pilot getting low on final: we pull the stick back a bit and the aircraft (momentarily) appears as if it will make the runway - a short time later the same process is done. If you keep doing this after a while this it all gets much more interesting - quickly!

It is not only us though - one to watch in the future is the USAF. Think what they have bought in the last 20 years - bugger all! Well OK 100 and something F-22s that they could not afford!

Over the next decade they want lots of F-35s, tankers, T-X Trainers, a new bomber and apparently new ICBM's - and want them all now because they should have done all this earlier and the current gear is out of date and expensive to run. Something is going to give. I imagine there is a fair chance they will try to do it all in parallel, bit funding all these programs while trying to maintain current strength - see glider comments above!

[Brian W May]

Having ploughed my way through that lot I have a couple of questions.

Who gets the tommy gun and which five of us get a rifle to carry Captain Mainwaring?

Strewth . . . I left in 94 because I'd had enough of the results of rampant bean-counting . . .

[Heathrow Harry]

"The universal lesson that gear takes far longer to develop and is far more expensive each generation is only superficially understood."

But should it? Perhaps 70+ years of peace have led to a lack of drive to bring useful kit into service quickly - there is a strong tendency to spin things out, aim for perfection, test and train for years all of which is eating us alive.

We can all think of systems & kit that was rushed into service in an emergency, peformed reasonably well and then went back into the System for several further years before being finally released for service.

[tucumseh]

I think the universal lesson that gear takes far longer to develop and is far more expensive each generation is only superficially understood.

Effectively the military has negative growth (set against rising costs) and the compounding effect of this is ignored (by the MOD, politicians and the military themselves) - it partly comes out in the squeeze on personnel when the budget does not work.

You are correct. It has to be 15 years, but certainly no more than 18, since we stopped getting funding rises in line with DTI Indices. That is, a DTI Index for Aviation spares inflation might be 11% per annum, yet general inflation 5%, so your LTC lines would increase by 11% (on contracts priced accordingly). One also needed to understand the associated adage "Firm is fixed, and fixed is variable". In the intervening years, how often has the Defence budget risen by inflation? Most years it is a cut in real terms. Clearly, you can, and do, get situations whereby one year you are dead on budget, costs can actually reduce due to efficiency, yet you require more money the next year. And this is never mentioned by those who scream "over budget", without asking if we're paying a fair and reasonable price. Of course, this never happens now, because MoD says it doesn't!

somebody in authority please explain just who is getting all the cash because it sure as hell isn't the front line Services.

I'm not in authority, but I shiver thinking about the fixed payments we have to fork out every year on PFI, before DE&S sees a penny. We've had over 20 years of that and MoD is not the only Dept of State in a hole. I don't know how they're priced, but I know my contracts man in 1996 went on a half day seminar, was thoroughly dazed and confused, and probably got taken to the cleaners. And he was perhaps the best I ever knew.

[Easy Street]

I think some here over-estimate the extent to which VSOs (and even the MOD ministers) have control over the really big decisions. So many of the constraints under which they operate originate from the very top levels of Government: Treasury, Cabinet Office and Number 10. Budgeting and procurement rules, manpower caps, politically-sensitive basing decisions and big-ticket investments are just some of the most obvious items over which even the most influential MOD ministers and 4* can struggle to gain any traction against the machinations of the mandarins on the opposite side of Whitehall.

Two examples from the last SDSR - a regular Army of 80,000 and P-8 to Lossiemouth. Neither asked for by the MOD and both insisted upon by the PM. If you really want to change things, you shouldn't aim to become a VSO as you will always be regarded by the key decision-makers as representing a special interest group. Better to be near the top of one of the aforementioned departments, or, sad to say, influencing the political context in which the big decisions are taken by writing agenda-setting pieces as an "independent" journalist, academic or policy wonk. Like it or not, this is how Government seems to work.

Edited to add: this is not to say that VSOs cannot achieve anything. But they often don't have a hand on the tiller and are reduced to attempting to influence those who do, or attempting to influence whichever journalists and academics are in fashion with the Government's inner circle.

[tucumseh]

Easy Street

In my youth this used to be called Long Term Costings 1st/2nd/3rd Order Assumptions.

1st - Government decrees there will be an Air Force and, as you say, what big ticket platforms it will have, where they will be, what they will do and how many you get to do it. This can seldom be reconciled, so immediately there is a problem.

2nd - What may still be called Resources and Programmes in Main Building push out slightly more detailed requirements, which is mainly making the best sense possible out of the 1sts. Such as, Squadron strengths, what flying rate can be afforded, roles, what kit it aspires to in each aircraft, fit policies, aircraft establishments, etc. DEC, seen as plebs by R&P, will push out Staff Requirements.

3rd - Service HQ staff (now called Requirements Managers - who are required to be engineers) try to make sense of the 2nds, do the detailed work on equipment specs (tarting up the SRs), quantify, cost it up (nope, procurers don't do that at this point), make the financial provision (bids in the next LTC round) and generally staff the requirement through LTC screening rounds. They compile the "shopping list" for procurers. I'm a civilian, and this is something you do before being promoted into procurement, but I admit I always considered it a higher level job; so always had sympathy for OR/DEC.

Then, and only then, do procurers find out what they have to buy; although they'll have an idea if they've stuck their noses in earlier, or been given the heads up. Then reality kicks in.

Different structure today, but from a procurer's viewpoint the end result is still the same. In my experience, the last time any Service actually quantified a requirement was 1993. (The FAA, and only then, on SK sonics). To cost, one must first quantify. Every project I managed after that, the requirement was only traceable to my own opinion on what they needed. That makes any such project a high priority target for Treasury cuts, and you seem to send half your time defending programmes on behalf of the Services. I imagine many in DE&S will still recognise this. Many will recall Bernard Gray's report for the last Labour government, before he became Chief of Defence Materiel under the Coalition. I'm not sure how many twigged that he actually recommended a return to this system, although I suspect he didn't actually realise he was quoting what, in theory, is still a mandated policy. (During his tenure, he developed a habit of resurrecting old policies and proposing them in his own name - GOCO for example - but I'd guess that this was actually his young thrusters digging through the rejected suggestions file).

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/jon-thompson--3

It's non-entities like this who are actually in charge. This thread makes me weep.

WWW

[tucumseh]

WWW

You'll have your reasons for pointing to one man. I notice he was a previous DG (Finance) (a 2 Star). I recall, in 1996, one of his predecessors telling us at a course, where he was a speaker, that AbbeyWood (due to be occupied that year) didn't need much car parking because "It's being built by 3000 Irish navvies and they don't need cars". The Irish among us jumped, but his gormless platitudes were typical I'm afraid. A few years later, in 2002, one of his underlings, Director Finance in AbbeyWood, told me she'd just endorsed about £12M to further fund the Integration Authority so it could employ 63 more staff and undertake a 3 year study to find out what this new thing called "systems integration" was. I started to tell her that aircraft didn't fly without systems integration, so someone must know, but it was a waste of time. Her initiative had raised her profile, so she was off to the office of #10. No, you can't make this up.

[Heathrow Harry]

Tucs story is a great example of where it all goes wrong and where the $$$ disapear into a black hole

No-one would ever know about it outside the immediate group involved and since there was no "product" it wouldn't bother anyone either. The cheerful 63 staff were paid, the DF got her promotion and all is well with the world - no nasty headlines, no-one in danger just the drip, drip, drip, drip of taxpayers money going down the drain

Until we find a way of holding people to account it will go on and on....................

[Shackman]

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
And I polished up the handle of the big front door.......................

I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

No change since G & S then.

[tucumseh]

no-one in danger just the drip, drip, drip, dripI'm afraid it didn't stop there. Unlike me, but I made a fuss. A 2 Star (DPA XD5) spoke to me and I told him systems integration was the basis of functional safety, and he would be doing aircrew a favour if he demanded that Tornado IFF systems be checked for correct warning failure integration. He laughed in my face and declined. The following year, after ZG710 was shot down, the Senior Reviewing Officer Sir Brian Burridge confirmed in the BoI report that the "accident" would have been avoided had the IFF been integrated properly. Of course he hadn't been told that the problem had been identified, reported and ignored. Two lives lost, which one cannot put a price on, and a bit of kit lost that cost a few bob.

[Lima Juliet]

Tuc

To digress, the loss of ZG710 wasn't just Mode 4 IFF, it was classic Prof Reason's "Swiss Cheese". If I recall correctly the Patriot identified the Tornado as an Anti Radiation Missile and that the IFF probably never worked properly for the whole flight but no-one was checking it. The Inquiry reported:

The Board concluded that the following were contributory factors: Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile classification criteria; Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile Rules Of Engagement; Patriot firing doctrine and crew training; Autonomous Patriot battery operation; Patriot IFF procedures; ZG710’s IFF serviceability; aircraft routing and airspace control measures, and Orders and Instructions.

I have many operational flying hours using the very same Mode 4 IFF without issue. However, I knew that the Mode 4 codes could be dropped and so would always ask for a positive check of it from the AWACS, Aegis class ship or GCI station before going 'sausage side'. Also, I would get a positive check of it before returning back through the Patriot arcs. This was something many of us were doing nearly 10 years before this tragic accident. Quite why this practice was allowed to fall by the wayside is one of the questions I asked at the time. I suspect it was complacency that crept in and sadly cost a crew their lives. Was the Mode 4 'fit for purpose'? I believe it was if you knew it's limitations, but it could have been better - but then so could most things if we had an infinate pot of money! The Mode 4 did have a means of checking it was functioning, you just had to ask someone!

LJ

[Heathrow Harry]

just read this weeks Flight - the German airforce are going to take 3 years to test their newly delivered helicopters which are pretty much identical to ones in service elsewhere

and up to 100 hours of testing required!

with 2 airframes that averages 15 hours A YEAR.... obviously we're not the only ones with drip, drip, drip issues

[tucumseh]

Leon

What you say is of course correct. One could write a book, but my point is that the senior RO said the accident would have been avoided had the IFF integration been implemented correctly, and senior staff were demonstrably forewarned. Had this defence been intact, then the holes wouldn't have lined up. (That the other holes were enlarged is another matter - I chose to use IFF as an example as I was indirectly involved). No defence is 100% effective, which is why the ones you list are provided/required. But these defences are not there to compensate for 2 Stars giving the big FO to staff who point out flat refusal to ensure functional safety, and that others have made false declarations that it has been achieved - as staff were instructed to do by the 2 Star's colleague, XD1.

What I'd like to know, and MoD won't address, is why it took the senior RO to identify the detailed failings. Why did the Board and other ROs fail to? And what end-to-end testing took place? Sir Brian didn't mention the precise phrase, but that is what he meant. Was the correct 1st line test equipment available? The report mentions an ad hoc approach by Rapier Batteries, and a ground test which is definitely not end-to-end, and cleary didn't test failure modes.

[Lima Juliet]

Tuc

I agree and if I recall correctly the Mode 4 was originally an UOR fitment for GRANBY some 12 years previous. Also, if I recall correctly Successor IFF (SIFF) with Mode S and Modes 1-4 did have this failure mode embodied shortly after the accident. As you say, some holes in the cheese were bigger than others! :sad:

I think you hint at a valid point that Suitably Qualified and Experience Personnel (SQEP) is what we need accross the board to bung up some of the holes in the cheese. Unfortunately, this comes around to the start of the thread - we have more and more SQeP and SQP personnel in posts with life-or-death responsibilities and so things won't get any better until we "drain that swamp" and start investing in our people again.

HNY

LJ

[tucumseh]

Leon

I saw your earlier comment about SQEP and SQeP! Couldn't agree more. Interestingly, MoD has always refused to define "Experienced". It did define "inexperience" however, back in about 1997. For example, managing, not just working on, 120 projects is not sufficient to warrant any promotion in (at the time) MoD(PE). Same XD1 2 Star, when he was DGAS2. An MP wrote to Minister and asked how many in AbbeyWood satisfied that criteria (asked in the context of another fatal accident, where a non-technical officer had overruled a safety critical design decision, leaving the aircraft unsafe). MoD refused to reply.

[Martin the Martian]

You're all wrong. Michael Fallon has declared 2017 as the Year of the Royal Navy:

New ships for Royal Navy as Britain enters new era of maritime power | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748891/New-ships-British-Royal-Navy-country-enters-new-era-maritime-power-Sir-Michael-Fallon)

Presumably the RAF and the Army will be disbanded so that it can all be afforded.

[A and C]

Can't you all see the money needs to be saved to pay for the lawyers who are digging around in the past to try to prosecute ex members of the armed forces................ it's a very lucrative business I'm told.

[Lima Juliet]

^^^Reference the Express link above

What utter drivel. I thought we were making a law about peddling so-called fake news? There is no announcement about any new ships (all the ones mentioned were ordered ages ago), the Merlin Crowsnest is hardly going to project power and the so-called top secret detection array is so hush-hush in its submarine detection capability that we have released its capabilities in a newspaper!

If that's the best we can peddle as a positive story then how about making some savings in the various media and comms departments...

Happy New Year

LJ

[Heathrow Harry]

Put out so they can refer to their "previous statement of our enhanced capabilities"

Pure b*******

[Chugalug2]

Leon:-
things won't get any better until we "drain that swamp" and start investing in our people again.

Amen to that, but I would reiterate that the "Swamp" was created by RAF VSOs deliberately breaching the dykes that protected UK Military Air Safety (ie its ring fenced budget), ordering the suborning of the regs, and ridding themselves of all those skilled and experienced Engineers (ie the SQEPs that you mention) who would not comply. The RAF and the MOD have to acknowledge that happened, and ensure (by making the UK Military Air Regulator and Air Accident Investigator independent of the MOD and of each other) that it cannot happen again. No amount of "draining" will ensure that, for the swamp will merely return at the whim of some ambitious VSO(s), of which there is no shortage.

