New Defence Secretary
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask a question that's been bugging me since the election?
Labour lose 47 seats but also lose 100 off their majority - now I know that the boundaries have been redrawn but I don't get how 47=100 - any explanation?
Labour lose 47 seats but also lose 100 off their majority - now I know that the boundaries have been redrawn but I don't get how 47=100 - any explanation?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask a question that's been bugging me since the election?
Labour lose 47 seats but also lose 100 off their majority - now I know that the boundaries have been redrawn but I don't get how 47=100 - any explanation?
Labour lose 47 seats but also lose 100 off their majority - now I know that the boundaries have been redrawn but I don't get how 47=100 - any explanation?
47 MPs that Labour do not have and cannot vote in favour of a Labour bill.
47 MPs belonging to other parties that can vote against a Labour bill.
47 + 47 = 94. It is double counting, ayes and noes.
It should really be 94, but I guess 100 sounds sexier!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't wait until the next election - my MP [Con] is a Sqn Ldr in the Commons scheme. He's already flown a variety of ac, inc Nimrod and F3 to my certain knowledge.
Someone like Jonathan Djanogly would make a first rate Min of Def.
Someone like Jonathan Djanogly would make a first rate Min of Def.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CANTSAY
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The end is near 
By the next Election the RN, RAF and Army will be no more
RBDF will up and running, Royal British Defence Force.
FJ drivers will be seconded from Easyjet for a year's military national service to serve 'President and Country'.
Heli drivers will be hedgehopping out of Odiham before hitching a lift to Shawbury for second tour and finally to one of HMs (or PS - President's Ship's) HMS 'Dingy's as a resettlement tour prior to joining the north sea oil taxi service.
Sailors from cross channel ferries will have to serve a year's national service in a military dinghy engaged on off shore anti-refugee duties.
Night Club bouncers/thugs will serve a year's national service on peace keeping duties.
Clerks clerking in Aldershot, Devonport or Waddington.
Cooks cooking in Rosyth for first tour, then Catterick for detachment before full tour at Cranwell.
Suppliers supplying at Hereford, then Aldergrove and Bahgdad.
Techies teching at Tidworth, then Mount Pleasant and on to Devonport.
Comms communicating at Digby, then from Kandahar before finishing at Corsham in disillusionment.
Intells intelligencing at Chicksands and Cyprus and Whitehall and being totally confused.
Green uniforms, green handkerchiefs, green iPods, green ships, green aircraft, green flags, green food, green everything
PS: And very green government ministers who were grown on green trees will be giving the orders
By the next Election the RN, RAF and Army will be no more
RBDF will up and running, Royal British Defence Force.
FJ drivers will be seconded from Easyjet for a year's military national service to serve 'President and Country'.
Heli drivers will be hedgehopping out of Odiham before hitching a lift to Shawbury for second tour and finally to one of HMs (or PS - President's Ship's) HMS 'Dingy's as a resettlement tour prior to joining the north sea oil taxi service.
Sailors from cross channel ferries will have to serve a year's national service in a military dinghy engaged on off shore anti-refugee duties.
Night Club bouncers/thugs will serve a year's national service on peace keeping duties.
Clerks clerking in Aldershot, Devonport or Waddington.
Cooks cooking in Rosyth for first tour, then Catterick for detachment before full tour at Cranwell.
Suppliers supplying at Hereford, then Aldergrove and Bahgdad.
Techies teching at Tidworth, then Mount Pleasant and on to Devonport.
Comms communicating at Digby, then from Kandahar before finishing at Corsham in disillusionment.
Intells intelligencing at Chicksands and Cyprus and Whitehall and being totally confused.
Green uniforms, green handkerchiefs, green iPods, green ships, green aircraft, green flags, green food, green everything
PS: And very green government ministers who were grown on green trees will be giving the orders
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe pitbull Reid's doctorate is in Economics so can't really see that as useful background for SoS for Defence.
I'm sure he'll continue to toe the party line as most of our spineless career politicians do.
I'm sure he'll continue to toe the party line as most of our spineless career politicians do.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More people voted Labour than for any other party
More spin of the 'carefully chosen words' variety that seem so popular with those of your ilk.
What you meant was, since you already pointed out how our 'first past the post' electoral system works, that Labour returned more MPs to the house. Not exactly the same thing, is it?
One thing is for sure - Blairism is now dead and buried. With many Labour MPs breaking cover and openly calling for Blair's resignation, the old guard of the Labour party will soon be back in the driving seat. There will be open warfare within the party soon, Brown will take over, taxes will rocket and public service 'reforms' will suddenly disappear from the agenda.