[tucumseh]

the Merlin Crowsnest is hardly going to project power

I'd be interested to know just how much duplication of effort (waste) has occurred here. If one were to dig out the drawings presented at the 1994 bidders' conference for AEW Radar System Upgrade, one would see a helicopter that looked remarkably like a Merlin. It was the only compliant bid and won the competition by a mile.

[Wyler]

It is a complete and utter farce. There are several 'evaluations' going on in tandem and the the parties involved do not seem to be talking to each other. You have 22Gp trying to consolidate Phase 2 Trg establishments but 1Gp is also trying to trim real estate whilst maintaining output. There are several areas of commonality yet they are working in almost complete isolation of each other.
I have had to sit through 3 presentations that have highlighted a complete lack of joined up thinking, specialist knowledge and an absence of Leadership.
The RAF is being treated like a Company and it is being run by Managers. We ceased to be a credible fighting force a long time ago and we now seem to be on a headlong descent into Global irrelevance.
If Trump starts to ease away from NATO we are well and truly screwed.

[Melchett01]

The RAF is being treated like a Company and it is being run by Managers. We ceased to be a credible fighting force a long time ago and we now seem to be on a headlong descent into Global irrelevance

Returning to the PPRuNe frey after Christmas and it makes for pretty depressing reading. I think Wyler hit the nail firmly on the head with this observation, and it's most definitely for the worst as it has turned what for many of us when we joined far too long ago was a calling and a way of life into a job. By running it as a business with a bottom line, people just see it as another job in a long term career and will either walk when the job ceases to hold any attraction or will just view it as a 9-5 job forgetting what we are actually here for i.e. the goodwill tank that we rely on to compensate the lack of investment and sees people going above and beyond is now empty. If that sounds harsh, some of the Pain & Grief statements I've read in recent years about why people can't deploy would either make you laugh or cry depending on your outlook - my girlfriend can't drive and it will disrupt my property management business being 2 of the more memorable ones - really do point towards the lack of high level commitment having a corrosive effect right through the organization.

Incidentally, if we were a company with a bottom line, would we be bankrupt or subject to take over?

[Wyler]

Funnily enough one of the presentations I sat through covered the subject of experience and long term commitment. Basically, the RAF is gearing up to provide lots of choice, the ability to change stream completely at certain points and an acceptance that it is a short term job for most.
I have a certain amount of sympathy as it does in a way just reflect today's society but, on the other hand, it is also indicative of the RAF's passion to be a'trend setter' and socially aware.
Either way we will soon be like a lot of our European allies: wear civvies to work, no messes, no SFA and (god forbid) wear a hairnet.....

[Heathrow Harry]

"The RAF is being treated like a Company and it is being run by Managers."

Because we can't think of any other way to run anything.

Exactly what you'd expect when neither the Civil Service nor the politicians have any experience of all-out war. Even those who didn't serve had family members who did - or neighbours or friends. It's now 72 years since WW2 and nearly 60 since National Service was abolished - there is absolutely no national understanding of what is required by the Armed Forces and those who serve in them - just more management speak that comes straight from an MBA course or the latest self-help book.

[alfred_the_great]

Funnily enough one of the presentations I sat through covered the subject of experience and long term commitment. Basically, the RAF is gearing up to provide lots of choice, the ability to change stream completely at certain points and an acceptance that it is a short term job for most.
I have a certain amount of sympathy as it does in a way just reflect today's society but, on the other hand, it is also indicative of the RAF's passion to be a'trend setter' and socially aware.
Either way we will soon be like a lot of our European allies: wear civvies to work, no messes, no SFA and (god forbid) wear a hairnet.....
That's because it is a short term job for most. I doubt the average length of Service in the RAF is much beyond 5 or 6 years.

[downsizer]

ATG

Figures I saw recently put it at 12yrs.

[superplum]

I wonder how much my 40yrs influenced those averages?

[downsizer]

I think the average will drop over the next decade or so; as what little sweeteners to counterbalance the less palatable elements are further eroded.

[The B Word]

In 2015 the average length of service in 2015 for the AFPS presentation was 9 years overall. Big spikes at 4years and 22 years.

https://s23.postimg.org/lnip7ehd7/IMG_0822.png

Although that is for ALL Armed Forces, for the RAF the intake/outflow from the same figures look like:

https://s23.postimg.org/5x2pysjln/IMG_0823.png

So the spike is still around 6-9 years

[skippedonce]

Incidentally, if we were a company with a bottom line, would we be bankrupt or subject to take over?

What's the value of junk bonds?

[Whenurhappy]

The first time I encountered SQEP was when I audited nuclear matters at HMNB Clyde in the 1990s. Fast forward to c 1998 and I introduced the term in what became part of the H-C report. I was called in by a fierce ACAS of the time (Timmo) and asked, in an extremely peremptory manner, to 'define' SQEP.

[dervish]

I was called in by a fierce ACAS of the time (Timmo) and asked, in an extremely peremptory manner, to 'define' SQEP.

Is that the same officer who became head of MAA? No conflict of interest there then.

[Heathrow Harry]

Maybe, like B&Q, the RAF should hire people over 55..............................

[Melchett01]

I don't often go on the RAF website, but have just noticed this as one of the 3 elements that make up the RAF's contribution to Defence's vision. Really? Seriously?

Looks like Wyler's comments were more accurate than any of us might wish. What next, shareholder meetings, a stock market listing, CAS fired for failing to generate a return on capital employed in excess of 10%? And I only pick that specific number as the city maverick Terry Smith describes any company with a return of less than 10% as destroying investor value. If it's listed as part of the RAF's contribution to defence of the nation then do we need to start measuring it?

I'm very much for financial responsibility and abhor waste and frivolous spending, but when a fighting force lists maximising return on investments as a primary element of how it delivers security to the nation, something is very very wrong in the conceptual component.

[MSOCS]

Melchett, agree. However, can you blame the RAF's public website for stating what many taxpayers seem to constantly bemoan in this day and age? Gone are the days where Defence is given their annual stipend from the Treasury and left to manage it. Perhaps we can blame modern society, whereby every armchair critic is seemingly entitled to constant online appeasement.

[Heathrow Harry]

the trouble was they couldn't manage their annual stipend and had to keep going back to the well for more money - and thus lost control.............

[glad rag]

the trouble was they couldn't manage their annual stipend and had to keep going back to the well for more money - and thus lost control.............
...to the corporations and their corporate apparatchiks...

[superplum]

Maybe, like B&Q, the RAF should hire people over 55..............................
They do - FTRS (worked for me!).

[Lyneham Lad]

Another £500m under threat... (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/navy-battling-to-save-500m-after-bungled-deal-for-ships-8wwwjxcxt?shareToken=aebf64394cf6e0e7755837a240bc6640)

Snip:-
The Royal Navy is scrambling to save an extra £500 million over the next two months after wasting money on ships it did not need because of a bungled procurement deal.

Contracts with BAE Systems for five offshore patrol vessels are the legacy of poor negotiations by the Ministry of Defence and mean that navy chiefs must find new savings to balance the books, defence sources said.

Options include cutting the size of the Royal Marines, mothballing one of two new aircraft carriers and even asking the army to pay for “soldier-like” jobs performed by marines, such as guarding naval sites.

A failure to meet the £500 million shortfall in the annual budget will mean that the army, Royal Air Force and Joint Forces Command, a relatively new branch of the armed forces, will be asked to bail the navy out.

[Corporal Clott]

A failure to meet the £500 million shortfall in the annual budget will mean that the army, Royal Air Force and Joint Forces Command, a relatively new branch of the armed forces, will be asked to bail the navy out

Guess what, the planned Project/Program PORTAL of moving RAF recruit training from RAF Halton to RAFC Cranwell costs about that. Saving made, job done, simples!

CPL Clott

[Melchett01]

And tucked away later on in the same Times article

Three of the five offshore patrol vessels were ordered in 2014, with an updated order last year, because the MoD is committed to spending £230 million a year on protecting shipbuilding capability by helping BAE Systems keep shipyards in Scotland open regardless whether ships are built.

So, back to my question about why the Services, and more to the point we on the front line, have to include financial responsibility as part of our contribution to Defence when there is a rather strong whiff of politics involved in the shortage of cash in front line units.

[Not_a_boffin]

There's less of a whiff of politics than you might think. The ToBA was intended to maintain an onshore ship design and build capability. That it happens to be in Scotland - specifically the Clyde - is more an accident of history than deliberate politicking. In any case, the contractual imperative to buy the OPV is partly due to the failure to order T26 - some of which is down to the inability of service staff to make decisions, rather than the CS blamestorm implied in the Times article. What is really driving this is - of course - the near years budget profile in the SDSR15 settlement, rather than any contractual failure.

This is just another round of ABC jockeying / preparation.

[ricardian]

It would appear that there is a shortage of personnel at Lossiemouth (http://www.insidemoray.com/ex-raf-encouraged-to-don-the-uniform-and-help-out/)

RAF Lossiemouth has been selected as a trial unit for a new ‘Base Support Group’ concept, which is being developed as a means where ex-RAF personnel can remain involved in the service.

I wonder if my 12 years service (1961-73) would make me eligible? I suspect that my age (73) would be against me

[pr00ne]

Is this a re-invention of the General Duties Flight?

Wonder what appetite there will be for barbed wiring parties and the like?

[The Nip]

Well that is also happening at RAF Cranwell.

[Finningley Boy]

Looks like Wyler's comments were more accurate than any of us might wish. What next, shareholder meetings, a stock market listing, CAS fired for failing to generate a return on capital employed in excess of 10%? And I only pick that specific number as the city maverick Terry Smith describes any company with a return of less than 10% as destroying investor value. If it's listed as part of the RAF's contribution to defence of the nation then do we need to start measuring it?


Melchett 01

So does this mean that if the RAF continues to lose money someone could be brought in from abroad, another company... say Deutsche Telecom or something... or just a more successful business, say BT or Yodel to replace the Sir Stephen Hillier, for example?:confused:

FB:)

[Heathrow Harry]

we do it already - Gurkas. Fijians, US Coast Guard engineers...............

[LincsFM]

I wonder what % of the RAF is now FTRS? From the amount of job adverts i've seen I'd guess it's a figuire that is only going to get higher every year!

[Biggus]

I thought I read somewhere that FTRS personnel don't count towards the manpower ceiling.

So if the RAF is limited to say 31,000, then you could have an actual strength of 35,000 if you have 4,000 FTRS.

No doubt someone better informed will correct his statement shortly!!

[Lima Juliet]

On 1 Apr 15 there were 690 FTRS(FC/LC/HC) personnel. Source page 8 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/426880/QPR_Apr2015.pdf

no more than an extra 150-200 generated since then.

[Lima Juliet]

Just found it is 880 on 1 Dec 16 - see table 2c here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584260/Monthly_Service_Personnel_Statistics_1December16.xlsx

[ORAC]

Army fights for future as pledge on troop numbers is abandoned (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/army-fights-for-future-as-pledge-on-troop-numbers-is-abandoned-xxmxsc9qt)

Officers are preparing to reduce the size of the army to as little as 65,000 after the Conservatives dropped a pledge to maintain the force at its target of 82,000, The Times understands. Options being considered within the military include reducing the army by 17,000 personnel to less than two thirds of the size of the French army and only slightly bigger than Germany’s land force, according to two defence sources. A third source said that “contingency plans” were being prepared in case the army was cut to 60,000 or 70,000. Officials were even asked this year to consider the implications of a full-time army of as few as 55,000, although officers believe this is unlikely.

A reduction of at least 2,000 personnel is almost inevitable as military chiefs and civil servants grapple with a funding hole in the defence budget of at least £10 billion over ten years........

A Conservative pledge to retain an army of at least 82,000 is absent from Theresa May’s manifesto. Instead the Tories broadly commit to maintaining “the overall size of the armed forces”. This means that a reduction in soldiers could be offset by an increase in the navy and RAF, which are struggling to man ships and aircraft. A Whitehall source said that such a calculation “is too simple a way of thinking”. Money saved within the army budget should be ploughed back into the army, he said......

“They are having to think the unthinkable,” a defence source said about the ideas being floated among officials to balance the budget. “Options are being socialised — they are socialised, informally briefed, written down and then formally briefed,” he said. Small teams have been told to prepare to work with the Cabinet Office on any post-election defence review, described as likely to be a “new chapter” to the last strategic defence and security review, conducted in 2015.

The political imperative to retain the army at a certain size on paper had become a shackle because there was insufficient money to equip and support a force of 82,000, sources said. Certain jobs in the logistics chain could be contracted out to the private sector, reducing manpower without affecting fighting capability and more use could also be made of the Army Reserve, they said........

An MoD spokesman said: “There are no plans to reduce the size of the armed forces.”

[Pontius Navigator]

I heard Corbyn say we need more . . .

Very true, he just didn't say he would.

[Melchett01]

At the risk of being Joint on an Air thread, if correct and not just the usual left of arc worst case scenario to make the intended proposition seem appealing, it's seems to be a major risk. A brave move as Sir Humphrey might suggest.

At a time we are trying to persuade the rest of NATO to invest more, this sends the wrong message to NATO partners and likely only serves encourages Putin's opportunism. In case Govt hadn't noticed, state on state is back, and the effective power projection mention in the Tory manifesto requires full spectrum capabilities. Unless we're now teaching well drilling, and outreach on the Platoon Comd's Battle Course because all we've got left in uniform are fighting troops and BAe aren't interested in outreach and village stability programmes in the Sahel.

And to say you can contractorise support elements without damaging fighting power is naive and shows a complete lack of awareness. The 'teeth arms' of any force are only as effective as their support enables them to be. We've seen time and again we have no appetite to pay for contractor support beyond the bare minimum. This will only end in tears, and to think we would see any reinvestment back in the RAF and RN is just fanciful.

It looks like we're in for an autumn of infighting and divide and conquer courtesy of May et al. From a promising opening speech on the steps of Downing Street, I fear she has shown herself to be a second rate PM supported by third rate minds.

[KPax]

I wasn't expecting to see this picture in the national press, I bet there are a lot of politicians who didn't want it either, go get them.

[Harley Quinn]

Whoever gets in, cuts to numbers will look bad at a time when the threat level is raised and the Army are being deployed alongside the Police as a reaction to terrorist incidents.

Agreed, however cuts are inevitable: not to the coppers on the beat (and rightly so) but I'm struggling to see how the QE, and it's attendant escorts and aircraft are going to be seen in helping defeat the home-grown gen2 and 3 suicide bombers and I think the public will have the same doubts. I suspect some big capital programs will be in danger.

[Melchett01]

Agreed, however cuts are inevitable: not to the coppers on the beat (and rightly so) but I'm struggling to see how the QE, and it's attendant escorts and aircraft are going to be seen in helping defeat the home-grown gen2 and 3 suicide bombers and I think the public will have the same doubts. I suspect some big capital programs will be in danger.

You're probably right, but any half intelligent politician would realise that political visuals and messaging aside, the current threat environment dictates a balanced capability able to deal with both state and non-state threats. The way things are now suggests no cuts at all if we are to remain able to effectively deal with the current risks. Looking forwards rather than backwards, I can see things only getting worse which would necessitate an increase in defence and security spending rather than a decrease, or as you suggest, trading one for the other to deal with both domestic security, upstream threats and traditional state level threats.

No votes in defence? Not any more; you only have to listen to the emphasis (and tone) given to security when JC was questioned in the recent leaders debate.

[Hangarshuffle]

1. Sack Fallon after the election because (a)he looks too old and is very puffy pink faced and (b) he's gaff prone and still sounds more of a liability than an asset. Replace him with someone younger more applicable.
2. Form new security units possible based along the lines of the French GIGN. Might have difficulty doing this, but it may be necessary for the future in the UK.
3. Because in addition to the above I think the current carve up of response units in the UK looks rather bitty in reaction to the current ongoing atrocities- this has to be addressed but it wont be easy to tie together. I mean by that - could we do better? We have UK civ police, army, 2 x types of special forces, British transport police, secret services MI5 and MI6, RAF people now as well.....must be a nightmare trying to coordinate all of the this to respond. Could it be better?
4. Drag the RAF into protecting our airspace from Drone and UAV terror attacks (which we are going to get somewhere or other at some time in the future, and sooner rather than later. Perhaps it is time for manned armed units to defend key sites? (I don't know)
5. Likewise RN against coastal unmanned maritime attack.
6. I don't think the public would be happy to see large scale expensive and questionable expeditionary warfare mounted via the carriers abroad, when under the thumb with further deep austerity measures and further terror attacks from within.
Where that exactly leaves them I'm just not sure.
7. We are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul, as ever.

My two cents. HS.

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm with HQ on this one - how do you defend spending on the F-35 & Carrier programmes when you are cutting infantry and the police?

People will accept higher defence spending but they will want it spent on bodies on the ground here not expensive programmes for kit

Also hard to sell Mr Putin as the greatest threat to the UK when the problems are clearly here already .

If you want an armed response within 8 minutes of any incident - as they achieved last night in London - you're going to need a lot more armed police - not soldiers necessarily

[Melchett01]

I'm with HQ on this one - how do you defend spending on the F-35 & Carrier programmes when you are cutting infantry and the police?

People will accept higher defence spending but they will want it spent on bodies on the ground here not expensive programmes for kit

Also hard to sell Mr Putin as the greatest threat to the UK when the problems are clearly here already .

You can't distil a complex discussion on state threats to one line on a thread, but suffice to say that by focusing purely on CT, we run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past 15 years, namely mortgaging defence to do what amounts to little more than policing operations. That will leave us with an unbalanced capability that leads to further problems down the road. You only have to look at the press getting irate about Russian LRA patrols close to UK airspace, the Russian navy transiting through the channel and in the Far East, the Chinese acting with relative impunity in the South China Sea. Not to mention North Korea. But none of this should be a surprise. These nations haven't been building their military capabilities up in secret, we've just been so pre-occupied by policing operations we've taken our eye off the ball, but none of that comes across in the press reporting.

Domestic CT is but one part of security, and it needs to be resourced appropriately. But be under no mistake, as terrible as these events are, they do not represent an existential threat. To trade the defence budget to support policing and CT is a bit like ringing your insurer to say you only want to insure one floor of your home. You wouldn't do it, so why would you not invest in the full spectrum of capabilities needed to enable a credible all round defence and security posture? To wait until the threats have fully materialised is too late. The politicians need to wake up to this fact and do their jobs properly. And that means making sensible decisions, appropriately resourcing them, and where potentially unpopular explaining them to the public openly and honestly.

If money is short, I suggest we start to seriously look at how we do business. Not my area, but from what I read procurement is an expensive shambles, seemingly often driven by expensive politics rather than actual necessity; the amount we spend on management consultants to tell us how to do our own business is obscene and needs to be stopped; and how we do foreign aid needs to be reviewed to ensure it links into our national security strategy to assist in upstream prevention rather than making bleeding hearts feel good. And whatever savings those steps make need to go back into defence and security spending rather than being pulled back to the Treasury to be frittered away.

[Heathrow Harry]

As I've posted repeatedly until the politicians start telling people they may have to pay more then we're just fooling ourselves - and that applies to the NHS, care for the elderly, schools as well as the military

[A_Van]

Some previous posts are really wise.
The starting point should always be the threat model. Not in the form of a political propaganda with a 1-page statement in manifestos, but a detailed evaluation of various threats, quantitative estimation of their likelyhood, potential damages, etc. And doing it every now and then because the threat environment changes rapidly and so the model should, not every quarter century or even a decade.Then, stream the available resources to cost-effectively maximise the prevented damage. Sounds pretty trivial and well-known, but politician all around the world love to ignore the basics (and many just never studied it). Moreover, any political opposition simply does not have relevant data (they are classified), instruments and staff for such analyses, but often cry very loud. High-level military do have all the above but often stick to their favorite toys and programmes. The explanations often are: "country X does/has it, we should have it too", "we were doing/having that for decades", etc. To avoid blaming others, an appropriate example from my own country: what hell do they need this old rusted air carrier that recently lost two planes in Mediterranean? The country does not have overseas territories (like, e.g., UK, for which necessity of having such ships does not need further justification) and the money wasted could be used much more effectively in other programmes.

[tucumseh]

A Van

(In the UK MoD) threat assessments are required in each new requirement, so we have people constantly writing them. Whether or not they are read and collated is a different matter. And, as you say, few politicians understand even the basics, and our Defence Committee is more concerned with business lunches for senior officers.

Additionally, any significant programme includes a "Battlefield + date" paper, usually looking forward 15 years. Their weakness is they must assume planned programmes survive and are delivered on time. For example, with hindsight the Battlefield 2015 paper (March 2001) was rendered obsolete within a year by the reduction in funding for the main dependent programme, from over £4Bn to around £500M. The author had moved on and I doubt it was updated. So, any programme using it as a baseline was doomed from Day 1.

One problem at the working level is that the papers often reveal lack of appreciation of basic policy directives. Again, using the Battlefield 2015 paper, it assumed interoperability between UK and its allies. That was a hell of a jump, given that at the time it was strict policy not be interoperable between our own forces, never mind allies. Little has changed, and viewed today that 2015 paper is a list of distant aspirations.

[Onceapilot]

It is stark-staring bleeding obvious that the UK Gov / MOD have got their budget versus capabilities equation totally wrong for where we are as a "nation" (small N, things are going downhill fast), going forward. The worst case is the giant war canoe situation. This debacle has left the RN unable to hold its head up in shallow water. What a ridiculous waste of a limited naval budget that should have been centred upon defence of our waters, not squandered on power projection and expeditionary cloud cuckoo land. :uhoh:

OAP

[Hangarshuffle]

I remember on the CVS in 1998 the new carrier project was often talked about. Even during the Bosnia thing from 1993-95 (those dates applicable for me anyway) it was pretty obvious the RN FAA always was trying to wag its own tail and look to its master for the funding in the future....for new carriers
At the time I suppose that was reasonable.
Perhaps something will happen in our immediate short term future to make the project look like far sightedness.
But in the light of yesterday, I cant see it. I presently cant see the point of them or the expense.

[skydiver69]

3. Because in addition to the above I think the current carve up of response units in the UK looks rather bitty in reaction to the current ongoing atrocities- this has to be addressed but it wont be easy to tie together. I mean by that - could we do better? We have UK civ police, army, 2 x types of special forces, British transport police, secret services MI5 and MI6, RAF people now as well.....must be a nightmare trying to coordinate all of the this to respond. Could it be better?

HMG is looking into amalgamating BTP, the MOD police and civil nuclear police into one force in order to provide a new firearms force which could consist of around 1500 armed officers. The trouble for the government is that BTP are crown employees whereas CNC are civil servants and therefore both forces have completely different terms and conditions.

[ShotOne]

Far from an urgent need for reorganisation, last nights events would seem IMHO to highlight the effectiveness of our current armed response units. Not that that stopped Corbyn taking his cue for opportunist point-scoring. Pretty amazing brass-neck considering his previous comments against police shooting, ambivalence towards IRA terrorism and numerous votes against anti-terror legislation

[woptb]

Don't think he presided over the loss of 20,000 police officers,including 1000 + armed response & 30,000+ reduction in members of the military. Don't read or trust the Mail or Telegraph so have realised he's no terrorist supporter or apologist.

[ORAC]

Don't read or trust the Mail or Telegraph so have realised he's no terrorist supporter or apologist.

Corbyn condemned by his own party for attending wreath-laying ceremony for Palestinian terror chief (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/28/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-labour-election-candidates-wreath-laying/)

[ShotOne]

How outrageous that with blood still on the pavements he's crowing about police cuts. Which were only forced by the utter financial disaster inflicted by his party. Even though the police performed superbly; all assailants dead within eight minutes! Yet Corbyn did his utmost to block introduction of these courageous police tactics which saved so many lives.

[Heathrow Harry]

I think Corbyn is a twerp but who was Home Secretary for the period 2010-2016?

There's be a good case for laying the cuts on her doorstep

[ShotOne]

There's a good case that whoever had won that election would have faced a massive struggle. Many big-ticket items ordered by Gordon and Tony were simply not funded.

As Home Secretary, Theresa May authorised the change in police tactics used successfully on Saturday. Corbyn did his best to block this. Just as he did numerous times on anti-terror laws without which our security forces would face a near-impossible task. And "apologist" is not nearly strong enough for those in current Labour leadership who brayed that a defeat of the British state by the IRA would be a good thing!

[Melchett01]

... As Home Secretary, Theresa May authorised the change in police tactics used successfully on Saturday.

I used to quite like Mrs May as a fairly common sense individual who had done well to hold down what is widely regarded as a bit of a political poison chalice fo as long as she did. But she's sadly out of her depth as PM, as are many of her Cabinet, especially when it comes to security. Did anyone else see the Culture Secratary's car crash interview with Piers Morgan this morning when she refused to respond to a question on how many armed police we had now compared to 2010? Shades of that Paxman interview a while back and utterly cringeworthy.

She spouted exactly that - it's not about numbers, it's all about police powers, TTPs and permissions. No it isn't. Well not entirely. 8 minutes from flash to bang - a fantastic response, and I absolutely take my hat off to those involved for a job very well done. But how much of their response time was due to being in the right place? With hundreds of fewer officers, you run the risk of gaps opening up that can't be filled in such a timely manner simply by training or authorities. But even more breath takingly stupid is the inability to see that cutting overall police numbers has had the effect of reducing tactical level intelligence gathering traditionally done by Bobbies on the beat who knew their AO, knew the characters, what they were up to and where the issues were. I don't care what the PM or any of her cabinet say, numbers matter when you're trying to deal with and monitor the equivalent of a full Championship football team stadium.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I think Corbyn is a twerp but who was Home Secretary for the period 2010-2016?

There's be a good case for laying the cuts on her doorstep

Some very interesting stats here: HoC (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00634/SN00634.pdf)

One wonders what Tony and Gordon were worried about?

[Heathrow Harry]

Post 9/11 I suspect

I have no time for Corbyn - a classic left view of every "freedom fighter" plus a good dose of anti-Americanism

But that doesn't excuse May - she was, at best, a poor Home Secretary that never delivered (remember the Immigration target fiasco). We've also seen her inability to make a choice and stick to it several times recently - not least on BREXIT

[Not_a_boffin]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2017-documents/spring-budget-2017


Charts 1 & 2 in the link are a good starting point. FY18 budget assumes a ~ £58Bn deficit between outgoings (spend) and receipts (taxes etc). Debt interest alone is almost the size of the defence budget, which is the fourth largest single departmental budget. Trouble is, the three above it comprise 60% of the total and are largely ring-fenced, one reason the pensions triple lock is under scrutiny. Add in debt interest and social care (from impact on NHS etc) as largely inviolable and you're at nigh-on 70% of the spend budget is committed.


Which leaves the rest of the departments fighting tooth and nail to retain their "share" or accept cuts / "efficiency savings" which can have a disproportionate effect on "output" - often expressed in reduction in manpower and subsequent retention issues.


Or we find a way to up the tax take by about 8% to remove the deficit and eventually release more money through reduced interest payments.


In reality, it's probably somewhere between the two, because it's difficult to see where a huge extra dollop of taxation can land easily and because at some stage we're going to have to stop routinely living beyond our means - particularly wrt funding overseas development, unlimited NHS care, triple-lock pensions etc.


In that context, extra money for defence is in the noise. What would be nice is a realisation that 2% GDP is a minimum, not a target to be feted. Just going back to 2.5% GDP would put an extra £12Bn a year in the pot.

[engineer(retard)]

I used to quite like Mrs May as a fairly common sense individual who had done well to hold down what is widely regarded as a bit of a political poison chalice fo as long as she did. But she's sadly out of her depth as PM, as are many of her Cabinet, especially when it comes to security.

......................... I don't care what the PM or any of her cabinet say, numbers matter when you're trying to deal with and monitor the equivalent of a full Championship football team stadium.

Sadly, the opposition is in a worse state with no track record of holding responsible government positions between them and a record of opposing any implementation of security measures.

Agreed about numbers, how many do you think are necessary to protect the whole country?

[ShotOne]

"..sadly out of her depth" Really? Compared to who? Bring on the capable and numerate Ms Abbot then!

[brakedwell]

The whole lot are out of their depth. Perhaps a hung parliament with the Tories winning the most seats will be the best result. Bojo the Clown, Davies, IDS, Reese Mogg et al will be very pissed off, but it might stop Brexit.

Strong and Stable my ar*se!

[woptb]

Doesn't take a lot of intellectual rigour to work out what's b0ll0cks & what isn't.
The recession wasn't caused by bankers it was caused by labour & they've cut ALL of the security forces, austerity has worked, it was all the fault of the poor, the unemployed & the elderly.
Trickle down economics is indubitably working.Corbyn voted for & supported the Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya & Syria conflicts, loves the country that has bank rolled ISIS or did I get that wrong?:} :ugh:

[pr00ne]

woptb,

The recession was caused by Labour? Are you ten years old? The huge global financial collapse, cos that's what it was, was caused by US sub prime lenders building up gigantic debt through selling mortgages to people with no or very little income and packaging up that debt into fantastically complicated financial instruments that were taken up voraciously by financial institutions around the world but manly in the US and UK. That bubble burst when the lenders defaulted on their mortgage debts and the whole thing unravelled at such a speed that if the major economies of the world had not stepped in with trillions of dollars/euros/pounds for the banks we would have seen financial meltdown and the end of capitalism.

Caused by Labour my *rse!

[pr00ne]

Whoosh!

What was that?

I get it now!

[Hangarshuffle]

Also, I would never write off Jeremy Corbyn. He's cleanly despatched New Labour. Then got his own people in around him and they appear very loyal. He has grown throughout this campaign. Very efficiently shafted PM May today over police numbers-she looks very strained now on TV.
I mean its still the Tories to throw and they will return again to power but May to be honest has really diminished - chickens came home to roost.
Back on thread, to balance the inevitable police resurge in numbers.......raise higher rate of tax may pay for some of it, but could we now suspend some military operations and return to UK some deployed forces> would this save immediate cash.
I mean **** the Poles and Lits and the rest of them. If we totally fall back on ops, will this save hard cash in the short term?

[The Old Fat One]

she looks very strained now on TV.

She always looks like that...it's probably just her natural demeanor, but it hardly helps her presence or gravitas.

Thursday night promises to be interesting, with a possibility of chaos heaped on chaos if we end up in a hung parliament and TM gathering her over-priced skirts and exiting stage left.

When JC first got himself the leadership of the Labour party I wrote right here on pprune, that he had an outside shot (10%) of becoming the next PM (I meant in 2020 of course, but events dear boy, events). Most posters understandably found that notion incomprehensible. Right now I'd go about 30%...it still looks like TM will get over the line, but will it be by a big enough margin to save her bacon?

To address the original point of this thread, of course more cuts are coming, whoever wins. The economy dictates that. But if JC's lot end up in control, holy **** batman, it will be a massacre.

[Hangarshuffle]

I don't think JC has the Parliamentary Labour Party backing. My own Labour MP wont even mention his name or place it in her election literature (something that's gone on a lot with the others as well). Its interesting we could get a new PM of either hue with a lot of back stabbers right behind them right from the off.
But I would venture yes whatever's left will be binned and the money whatever money spent elsewhere. Spun out with new jobs for the ex service leavers in say the police, or border control.

[ORAC]

I am not sure why police numbers are an issue. In all three of the latest terrorist events they have performed commendably - particularly in the latest.

If there has been a failure it is in the security services who, it appears, had plenty of information on at least one of the latest 3 killers; and the budget for the security services has been massively increased over the last 10 years - including funding for another 2000 members in 2015.

[Arclite01]

For me we need more Police, we need more Doctors, we need more Nurses and we need more Military. However it doesn't matter who agrees to provide them 'on the streets' the fact remains, they are all highly trained Professionals - it takes years for them to reach the point where they are useful. Doctors take 5 years and then another 5 to make it to senior positions and levels of experience, Nurses 5 years, Policemen 3 years plus a further 2 years of specialization and Military probably at least 3 years (depending on service and role).

So what I am getting at here is that even if funds are agreed there is no immediate improvement in the situation overnight, and since everyone listed above takes at least 5 years to mature - and Politicians are notoriously 'short term' in their outlook, I can't see it happening. Plus the fact they are masters of spin and making figures show whatever they want............ let's face it the first thing whoever gets into power always says is 'we've looked at the figures and it's worse than we imagined so we really can't do most of the things we promised during the election........'

The real solution is a higher rate of income tax and a much better fiscal regime and oversight of how it's spent. That is far too radical and is the ultimate vote loser so will never happen. The reality is that the countries where there is a higher rate of tax have a higher standard of living (for example Finland, Sweden and Norway) - and we are not prepared to accept that level of taxation or commitment to society.

Just my two pennyworth...............

Arc

[skydiver69]

I am not sure why police numbers are an issue. In all three of the latest terrorist events they have performed commendably - particularly in the latest.

If there has been a failure it is in the security services who, it appears, had plenty of information on at least one of the latest 3 killers; and the budget for the security services has been massively increased over the last 10 years - including funding for another 2000 members in 2015.

As a DC I think police numbers matter in a number of ways.

First neighbourhood officers supply intel and build relationships which can help uncover plots. Secondly the number of AFOs (firearms officers) is being increased but by 2018 we will still have fewer armed officers than we had in 2010, and no matter how capable they are they can't be in two places at once. In addition every new AFO means one less neighbourhood, traffic, response or CID officer as they can only perform one role at a time. Thirdly resilience. Many of the officers drafted in for security in Cardiff, Manchester and London came from other forces and had rest days cancelled or were put on longer shifts in order to provide back up. Their presence in other force areas also means that they would not be available for their own forces and their own roles. Fourthly reported crime is starting to creep up and we in the police have not started to get a grip on new forms of crime such as cyber crime. RTCs, violent and sexual offences are all increasing and whilst HMG may claim that this is to do with better reporting they have been claiming that for the last 3 or 4 years so those effects must be dropping out of the system. I think its as much to do with cuts to PC numbers as anything else as we have less people to provide a deterrent, fewer officers to respond to incidents and a lot less people to investigate an incident once it has happened. Lastly returning to AFOs, the majority of our resources are concentrated in London but as the Manchester attack showed the capital isn't the only city being targeted. I dread to think what would happen in my city if one of the large night clubs or sporting events was attacked at kicking out time, because I can't see anyway that we could get a concentrated armed response to deal with the attackers within 8 minutes.

[Arclite01]

Skydiver

Like I say, we can't just magic 10's of 1000's of trained Professionals out of our ar$e............

The cracks are starting to show after years of non-investment and actual reductions in capability. By all Governments...not just the current one, or the one before that................

I, like you, do worry about our abilities to respond to an attack in anywhere outside of our major urban centres. Or worse still, a coordinated attack in more than one place at one time.

At least when the French get attacked they manage to flood the streets with Police and Army presence almost immediately. How effective it is I wonder, but at least Joe Public feels something is being done, and feels safer. I'm not sure we could do the same.........

That is all.

Arc

[Heathrow Harry]

landslide starting to look unlikely......................

BBC website

Since she became Prime Minister, Theresa May has always enjoyed positive approval figures - more people have said that they are satisfied with her performance than dissatisfied. But in their
latest poll she has slumped to a negative overall figure of -7% (43% satisfied, 50% dissatisfied).

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn's rating has shot up. He's still in negative territory and, on -11%, still behind Theresa May. But that contrasts with -41% in March, before the election was called.


Other pollsters have seen a similar trend. ComRes have also reported Theresa May's first negative negative rating (-3%). Opinium put Jeremy Corbyn on -12%, up from -35% at the start of the campaign. Theresa May has fallen to +6%.

[ricardian]

Royal Navy's new carriers may have some difficulties (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/sailors-abandoning-navy-s-3-2bn-aircraft-carrier-amid-morale-crisis-1-7994141)

[The Old Fat One]

the real solution is a higher rate of income tax and a much better fiscal regime and oversight of how it's spent. That is far too radical and is the ultimate vote loser so will never happen. The reality is that the countries where there is a higher rate of tax have a higher standard of living (for example Finland, Sweden and Norway) - and we are not prepared to accept that level of taxation or commitment to society.

Dead right sir. Never happening though is it.

[The Old Fat One]

Electoral Calculus (http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html)

This is interesting, they are currently sticking with a 72 seat tory majority, but if you scroll down you will see that they applaud the methodology used by YouGov in the recent hung parliament prediction.

Don't know about you lot, but imho all bets are off and I'll be staying up all night for the entertainment one way or the other.

PS

Interesting link Ricardian, thx for posting.

[1.3VStall]

Tofo, I admire your stamina, Sir!

I will be retiring at my normal time and will wake up to reality on Friday am, whatever that may be.

God help us if the apologist Republican ends up in No 10 and the Marxist in No 11. As Fraser in Dad's Army would say; "we're all doomed!".

I've just top sliced 25% off my more vulnerable UK holdings just in case the unthinkable happens.

[Hangarshuffle]

Reading between the lines on ricardian's linkly above (which is to Portsmouth's Evening News)....taking a large ship out of re-fit or build isn't easy. I've done it. I've said before on here and I will say it again, the Navy needs to copy civilian offshore practices and put people onto sensible rotations. 35 days on/off.42 days on/off. And so forth. The result not to do so.. will be otherwise as we are seeing.
There is also a requirement for people to work a far more flexible hire and fire routine. Let people come in and go out as they wish...if someone really is between jobs in the civilian sector ie an electrician, and they have RN experience and suitable security vetting then they should be brought in on STC. Its not rocket science- all companies work like this offshore.
The OFO - Possible that the current attacks will trigger increased taxes if the money can be shown to have an impact ie more armed response police training. I think its nailed on for increases if JC gets in, and possibly more so than recently from PM under pressure to save her job.
What happens if these attacks become monthly, or even weekly like we have seen in Iraq/Syria and elsewhere? Don't say it cant happen. Personally, I hate to say it, but I'm expecting more-witht the resultant pressure that ratchets onto our democracy.

[Willard Whyte]

The real solution is a higher rate of income tax and a much better fiscal regime and oversight of how it's spent. That is far too radical and is the ultimate vote loser so will never happen. The reality is that the countries where there is a higher rate of tax have a higher standard of living (for example Finland, Sweden and Norway) - and we are not prepared to accept that level of taxation or commitment to society.

Just my two pennyworth...............

Arc

Canada seems to do pretty well in quality of life lists, with lowish taxes too.

Noticeable that many of the top rated nations have coolish climates, something about heat seems to p*ss people off - I know it p*sses me off!

[Arclite01]

WW - Tax Rates Compared

Income tax by country comparison

Income tax by country comparison


Country/Income Tax Range/Average Annual Salary/Tax Rate on Average Salary

Australia/ 0-47% /AUD 77,433/ 32.5%
Canada/ 15-33% (federal) + 4 -25.75% (provincial)/ CAD 62,420 /20.5% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 9.15% in Ontario)
France/ 0-45%/ EUR 36,066/ 30%
Singapore/ 0-20% SGD 88,415 7%
Switzerland/ 0-40% (levied at federal, cantonal and municipal levels)/ CHF 86,812 e.g. 21% (Genève commune in Geneva canton)
UAE/ 0% N/A 0%
United Kingdom/ 0-45% /GBP 27,600/ 20% (basic rate after personal allowance of £10,600)
USA/ 0-39.6% (federal)+ 0-13.3% (state) + 0-3.645% (local)/ USD 57,139 25% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 5.9% in New York) + (e.g 3.645% in NYC)

This table doesn’t include other payroll deductions like National Insurance (UK) or Medicare contributions (Australia).


Tax rates in UK amongst highest, however many other countries also have more direct taxation which is not factored here.

Principle holds though that we have a large economy, we have a high tax rate and yet we don't seem to have any money for public programmes and services.

So where does it go ?

Arc

[Evalu8ter]

Where does it go?
£159 Billion on pensions
£146 Billion on health care
£112 Billion on social security
£86 Billion on education
£52 Billion on debt interest
£47 Billion on Defence

etc etc (figures for FY18, including central and local govt funding sourced from ukpublicspending website)

How much is enough? Are prepared to add to the debt mountain by putting our heads in the sand for another 5 years or do we confront it head on and treat the public like adults over what is, and what is not, affordable in the future? Impossible to have a reasonable debate with the weaponisation of the NHS and blanket opposition to discussion on Welfare / immigration with Labour. Blair asked Frank Field to "think the unthinkable" which he did - and got sacked for his trouble as his conclusions were not vote-winning....

[ShotOne]

Interested table on tax rates. Which of those tax regimes generates most money to spend on defence?? (Clue: not the one with the highest rate!)

But that's by the by. As I post this I'm looking at pictures of Jeremy Corbyn addressing a rally at which groups, some dressed as suicide bombers chanted "scud scud Israel" and "gas gas Tel Aviv". We can't pretend that doesn't matter!

[Arclite01]

A few years ago I saw an interesting article which actually said that we could stop paying NI and use the money in private healthcare instead and we would get a better and cheaper service than the overall cost of the NHS because the huge management overhead would be stripped away and many of the facilities not required full time only 'as and when' (similar to ACC in New Zealand).

The problem being that if you relied on individuals to make contributions they just wouldn't do it, so they would have to be deducted at source and the argument over taxation and stealth tax would rage all over again.

Also the Government sees NI as part of the overall Tax revenue and doesn't want it 'ring fenced' to one particular area as at the moment they use it to fund all sorts of nefarious ideas rather than allocating it to Healthcare and Pensions as it should be.

No one seems interested in the user or the end game, only the political capital that can be gained from statistics and personal attacks........ if Labour succeed tomorrow then we won't see any benefit for a long time (if ever) and ultimately a huge cost dumped on us in the longer term. If the Tories get in then you won't see any benefit for a long time (if at all), probably further reductions and no increased cost in the long term (still nothing passed on to the taxpayer or patients).

re: Frank Field - absolutely. Not the first time I've seen that scenario played out.

<rant on>The root question is what sort of society do we want ??, a higher taxation regime but where we have good solid public services and infrastructure (and quality of life for many), or a low tax regime where Public services and infrastructure is done on the cheap and you are OK if you have a bit of spare cash to pay and fill the gap for yourself ??, if you have no spare cash you have to wait in the queue ?

I'm lucky, I could pay another couple of pence in income tax on the £ and it wouldn't hit me terribly hard, most people could probably afford another penny but if we went down that route the cash would have to be spent properly (wisely ?) - and that is where the system fails - every time.

A referendum on this issue would be much more satisfying than a BREXIT one..............not that it'll ever happen of course. And the risk with this approach is that most people don't see Defence as a high priority, probably it would see a massive reduction, because most people don't see the big Defence picture. Money on Defence is not just Tanks and Aircraft but is jobs. Building, Planning and supporting the platforms, earnings from foreign sales, local jobs on local facilities and the 'onward spend' in the local area (shops and amenities being one key area).

The reality is that everyone wants everything and they want it NOW, but they don't want to pay for it in Tax rises.

The two are just not compatible. <rant off>

Arc

[ShotOne]

Even if Labour's tax raising somehow massively exceeded expectations, what of it... Corbyn doesn't believe in and wouldn't use our nuclear deterrent, demonstrated at RAF Waddington describing drones as an obscenity and called for them to be banned. He personally stood bail to help stop the extradition of an IRA suspect to Germany and consistently displayed contempt for our forces. Why would anyone suppose he would spend any tax money raised on defence?

[Willard Whyte]

WW - Tax Rates Compared

Income tax by country comparison

Income tax by country comparison


Country/Income Tax Range/Average Annual Salary/Tax Rate on Average Salary


Canada/ 15-33% (federal) + 4 -25.75% (provincial)/ CAD 62,420 /20.5% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 9.15% in Ontario)


This table doesn’t include other payroll deductions like National Insurance (UK) or Medicare contributions (Australia).


Arc

Yes, I did check actually.

Canadian income tax rates are actually quite similar to ours: around 32% of a $ 120K income compared to about 31% of £ 68K here, i.e. lower than 'scandy' countries (around 40% of SEK 770K for example), yet they achieve similar quality of life scores to said scandies. Finlands tax rates are a little lower than Sweden, more like ours it seems.

My point being that quality of life is, in my opinion, probably more about cool climates, wide open spaces, and relative under crowding, than taxation rates.

[ExGrunt]

@Arc
The real solution is a higher rate of income tax


Except there is a wealth of evidence that higher rates of tax lead to reduced tax take (ie the actual money that comes in).


Between 1974 and 1979 the top rate of tax was 98% - It is no coincidence that that coincided with the government being so short of money that it had to get a bail out from the IMF. And my recollection was that public services weren't that great.


Counter intuitive as it seems the best way to increase tax take is to reduce tax rates. Less of more economic activity pretty much always turns out to be greater than more of less economic activity.


EG

[Hangarshuffle]

On Evaluators figures, defence will get slashed. Seems logical. They will be keeping Trident and its replacement and other than that a very low operational profile.

[Hangarshuffle]

Sad that my General Election thread was blatted..in a way. I'm sat watching the polls and its looking a bit grim for PM May...but looking grimmer for the UK really.... we are so divided now.
Labours Armed forces front bench team are who again?
Good night.

[Cyberhacker]

United Kingdom/ 0-45% /GBP 27,600/ 20% (basic rate after personal allowance of £10,600)


I haven't looked at the other countries, but (as you say) these figures ignore other 'income' taxes deducted from the payroll - eg National Insurance, and Pension

The UK bands are as follows:

£0 - £8,164 = 0.0%
£8,164 - £11,500 = 12.8% (NI + pension)
£11,500 - £45,000 = 32.8% (standard rate tax, NI + pension)
£45,000 - £145,000 = 42.0% (higher rate tax, lower rate NI, no more pension)
£145,000+ = 47.0% (additional rate, plus lower rate NI)

Note: between £100k-£123k it effectively becomes 62.0% as the tax-free allowances are tapered away

These figures are, of course, then "adjusted" by a variety of allowances (eg for pensions) and tax-credits

[Cyberhacker]

Counter intuitive as it seems the best way to increase tax take is to reduce tax rates. Less of more economic activity pretty much always turns out to be greater than more of less economic activity.


As demonstrated by Professor Arthur Laffer, and his eponymous Curve

[Heathrow Harry]

Laffer Curve - very simplistic and probably wrong - the rich like it as it helps move the tax burden from them to the middle & lower classes

"In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office) (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates'. This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics) effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for—plus interest—by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States).[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#cite_note-22)

[Heathrow Harry]

The Chancellor - the now-immoveable Spreadsheet Phil - will be looking for cuts to fund more money for the NHS and teaching - it's their only hope of winning the next election now. I'm pretty sure that defence will take a hit - remains to be seen if they just stretch programmes (F-35, Successor, MBT), mothball (the carriers) or cut (manpower, F26, P-8)

[alfred_the_great]

As demonstrated by Professor Arthur Laffer, and his eponymous Curve

And destroyed by the "Kansas experiment"...

[Heathrow Harry]

Times sketchwriter Patrick Kidd writes...

The Times Posted at 9:53 Theresa May spread out the map of Northern Ireland on the cabinet table. 'So let me see if I’ve got this right,' she said to Nickanfi, her double-headed chief adviser. 'The green bits are held by Sinn Fein?'

Nickanfi nodded and hissed a little. 'And the reddish areas belong to our new friends and allies, the DUP, on whom our stronganstable leadership depends?' Another nod.

Then Mrs May saw a large blue area on the map. 'Aha,' she said. 'And I suppose this is where all the Conservative MPs are to be found?' Nickanfi cleared their throats. 'Not quite, prime minister,' they said. 'That’s Lough Neagh.'

It had been a long and difficult night for Mrs May.

[The Old Fat One]

Since I'm getting good results at this old political speculation game...here's how it gonna go...

Either,

TM will do whatever it takes to get the Queen's Speech voted thru, then the next 18 months will just be brexit negotiations...anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with. And that includes non-legislative actions (like Budgets, which will be as bland as ****)

Or,

The tory back benchers will shaft her in the next fortnight, she will quit and we are all back to the ballot box...with pretty much the same outcome a forgone conclusion.

Either way, since this is about the forces and more cuts, you can expect any difficult spending decisions to kicked down the road as well. Delays and procrastination will be de rigeur.

You heard it here first :)

[Onceapilot]

Well folks, the political / economic realities are soon gonna bite! Around half the UK voting population have shown that they would prefer the seductive promises of the present Labour manifesto.:ooh: The Tories will have to rake in every penny in the budget to meet a fraction of the spending required to satisfy a majority of the voting population in the near future. Military spending will be cut to the bone. The Tories will be keen to stay on best terms with the USA and so, purchase and involvement in hi-tech projects will continue, and commitment to 2% spending will be upheld although, every accounting method available will be used to meet that figure with minimum £ spend. :8
I suggest that all non-essential capabilities will be lost. First to go are likely to be the carriers. As I have said before, they are not an essential capability and, the F35 buy would still be an essential asset to the RAF. Just my opinion.

OAP

[teeteringhead]

she will quit and we are all back to the ballot box... No ballot necessary TOFO me old.

Whoever is leader of the party in government is PM - I don't think her successor would want to do as she did. Moreover (and paradoxically) the PM (whoever he or she might be) would struggle to get the required (2/3??) majority in the House, because of her own side. Lots of low Tory majorities now - turkeys and Christmas?

My view is that she will either go quickly - in a couple weeks - or she'll brazen it out until New Year once Brexit negotiations are well in hand.

[Heathrow Harry]

It really is a shambles - and TBH it's a Tory shambles

They didn't have to offer BREXIT referendum, they didn't need to call this election

To my mind the big question is who will replace May (as she's a dead duck) - it's not exactly a brilliant list of people to choose from - and none of them has any noted liking for the military

What we need is someone who can start a valid, meaningfull debate on how to fund the NHS and care in a sensible AND ACCEPTABLE manner, who will stop changing Education policy every 10 minutes, who can extract more tax out of the multi-national companies and can minimise the long term economic damage of a BREXIT whilst bolstering the armed forces

Regretfully , apart form myself of course , I can't think of a single suitable canditate............

Maybe time for a Grand Coalition - it works elsewhere

[The Old Fat One]

Whoever is leader of the party in government is PM - I don't think her successor would want to do as she did.

No you misunderstood me. I mean if she pushed out by the tories in the next few days. If that were the case (and I freely confess I'm not a constitutional expert) as I understand it, the tories would have to have a leadership contest and in the ensuing gap, JC can hot foot it to the Queen and ask for permission to form a Government.

That clearly won't work so the only alternative will be another election.

I concur, once the Queen's Speech is voted through, the PM can be changed at the whim of the party without election, of course.

Happy to be flamed, but a reference would be nice if that is the case, coz I did research that a little bit and that's how I read it.

[SWBKCB]

anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with. And that includes non-legislative actions (like Budgets, which will be as bland as ****)

Which is what should have been done as soon as the referendum result was in - the amount of work required for Brexit and the aftermath, baffles me that anybody thinks that we have the capacity to do anything else.

[Melchett01]

Since I'm getting good results at this old political speculation game...here's how it gonna go...

Either,

TM will do whatever it takes to get the Queen's Speech voted thru, then the next 18 months will just be brexit negotiations...anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with. And that includes non-legislative actions (like Budgets, which will be as bland as ****)

Or,

The tory back benchers will shaft her in the next fortnight, she will quit and we are all back to the ballot box...with pretty much the same outcome a forgone conclusion.

Either way, since this is about the forces and more cuts, you can expect any difficult spending decisions to kicked down the road as well. Delays and procrastination will be de rigeur.

You heard it here first :)

Option b is my vote. Maybe a year tops before it all unravels and the constant attacks in Parliament and the media plus lack of substantive progress on BREXIT and the constant threat of a vote of no confidence combine to seal her fate. Given she is now toxic and be shown up as second rate, the Party won't be in a rush to defend her. It's a question of finding a replacement.

But we should have seen this coming in hindsight. She was quiet during the BREXIT campaign. Said precious little in the last leadership election, instead stepping over the bodies at the last minute as the sole survivor. She has said nothing substantive on BREXIT itself, and despite wanting to repatriate power to Parliament then called an election when questioned by said body. And to cap it all, she said nothing throughout the awful campaign. Far from being a safe pair of hands, taken together this all shows her up to be a political opportunist who got caught out.

What is needed now is an intelligent, consensual approach, taking a long term strategic view to avoid us being completely isolated whilst somehow holding a dis-united kingdom together. Bugger.

[Onceapilot]

Melchy,
I guess you mean "option A"? ;)

OAP

[Melchett01]

Melchy,
I guess you mean "option A"? ;)

OAP

OAP,

I want you to know that even if I now say option A, nothing has changed. It's a strong choice and I'm certain it's the right one.

This isn't a u-turn you understand. I'm still right!

That'll teach me to pay more attention whilst typing!

Melchy

[Heathrow Harry]

TOFO

Legally the position of PM is wholly in the gift of the Queen - she selects some idiot to form a Govt. & run the country.

Practically and customarily this person should "be able to command a majority in the HoC" - also it has become customary for this person to be an MP. That majority doesn't have to be on every issue but they must be able to withstand a Vote of Confidence.

The PM doesn't have to be (tho normally is) the Leader of a Party - IIRC in the past the Tories had a Party Leader who was in the Lords and a PM who was in the Commons.

How they are chosen is legally & practically irrelevant - at the moment every party has a different way of doing it. The Tories could vote to dump Mrs May but as long as she can get the votes in the HoC she can remain PM.

The Queens Speech has no legal force or impact - it is simply the day the Govt lay out their plans for the forthcoming session,. A PM could be ditched by a no confidence vote before it's even given .

It's very British - lots of custom & practise and bugger-all codification.

The fly in the ointment could be the Fixed-term Parliaments Act

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 set the date of the next election to 7 May 2020 and then every five years subsequent to that. The Queen no longer has the power to dissolve Parliament. This is now scheduled by the Act to automatically happen 25 days before the election date. Parliament has the power to call for an early general election, on one of two conditions:


Via a motion of no-confidence in the current government. It would be unusual for a Prime Minister to call an election in this manner, as it would effectively end their career.
Via a vote that carries the agreement of two thirds of MPs. Under current Parliamentary conditions this would be hard but not impossible for the Prime Minister to manage. It would also require the assent of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

The Act is still in place and now unlikely to be repealed

[Melchett01]

HH

The Act is still in place and now unlikely to be repealed

You're right, the Tories would be mad to pull what is effectively a safety blanket, even though repealing it was one of their manifesto commitments. (Page 45 to save the hassle of checking)

Guess it falls into the category of 'events dear boy, events'.

[ValMORNA]

H H,


In reply to your post #143 ref new Conservative leader (Quote: it's not exactly a brilliant list of people to choose from - and none of them has any noted liking for the military) I would like to offer our local MP, Sir William (Bill) Cash. He has served as Solicitor-General in the past who, from a personal interest, fought long and hard for Suez Canal Zone veterans to be granted a medal to mark their sacrifice. This was only granted 50 years later.

[ShotOne]

Have some people been watching a different election? In the one I watched Labour racked up its third straight decisive electoral defeat. Somehow the exceptionally low expectations seem to be masking that basic fact. The PM in No10 has a majority not much different from last week.

[Melchett01]

Have some people been watching a different election? In the one I watched Labour racked up its third straight decisive electoral defeat. Somehow the exceptionally low expectations seem to be masking that basic fact. The PM in No10 has a majority not much different from last week.

Erm, that's just it Shot. The PM WAS the leader of the Government and HAD a working majority last week that would have seen her through to 2020. Now she's the caretaker manager of the largest single party, no longer able to pass any legislation without outside assistance. In the process, Corbyn achieved the biggest increase in vote share of any Labour leader since 1945 and cemented his position against all the odds and predictions of electoral oblivion.

Given that the PM staked her personal name and reputation as the single factor able to deliver a credible govt, other than a bad day at the office I'm not sure what you would call it.

[The Old Fat One]

yeah I think we are on the same page and in fact dear old JC has pretty much said what I said. If he can a majority to vote down the Queen's Speech, he may well get a crack at it.

Which I think would be an even bigger farce (and another vote down of the Queens Speech) which would be another election, which as we now live in an utterly divided and polarised nation, would probably end up right back at square one.

Not great is it :{:{

[ShotOne]

Since when were the keys to No 10 handed out on basis of "Biggest increase... "? Even having every single other party on side (likely?) doesn't give Corbyn a majority. DUP probably more loyalty to Tories than some of Corbyns own MP's have to him: as if they want an IRA apologist in No10!

[Alber Ratman]

Oh, we have the Billy Boys, the people who's actions in the 60s did everything to bring about the resurrection of the IRA in its PIRA form. Just as awful as Corbyn seems to most on here. Max Hastings "Going to the Wars" is a good reference work to back up my statement. Max isn't red by any form of imagination.

[ShotOne]

What total rubbish. Most of them weren't even born in the 60's. They want no hard border, increased personal tax allowance, scrap airline passenger duty. Gets my vote. Much made on their abortion policy yet it's little different to other parties there North and South of border.

The alternative is someone who invited IRA terrorists to Westminster at the height of their bombing campaign and a Marxist chancellor. Perhaps you'd run me through the order of battle of any country with Marxist economic policies?

[Heathrow Harry]

Bill Cash? the man who has stabbed every Tory Leader int he back for over 20 years? I don't think so..

Of course one amusing aspect is that the party that banged on for years about the horror of Scots Nats voting on English issues is now depoendent on abunch of Irish Neanderthals to vote on English issues to save their skin.....

Next it'll be Boris as PM...........
Anyway

[ShotOne]

Clearly you misunderstand the issue of the "West Lothian question"HH. It was never principally about Scot Nats. The problem was policy affecting only England being driven through on the strength of (mainly Labour) Scottish MP's who stood unaffected by those policies. Approving a Queens speech and preventing a power-grab by a party which lost the election most emphatically DOES affect Northern Ireland

The one silver lining in all this is the Sturgeon/Salmond grand ego-trip for Scottish independence is now in shreds for the foreseeable. This may be far more significant long term than the present party-political jostling.

[Heathrow Harry]

Clearly you misunderstand the issue of the "West Lothian question"HH. It was never principally about Scot Nats. The problem was policy affecting only England being driven through on the strength of (mainly Labour) Scottish MP's who stood unaffected by those policies. Approving a Queens speech and preventing a power-grab by a party which lost the election most emphatically DOES affect Northern Ireland

The one silver lining in all this is the Sturgeon/Salmond grand ego-trip for Scottish independence is now in shreds for the foreseeable. This may be far more significant long term than the present party-political jostling.

historically snuggling up to the Ulster Unionists has always ended in tears ....... it certainly doesn't improve the Tories image .

Good to see the end of Salmon - a very unpleasant individual IMHO

[Heathrow Harry]

That well known bastion of Liberal Toryism (NOT) the Conservative Home website reckons we face a period of do-nothing Govt.

So no decisions, hand-outs to the DUP, the young etc etc and cuts........... I can't see the Tories abandoning Trident tho' -it's their only USP now against Corbyn

[teeteringhead]

IIRC in the past the Tories had a Party Leader who was in the Lords and a PM who was in the Commons. 'Twas even worse HH.

Lord Home (14th Earl of) became leader of the Tory party - and so PM - on 19th Oct '63, while still in the Upper House. On the 23rd Oct, he disclaimed (is that the right word?) his peerage and became Sir Alec (he was a KT) Douglas-Home.

He was elected MP on 12th November (for the [very] safe seat of Kinross and West Perthshire).

So - for 4 days we had a PM in the Lords.

For 20 days a PM who was in neither House.

Thereafter a PM who was an MP.

[engineer(retard)]

Of course one amusing aspect is that the party that banged on for years about the horror of Scots Nats voting on English issues is now depoendent on abunch of Irish Neanderthals to vote on English issues to save their skin.....


What a bizarre interpretation of reality. There's no English vote for English laws still and the West Lothian question remains unresolved. Additionally, there appears to be an agreement of support between 2 Unionists parties. The conservatives made a particularly strong resurgence in Scotland, taking down several prominent nationalists.

Returning to the thread instead of trying to rewrite the election results. We now are likely to get Trident with weapons as opposed to Corbyns white elephant. However, that combined with the carriers will require other capabilities to be diminished.

[engineer(retard)]

It really is a shambles - and TBH it's a Tory shambles

They didn't have to offer BREXIT referendum, they didn't need to call this election............


Maybe time for a Grand Coalition - it works elsewhere

The European sore has been festering for a long time, Blair had the chance to cauterise it but walked away from his election mandate and with Brown signed up to the democratically rejected European Constitution in the form of the Lisbon Treaty.

Regarding election calls, I suspect we will hear little else from the opposition parties for the next few years.

The Grand Coalition in Italy has been a rolling goat.

[The Old Fat One]

The Grand Coalition in Italy has been a rolling goat.

It's kinda funny how often Spain and Italy pitch up as examples of place not to be like.

I'm just back from Italy. Went from Venice to Rome in spotless smooth 300 km/H bullet train (state owned railway), where every passenger by default had to have a seat. Even the bogs were spotless.

Smartly dressed men and beautiful women everywhere I looked, happy smiling people everywhere. Evenings every restaurant packed with families, drinking, eating, laughing. Food amazing.

Ditto Spain, I have family in Granada...wonderful place. Same vibe.

I'm not sure why these countries keep popping up as place that "have gone wrong".

Seriously, I'm genuinely puzzled.

Sorry for the thread drift. Back to politics. Rerun election with Bojo - great plan...that'll put JC in No 10 in an eyeblink.

Re JC and the IRA thing. Nobody under the age of 40 cares. And in all this endless spraff here's a fact you can take to the bank. Every single day more 18 year olds qualify to vote and more old timers shuffle off this mortal coil.

[hulahoop7]

Where does it go?
£159 Billion on pensions
£146 Billion on health care
£112 Billion on social security
£86 Billion on education
£52 Billion on debt interest
£47 Billion on Defence

etc etc (figures for FY18, including central and local govt funding sourced from ukpublicspending website)

How much is enough? Are prepared to add to the debt mountain by putting our heads in the sand for another 5 years or do we confront it head on and treat the public like adults over what is, and what is not, affordable in the future? Impossible to have a reasonable debate with the weaponisation of the NHS and blanket opposition to discussion on Welfare / immigration with Labour. Blair asked Frank Field to "think the unthinkable" which he did - and got sacked for his trouble as his conclusions were not vote-winning....
Rewind to 1980 and the UK was spending about the same on health, education and defence

[engineer(retard)]

It's kinda funny how often Spain and Italy pitch up as examples of place not to be like.

I'm just back from Italy. Went from Venice to Rome in spotless smooth 300 km/H bullet train (state owned railway), where every passenger by default had to have a seat. Even the bogs were spotless.

Smartly dressed men and beautiful women everywhere I looked, happy smiling people everywhere. Evenings every restaurant packed with families, drinking, eating, laughing. Food amazing.

Ditto Spain, I have family in Granada...wonderful place. Same vibe.

I'm not sure why these countries keep popping up as place that "have gone wrong".

Seriously, I'm genuinely puzzled.



I didn't say that they are places not to be like just, only political systems that are ineffective. Perhaps if you hang around swanky restaurants with the beautiful people, life does appear rosy. The Grand Coalition in Italy has been a failure, Renzi fell and is looking at another election and another Grand Coalition. Meanwhile, the Italian banking system is on the verge of collapse and nobody is enpowered to deal with it, the debt to GDP ratio is 132%, that's not going to end well either.

The Spanish people are fantastic, I really enjoy their company but you don't see the young in the restaurants because with 40% youth unemployment rate, they have no money. Spains debt to GDP ratio is just about to hit 100%.

Corbyns budget is about wealth transfer not economic growth, so the champagne socialists in their swanky London restaurants will need to tighten their belts to pay for all the "free" gifts on offer.

[dervish]

Regarding comments about the SNP, the 56 seats in 2015 was a complete aberration. Many were won by very small margins with a very high turnout of SNP voters, and over confidence by others. Privately, the party is probably relieved at 35 this time, as a few were won again with small majorities. North Fife by 2, North Perthshire by 20 or so, the latter a traditional Tory heartland.

[engineer(retard)]

Worth a vote next time:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6hNzbDP9ll4

[Hangarshuffle]

Thread could soon well turn into a "Forces braced for more action" type. DUP dictating UK Mainland Govt. policy? That could be very dangerous for peace. Wonder how the forces would cope if God forbid they were tasked to ever return?
We are also in the middle of an ongoing terror campaign in England by this utter death cult, which has cost the lives of many young people recently. And hundreds hurt and injured.
They, the Commons need to get a grip on actual events and reality. I cant see May lasting another two weeks. But who would be any better, in reality? The problems are multiple, international, fast developing and complex.

I've often wondered if the average MP these days is actually capable of governing, of even keeping pace with events in the 21st century world.
With this election, we've lost weeks and weeks of work and decision making- and the final result is yet more chaos.
I'd place our forces under alert, and try and gather them to anticipate future problems that could arise at very short notice.
Are they ready and able today?

[pr00ne]

Under alert? For what?

Don't you think the alert state is high enough.

[The Old Fat One]

Our banking system did collapse, our political system is in systemic chaos, we have some pretty spectacular debts of our own (and precisely zero plans to deal with them) and one of the many reasons our youth are saying "***** you old timers" is because we expect them to maintain our employment ratio by working in zero hour minimum wage jobs etc etc.

I love this country (esp Scotland where I live) but I don't wear "empire-tinted" glasses. Nor am I an ostrich - there are trouble and hard times ahead, even when someone eventually gets a grip and leads us forward.

And that's more than enough thread drift from me...I'll come back and join in again when something substantial happens...something tells me that won't be too long in the future.

By the way "swanky restaurants"...clearly you don't know me :)

[Just This Once...]

There's no English vote for English laws still...

Ahem, you at the back - do try and keep up.

https://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/id_22081/scope_0/filename_ODQrRO11gSy4X37L6YTE.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx

Came into law in 2015.

:ok:

[engineer(retard)]

Ahem, you at the back - do try and keep up.

Came into law in 2015.

:ok:

I stand corrected. I recall that furore about having 2 classes of MPs, even though everyone else has 2 sets of MPs. That said, it's been watered down so much that it is pointless, as the rest of the UK can veto English laws but there's no reciprocal rights.

[engineer(retard)]

Our banking system did collapse, our political system is in systemic chaos, we have some pretty spectacular debts of our own (and precisely zero plans to deal with them) and one of the many reasons our youth are saying "***** you old timers" is because we expect them to maintain our employment ratio by working in zero hour minimum wage jobs etc etc......


By the way "swanky restaurants"...clearly you don't know me :)

Our banking system didn't collapse and whilst our debts are large they are being acknowledged and addressed by at least one party. The only reason for chaos in the political system is the inability of some politicians and the public to accept the settled will of the people. I work on a zero hour contract and object to people's trying to remove my work options. I have 3 sons, none of which are on a minimum wage.

But you are right enough thread drift, I think we need to fix bayonets because someone is panicking :)

[A_Van]

Have heard and read several times that EU were going to ask UK for a "divorce payment" of some huge amount, Euro 50-100 Bln. Sounds like a "gangsta song", as it is about twice as much as the whole UK defence budget. Perhaps not a "mortal coil" for the entire economy, but (continuining the soliloquy) would "give you pause" in developing some defence projects. With this regard, does not it look as the first priority for the prime minister (no matter what party he or she represents) to be able to reject or minimize such claims?

[Heathrow Harry]

van - it's the money we owe or ratehr what the EU thinks we owe

We've comitted to funding things like pensions for EU employees (some of whom are British) - the EU thinks we should cough up to cover the costs = months of argument and ill-feeling on both sides

[Heathrow Harry]

Let's think what COULD be done to save costs - not for one moment do I think this is good, wise or preferable but it may be necessary:-

(I expect to be trashed - fair enough -but if you disagree please let's see your suggestions as to where the cuts should fall rather than just sticking our fingers in our collective ears and saying it can't/won't shouldn't happen))

1. Complete both carriers but immediatly sell/mothball one - be like the French with only one carrier.

2. Cut the number of F-35's accordingly and slow the delivery of the others - purchase and/or upgrade more Typhoons

3. Extend the Trident submarines for a few years - the USN boats aren't being replaced as soon as ours

4. Cancel any development of a new MBT and the Mechanised Infantry vehicle and buy German or American when/if we need them

5. Accelerate the sale of MoD property - maybe using an incentivised private partner

6. Slow the deliveries of P-8 - we've managed for several years with no Marine Patrol Aircarft - 5 would be better than none - the ordered 9 would be better still but the optional total of 32.............................

7. Amalgamate more Army units to get them to workable size -

8. Pull out of Bahrain, Kenya & Cyprus

9. Drastically reduce the number of SO's, HQ's Whitehall staffs - we should benchmark our senior staffing to that of other countries (Israel for example)

I'm sure everyone will have other ideas as to where the cuts could come............... It would be great if there was an INCREASE in spend but reallistically I don't think we have a cat-in-hells chance

PS I've just re-read the National Audit Office Report https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equipment-plan-2016-2026/ - we were already looking at future cuts - they're just going to be worse now

[Lima Juliet]

HH

Accelerate the sale of MoD property - maybe using an incentivised private partner

Sadly, this has proven time and again not to generate much money and, due to the cost of building facilities at the new location, is often more expensive than 'mend and make do'.

The only way to make money is for the MOD to become the land developer - that's where the money is.

LJ

[pax britanica]

Well if TM manages the impossible and stays on we wont need trident either. JC says he wouldnt use it but mother Theresa said she would but as we now know she is unable to understand the difference between yes and no or stop reversing decisions she took the day before . Not much use to us then so that can go

[Frostchamber]

I think people may be getting a little carried away. Labour and the Tories were both committed to 2% of GDP going in to the election and while a future Corbyn defence review might change things drastically, as might an economic collapse, I'm not sure it's necessary at this stage to plan quite so enthusiastically for something that hasn't happened yet and may not happen.

The article linked at the head of this thread made clear that the main squeeze is in the next year or so - which suggests finding a few more "efficiencies", or re-phasing a delivery or two, might be enough to sort matters.

I remember before SDSR 2015 some on here were similarly queuing up to prophesy swingeing cuts then too, and announcing that there was certainly no money for things like P8...

[Whenurhappy]

Let's think what COULD be done to save costs - not for one moment do I think this is good, wise or preferable but it may be necessary:-

(I expect to be trashed - fair enough -but if you disagree please let's see your suggestions as to where the cuts should fall rather than just sticking our fingers in our collective ears and saying it can't/won't shouldn't happen))

1. Complete both carriers but immediatly sell/mothball one - be like the French with only one carrier.

2. Cut the number of F-35's accordingly and slow the delivery of the others - purchase and/or upgrade more Typhoons

3. Extend the Trident submarines for a few years - the USN boats aren't being replaced as soon as ours

4. Cancel any development of a new MBT and the Mechanised Infantry vehicle and buy German or American when/if we need them

5. Accelerate the sale of MoD property - maybe using an incentivised private partner

6. Slow the deliveries of P-8 - we've managed for several years with no Marine Patrol Aircarft - 5 would be better than none - the ordered 9 would be better still but the optional total of 32.............................

7. Amalgamate more Army units to get them to workable size -

8. Pull out of Bahrain, Kenya & Cyprus

9. Drastically reduce the number of SO's, HQ's Whitehall staffs - we should benchmark our senior staffing to that of other countries (Israel for example)

I'm sure everyone will have other ideas as to where the cuts could come............... It would be great if there was an INCREASE in spend but reallistically I don't think we have a cat-in-hells chance

PS I've just re-read the National Audit Office Report https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equipment-plan-2016-2026/ - we were already looking at future cuts - they're just going to be worse now

These seem to be good ideas, but...the Typhoon is, at best, a 4th generation platform (and a very good one) but unless we invest in 5th Generation, we will be left behind. Additionally, UK plc has a lot of spin-off programmes from F-35 becasue of our current positioning int eh programme.

Carrier - one carrier masively reduces capability as with two, it would be possible always to have one available for deployment. One will always have refit and training periods. Fact.

Trident. Hmm, in spite of continuous development, the components and design are, still, from the mid 1980s. Fancy computing on Compaq 8086 pc?

P8 - will give a huge boost in all-environments ISTAR.

MBT - are we still investing in dinosaurs? AFVs - we have a huge defence industry that needs continuous government pump-priming into R&D to remain ahead of the game and thus export more defence equipment (= propserity, more jobs...)

Amalgamate Army units? I agree but it's been done...and will lead to more pointless inflighting in the army over cap-badges.

Pull out from Bahrein and Cyprus? Arguably the treasonous decision ot withdraw East of Suez provided a power vacum in the Gulf - which we still feel teh effects from. And our presence in the Gulf is inexorably linked to wider Governmetn interests.

How can you benchmark Israel's strategic position with that of the UK? Didn't realise Israel was part of NATO? And as anyone who has been in MB recently, the headcount continues to fall.


In sum, most of these issues are about 'Where does Britain stand in the world'? We are still a leading economy, massive defence exporter, still a member of the P5, still a founding member of NATO, still with huge Imperial legacies (which, by and large, are positively influential), and remain a global 'brand'. The fact is we have to back up this stance with raw fire power. That means modern, capable, deployable forces. And that comes at a cost.

What is our alternative? Adopt a Scandinavian model and hug people more (not that the Norwegians in Syria have been doing much hugging of IS recently...quite the opposite)?

[ORAC]

Whenurhappy.

Modern AFVs compared to an M1A1 MBT. Makes you realise why they are the same price - and why the A400/C-17 is required rather than the C-130 to carry them.....

SNAFU!: Austrailian ACV contenders size compared to an M1A1. (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/06/austrailian-acv-contenders-size.html)

[engineer(retard)]

If the UK disengages militarily from the EU (as opposed to NATO) what happens to the collaborative European programmes, are they all bilateral/multilateral or are some EU funded? Based on the BBC article I saw this morning, Germany does not seem to have much stomach for a lead military role, will France pick up all of it?

Germany: Reluctant military giant? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40172317)

[Roland Pulfrew]

5. Accelerate the sale of MoD property - maybe using an incentivised private partner Thereby stripping Defence and the UK taxpayer of more valuable space/assets to be sold for short term profit to industry (see OWO).

6. Slow the deliveries of P-8 - we've managed for several years with no Marine (sic) Patrol Aircraft - 5 would be better than none Can't be done as the production line closes shortly after our current planned deliveries. Slowing deliveries rarely, if ever, "saves" money it just moves a bigger problem to later years - hence the MoD "bow wave". 5 MPA would be pointless.

8. Pull out of Bahrain, Kenya & Cyprus Completely missing the strategic importance of all 3 bases!!

9. Drastically reduce the number of SOs, HQs, Whitehall staffs

You haven't been to MoD recently have you? What work do you suggest we stop doing to save all of these posts? These people aren't sat around doing nothing!! Comparing us to the Israelis is facile - I don't see the Israelis joining in major coalitions or treaty orgs like NATO and FPDA. I don't see the Israelis deploying semi-permanently OOA. I don't see the Israeli Govt using military power for global influence as our politicians like to do.

[Heathrow Harry]

Roland - I don't disagree with you - honestly. I think we need to INCREASE the military budget

But IF cuts come - which most people think they will - I doubt the MoD will have much say - it'll be the Treasury and the politicians. Just repeating that all these thing are necessary never got us very far................

[ShotOne]

A Van, yes there has been a demand for the sum of 100 billion Euro's in Brexit reparations. Most of us agree the UK is prepared to pay what it owes...but being as the only identified expense was pensions and the total demanded adds up to over €2,000,000 per EU employee it does seem rather high. Your "gangsta song" description is close to the mark and we may be in for a "hard Brexit" whatever anyone in UK wants. The only remotely comparable situation (which I agree isn't strictly comparable) was France leaving NATO. This imposed major costs on remaining members and France took possession of several expensively NATO funded bases. They paid, ...er, nothing at all! You're right again that minimising such a bill in order to minimise cuts to forces (and everything else!) ought to have been top of the list for whoever won the election. One candidate stated in advance that he would not leave negotiations without a deal at any price. Hardly a strong negotiating position. Fortunately (although he did better than expected) he didn't win.

[ricardian]

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19105767_1860539027529240_1329749905881477117_n.jpg?oh=7348f acd5925d8cfa482a78d1b15b7c8&oe=59A234BB

[Heathrow Harry]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/595954-raf-sentinel-fleet-scrapped.html

first one..................

[The Old Fat One]

TM will do whatever it takes to get the Queen's Speech voted thru, then the next 18 months will just be brexit negotiations...anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with. And that includes non-legislative actions (like Budgets, which will be as bland as ****)

Brexit: 2018 Queen's Speech cancelled by government - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40317814)

And so it begins...

[engineer(retard)]

Brexit: 2018 Queen's Speech cancelled by government - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40317814)

And so it begins...

Might be a hoot to hear the politicians complain about working full time

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH I think most of them work pretty long hours overall - but a lot of it is wasted time - trooping through Division Lobbies instead of pressing a button to vote, hanging around Westminster as lobby fodder

TBH 650 MP's is FAR too many as well

[ORAC]

Bit in the Telgraph today, MOD had declared that Apache was to be ordered on a one for one basis (50). Boeing CEO revealed before Paris Air Show that only 38, plus appropriate spares, have ordered.

MOD protest a second tranche will be ordered when required. Yeah, right....

[aw ditor]

HH

Boundary Commission change proposals for 2018 contained a reduction to 600 MPs' and made the number of Voters per Constituency "more-equal".

AD'

[Heathrow Harry]

Still too many - currently we're third to China (2987 members) & N Korea (687) - at 600 we drop to 7th

I'd say around 400 would be a better number

And a damn sight fewer Lords as well

[ORAC]

Lords? The USA has one Senator per state. Four is too few - couldn't fill the ceremonial post - but if you count the counties (England 48, NI 6, Scotland 33 and Wales 13) it comes to a round 100 which seems a sensible total. Then some non-voting hereditary peers could be added to fulfill the additional ceremonial roles and honorary peers who could give speeches to advise could be added for their expertise and as an award, but strictly limited in number - but not with a vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_the_United_Kingdom

[downsizer]

The USA has one Senator per state.

Erm, no, two per state.

[Heathrow Harry]

and a herd of Representatives

[Vortex_Generator]

The US legislature has 535 voting members: 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. The UK has 650 MPs and 798 Lords Temporal and Spiritual.:eek::eek:

[Martin the Martian]

Yes, but the USA uses a federal system, so much of the decision making is done at state level. When you take that into account, I suspect it is much more evenly balanced.

[The Old Fat One]

And I thought I was guilty of thread drift :)

ahem...

TM will do whatever it takes to get the Queen's Speech voted thru, then the next 18 months will just be brexit negotiations...anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with.

"We've never seen a Queen's Speech in recent years so shorn of pretty much all significant domestic legislation."

some BBC political dude

Will the Queens Speech be voted down? That outcome is definitely "in play".

If it is will this result in:

[ ] JC as PM?
[X] Another general election?

made my choice, if it happens

What has this got to do with forces cuts?

Not much...they are [probably] gonna happen whatever.

Joking aside, I hope the QS gets though...we all need a break from this and business needs the brexit end game to happen. Plus it would nice if sometime in the next five years our Government could actually...well...govern.

[Heathrow Harry]

I expect the DUP to vote with the Tories on the Queens Speech - to show them they can support them -

and then drop Teresa in it on some other legistlation - to show they still need bribing

And they'll do it for years............................

[The Old Fat One]

Opportunity to get right back on thread

Labour's Lord West of Spithead, the former First Sea Lord (2002-2006), says the UK's soft power is formidable but "it is nothing" if not backed by hard power - which he says has allowed us to punch above our weight for decades.

"It no longer does," he says; adding that the UK has ensured Europe's safety for 70 years "but is no longer able".

He says the government has given "comfortable words about defence" for many years but says this is "no longer good enough" and claims that UK forces are actually underfunded due to "incoherent cuts" to balance budgets.

Lord West says that military ships lack basic munitions, adding that this is "not an abstract issue". He says that world events could lead to a situation where we will have ships across the world that could face a fight, and where "we will have ships sunk and people will die".

It is a disgrace for our great maritime nation, he says, and warns it may affect our nation's survival.

and now off thread...how does it sit with some of you, that an ex First Sea Lord is a JC supporter?

and on again...from his wiki page

In August 2016 he described the issues facing the MoD post-Brexit as a "perfect storm", insisting that there were great difficulties for the British military as a result of Britain's exit from the European Union.

[engineer(retard)]

and now off thread...how does it sit with some of you, that an ex First Sea Lord is a JC supporter?



I don't think he is:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/686510/Jeremy-Corbyn-too-stupid-to-be-Labour-Leader-peer-says

He said: “I had hoped that maybe he had the capacity to learn, to absorb things, in the nuclear argument, to hear all the debate, because it seems to me such a logical argument.

“I’m convinced we shouldn’t be unilateralist. I don’t think it achieves anything.

“It keeps us less safe. I think it’s a stupid thing to do. I’d hoped that he’d see that.

“But more and more I’m beginning to say, I don’t think he’s got the mental capacity to grasp some of these big issues.

“That’s a horrible thing to say but I don’t think he has.”

[The Old Fat One]

Aye, I kinda knew that, but I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that he is still of a "labour persuasion". More importantly it was written a year ago, when the power struggle in Labour was in full throttle.

That's all changed now.

In my book, since JC has cemented his grasp on the Labour Party, anybody who is a Labour supporter is defacto now a JC supporter, whether they like the dude and his politics or not.

Nothing wrong that, I might add, we live in a democracy. But the thrust of my question (which was unashamedly provocative) was since the primary dislike of JC amongst military and ex military people seems to be his past history with the IRA/ETA etc, how does it sit that one of us, has a big foot in his camp.

Or am I doing a disservice to the ex Admiral...perhaps he has disconnected himself from all things leftie and I'm just out of touch...would not be the first time :)

[engineer(retard)]

I expect everybody will vote for him if he offers them a free Typhoon, tank and frigate each :E

[Heathrow Harry]

He's now ahead of the Maybot as best person to be PM according to the Times poll today

And, TBh, it's getting hard to disagree

She needs to go before she becomes total laughing stock

[brakedwell]

He's now ahead of the Maybot as best person to be PM according to the Times poll today

And, TBh, it's getting hard to disagree

She needs to go before she becomes total laughing stock


Too late, computer says it has already progammed in total laughing stock :eek:

[ShotOne]

"Best person to be PM.." Didn't we just have an election?

Still I hope JC enjoys Glastonbury

[engineer(retard)]

"Best person to be PM.." Didn't we just have an election?

Still I hope JC enjoys Glastonbury

I'm sure he'll find an Armed Forces pavilion and some veterans to put his arm around.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Didn't we just have an election?"

Indeed - and Mrs May survives on sufferance as she blew it

If tgeh Tories weren't running scared she'd have been out on her ear the day after and we'd have a full scale intra - Tory battle on to choose her replacement

[engineer(retard)]

"Didn't we just have an election?"

Indeed - and Mrs May survives on sufferance as she blew it

If tgeh Tories weren't running scared she'd have been out on her ear the day after and we'd have a full scale intra - Tory battle on to choose her replacement

And Corbyn will still have lost the election, it's past time that people got over it. Staying on track, I don't see any way that Corbyn will become a Forces favourite, his record of support for the military is dire and service personnel are generally too cynical to be bought with free sweeties like the students.

[The Old Fat One]

For those with an interest, here are two interesting links I have dug out...both of which tell a similar story, to whit...

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/queen-speech-and-fixed-term-parliaments-act?gclid=Cj0KEQjwhMjKBRDjxb31j-aesI4BEiQA7ivN-JtVpMMHDiEjpuGSXHqeanDLSmBJd5Nu49tprcd1lCIaAnIP8P8HAQ

How the queen?s speech could bring down Theresa May ? POLITICO (http://www.politico.eu/article/queen-speech-2017-theresa-may-how-the-queens-speech-could-bring-down/)

If the Queens Speech is voted down, it would be constitutionally problematic for the tories & May to continue (using the last occasion 1924 as a "recent" precedent). However, the introduction of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has introduced the possibility of a constitutional impasse, and as yet, the specific circumstances we face are untested, ie we are potentially in unknown territory.

All this is of course moot if the Queens Speech passes, as it looks likely to do. But it is worth noting that the expression "likely to do", along with the projections of political analysts, has come to mean absolutely FA over the last two years. There are a lot of angry politcos knocking about just now, and it will only take a few tories to say, "you know what, f**k this grubby power grab & brexit ****, not what my constituents elected me for, I'm out".

So who knows. It's flippin hard to even find out when the vote is...Thursday seems favourite.

Here's my odds

5/1 against Queens Speech voted down, constitutional row...another General Election in 3 months or less.

4/5 on Queens Speech squeaks thru'. TM continues for a while, its all about Brexit for two years, near to zero non-brexit related domestic legislative agenda.

Either way, decisions on defence spending will be non-existent at parliamentary level for the next two years plus, so just existing budget management by the MOD for the foreseeable future. It will be interesting to see how the MOD managers spin out a budget that is probably insufficient to meet their forthcoming needs.

And Corbyn will still have lost the election, it's past time that people got over it.

True, and other than ideologically blind Labour supporters nobody disputes that. But winning the most seats/votes does not necessarily inevitably lead to forming a government and there are plenty of historical precedents, home and abroad, to inform us thus.

[Heathrow Harry]

Today's Times reckons the MoD are targetting savings through "efficiencies" of £ 20 Bn over 10 years

I think we've heard that one before.........

[ShotOne]

If "grubby power-grab" it is, you've just described the governments of most of Europe. Even allowing for unpredictability, are you really saying some Tory MP's (or anyone) would facilitate a much grubbier power-grab by brexit supporting Labour? Even if they did, they'd need support of SNP (indyref 2 wa hae!) AND lib-dem AND DUP AND everyone else and even then they wouldn't have a majority. If you think there's a funding crisis now, how much would be left for defence after all the bungs and bribes needed to hold that lot together?

[Politely_amused]

Some interesting views from RUSI...

https://rusi.org/commentary/ministry-defence-facing-tough-financial-choices#.WVlYxShHE0c

Such as:


Merge 3 Cdo and 16 AA Bde into 1 x spearhead Bde
A reduced Lightning II fleet to be flown by the FAA (only), supported by RAF Infra
Uplift Typhoon to enable the RAF to transition to an unmanned combat fleet over the next 30 years


Enjoy...

[tucumseh]

So, the black hole is down from £38Bn to £20Bn in just a few years. No better indication of the cuts; and now more planned before assessing the impact of the previous ones. Or was the £38Bn a load of cobblers to justify cuts? Or is this now Treasury BCs saying, you managed £18BN, now take more. Time for the Chiefs of Staff to speak out while in office.

3 Cdo might twitch as this would be seen as an opportunity to consolidate the recently announced cuts in their strength - and some more. Parts of the Army would be glad to get shot of 16AAB, at least the ground element. I recall them being written out of BOWMAN, senior staff alleging they weren't a properly established unit. By the time they produced their chit it was too late. Interesting and revealing little Army spat. Makes you wonder who's whispering in RUSI ears.

[Onceapilot]

RUSI- what a strange abbreviation. What a load of tosh! If Steve Hillier is a "man of vision" he should be pushing for the whole carrier farce to be drawn to a close. I have a vision, and it is not good: The really useful defensive and retaliatory modern capabilities that UK Armed Forces need, will be (further) pared back below levels necessary for the effective support of national responsibilities. The carrier farce will neuter the capabilities that are actually important.:mad:

BTW, did you realise, the carrier farce is probably the reason for the 1% Military pay freeze! :oh:

OAP

[Not_a_boffin]

BTW, did you realise, the carrier farce is probably the reason for the 1% Military pay freeze! :oh:
OAP



Not good with numbers are you fella?


Aside from the small fact that Equipment comes out of a different budget to pay - which might seem trivial when on a hobby-horse, but is actually important - you really ought to try comparing programme budgets and their annual impact. Here's a thought - did you know that the in-year spend for QE and F35 was no more than that for A400M & FSTA in 2015-2016 (last year that NAO published its very useful project appendices)? Or that more was spent on Typhoon (even then) than QE?


Some percentages for you :


% of in-yr EP budget (2015/16)
Typhoon 17%
QE 13%
A400 12%
Astute 12%
FSTA 9%
F35 6%
Complex weaps 5%


You might also find that QE ain't even in the top four most expensive programmes in the EP. Look elsewhere for your pay limit, but don't let that get in the way of a good tantrum eh?

[Onceapilot]

Not good with numbers are you fella?


Some percentages for you :


% of in-yr EP budget (2015/16)
Typhoon 17%
QE 13%
A400 12%
Astute 12%
FSTA 9%
F35 6%
Complex weaps 5%


You might also find that QE ain't even in the top four most expensive programmes in the EP. Look elsewhere for your pay limit, but don't let that get in the way of a good tantrum eh?

What you fail to see NOB, is that the whole carrier farce is wasted expenditure. There is a difference between capabilities that the UK should have and, those that we don't need! :rolleyes:

OAP

[Not_a_boffin]

What you fail to see NOB, is that the whole carrier farce is wasted expenditure. There is a difference between capabilities that the UK should have and, those that we don't need! :rolleyes:

OAP


Well if you're going to take it like that.....


There is a difference between what the Joint Capabilities Board and its predecessors, HMG and our closest allies think is needed and what an embittered former pilot with a tenuous grasp of facts thinks is needed.


One tends to have rather more weight than the other......

[Onceapilot]

Well if you're going to take it like that.....


There is a difference between what the Joint Capabilities Board and its predecessors, HMG and our closest allies think is needed and what an embittered former pilot with a tenuous grasp of facts thinks is needed.


One tends to have rather more weight than the other......

And your specialist subject is...?

OAP

[Not_a_boffin]

Facts. Carry on...

[hoodie]

Facts? On Proon? What are you? Some kind of professional?

Rookie PPRuNe error. :E

[Onceapilot]

Facts. Carry on...

Fact is, HMG are in a political/economic/existential corner, idiot Polis have been led into an unnecessary and hugely expensive military project by infighting Service chiefs. Fact is, either it will be scrapped or, if it is retained other more important UK Military capabilities will suffer.
Things are changing in the UK. What was decided a few years ago is all bilge water now. Remember HMS Vanguard? TSR2? etc?

OAP

[Not_a_boffin]

Fact is, HMG are in a political/economic/existential corner, Agreed, that's a fact


idiot Polis - also a fact


have been led into an unnecessary and hugely expensive military project by infighting Service chiefs. That's an opinion, unless you're talking about FSTA! Some - not me - would also add Typhoon, but would still be an opinion


Fact is, either it will be scrapped - a fact, sometime in the fifties or sixties like as not


or, if it is retained other more important UK Military capabilities will suffer. not a fact, again, an opinion



Things are changing in the UK. What was decided a few years ago is all bilge water now. Remember HMS Vanguard? TSR2? etc? Vanguard (one assumes you mean the battlewagon) had already been superseded by the aircraft carrier when she commissioned. You may have noticed that numerous nations are - or plan to - recapitalise their carrier capabilities or even re-introduce one. US, China, India have ships in build, Russia would love to, but is discovering the effects of Mr Putins social skills, Japan, S Korea, Brazil, Australia not in the carrier game yet, but thinking about it.


TSR2 was a specific aircraft design, not a capability.
OAP



When I said tenuous grasp of facts, I meant you weren't prepared to dig down and unearth the actual numbers and where they come from. I didn't realise you couldn't discern between facts and opinions.

[downsizer]

Feeing the love in here!

[Onceapilot]

Feeing the love in here!

Fact is, they are a capability that we don't need and can't afford. :oh:

OAP

[downsizer]

^^^Why quote me dude, I have no dog in this fight?

[glad rag]

Why do we practice expeditionary warfare?
It really hasn't got us anywhere.

Now we have two massive bemoths to continue the practice.

My objections are the ideals of projecting UK national policy whilst tied to the apron strings of US foreign policy see line one above.

However hats off to BAE they have played a blinder.

[ericferret]

Falklands?
No carriers, hello Malvinas.
The fact that there is an airfield there means nothing, one good airstrike and goodnight.





Why do we practice expeditionary warfare?
It really hasn't got us anywhere.

Now we have two massive bemoths to continue the practice.

My objections are the ideals of projecting UK national policy whilst tied to the apron strings of US foreign policy see line one above.

However hats off to BAE they have played a blinder.

[Onceapilot]

^^^Why quote me dude, I have no dog in this fight?

Just being inclusive. Thought you might have an opinion on the topic? Can remove if you wish?

OAP

[Onceapilot]

If anyone can listen to the UK political news today and imagine that a huge budget scythe is going to miss the UK Mil, they have had too much grog. :zzz: Maybe some clever people can identify the capabilities we do not need, as opposed to the capabilities that we do need?

OAP

[Martin the Martian]

Falklands?
No carriers, hello Malvinas.
The fact that there is an airfield there means nothing, one good airstrike and goodnight.

One good airstrike with what, exactly?

[ExAscoteer]

Falklands?
No carriers, hello Malvinas.
The fact that there is an airfield there means nothing, one good airstrike and goodnight.

Utter Horlicks.

If it were so easy, please explain to me how come the Argentines haven't achieved a second invasion in the last 35 years?

[Heathrow Harry]

not sure our entire defence strategy should be driven by the aim of defending Poart Staley TBH

[Trumpet_trousers]

Poart Staley
Wherever that is??

[Heathrow Harry]

Wherever that is??

somewhere known only to God and keyboard of my tablet on a very bumpy train.......... ;);)

Sitting down waiting a connection I can now magically turn it into Port Stanley .............