In reality, this is the best outcome we could have hoped for - it may be painful, but it will destroy the Labour party and relegate them to a couple of decades of opposition after the next election. A weak Tory govt would have been no good at all, and would probably meant more Labour after the next election. In 4-5 yrs time, with the Tories in a stronger position, and not fighting against a huge Labour majority, they will be able to go back to their right-wing roots, get some proper policies that people actually want instead of trying to pander to the pinkos, and get elected. The longer Labour stay in power, the more to the right the political centre of gravity will move among the electorate, and particularly the middle classes, who's only real attraction to Labour was Blairism.
Just for the record, Pr00ne et al, there was a significant (but not big enough) swing to the Tories nationally. In certain areas it was VERY significant. This is not the vote of an electorate that wants to be governed by Labour, but of an electorate that feels there is no credible alternative at the moment. But there will be, in the future, and socialism will finally die the death it deserves.
16B
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Pr00ne wrote:
but not in England, where more people voted Tory than Labour.
So England, with no national assembly/parliament can be kept in place by Bliar's Celtic MPs.
Unsurprisingly, Bliar just won't deal with the West Lothian question.
More people voted Labour than for any other party
So England, with no national assembly/parliament can be kept in place by Bliar's Celtic MPs.
Unsurprisingly, Bliar just won't deal with the West Lothian question.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne
You raised the defence budget issue again, but you did not answer me the last time we discussed your claims about the claimed rise under labour, so I have cut the post back in.
Thank you for your constructive comments, my question was if you are comparing 2 different systems of accounting, how are they being compared. Your response have been
"You clearly don't understand Resource Account Budgeting"
"From 1990 to 1997 the UK defence budget fell 30% in real terms. "The defence vote is safe with the Tories", yeah right!"
"The current defence budget grew 7% in 2003 and 18% in 2004, compare this to Thatchers 3% increase at the height of the cold war."
"The whole of UK Govt moved to RAB in 2001, not just the MOD."
I could have taken your response straight from the Labour manifesto. I have a simple approach to politicians, regardless of party, I assume they are either hiding something or lying. It saves time. In your case you have used a lot of words to say nothing, are you a politician?
I understand that RAB is split into capaital and resource budgeting (C-DEL & R-DEL). With resource including matiriel assets, such as bases and in-service equipment. Now given that personnel numbers and assests such as bases and in-service equipment have retired since 97, then the R-DEL component on current capability is reduced. If this is true, then to reach your figures then the available expenditure for capital expenditure must have had the money that had been spent on resource being spent on capital and the claimed percentage rises. Therefore, the forces should be knee deep in equipment. Where is it?
However, if you are combining the C-DEL & R-DEL figures and comparing it with the previous capital only system then you are guilty of sleight of hand.
What is the definition of real, as in real increases that are being bantered about?
Regards
Retard
You raised the defence budget issue again, but you did not answer me the last time we discussed your claims about the claimed rise under labour, so I have cut the post back in.
Thank you for your constructive comments, my question was if you are comparing 2 different systems of accounting, how are they being compared. Your response have been
"You clearly don't understand Resource Account Budgeting"
"From 1990 to 1997 the UK defence budget fell 30% in real terms. "The defence vote is safe with the Tories", yeah right!"
"The current defence budget grew 7% in 2003 and 18% in 2004, compare this to Thatchers 3% increase at the height of the cold war."
"The whole of UK Govt moved to RAB in 2001, not just the MOD."
I could have taken your response straight from the Labour manifesto. I have a simple approach to politicians, regardless of party, I assume they are either hiding something or lying. It saves time. In your case you have used a lot of words to say nothing, are you a politician?
I understand that RAB is split into capaital and resource budgeting (C-DEL & R-DEL). With resource including matiriel assets, such as bases and in-service equipment. Now given that personnel numbers and assests such as bases and in-service equipment have retired since 97, then the R-DEL component on current capability is reduced. If this is true, then to reach your figures then the available expenditure for capital expenditure must have had the money that had been spent on resource being spent on capital and the claimed percentage rises. Therefore, the forces should be knee deep in equipment. Where is it?
However, if you are combining the C-DEL & R-DEL figures and comparing it with the previous capital only system then you are guilty of sleight of hand.
What is the definition of real, as in real increases that are being bantered about?
Regards
Retard
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the Tories had won the election they would of made a huge difference to the forces future? At least Churchills Grandson was ex army and may of improved the current situation as SoS Defence.
Eng Retard
You beat me to it. prOOne and his spin yet again!! He obviously does not understand RAB. The Defence budget may have increased, on paper, but that does not take into account the savings measures that 2nd PUS and the Ministers (particularly HMT) have imposed on Defence. Once the "savings" measures have been taken into account there is a net reduction (in cash terms - and lets face it that is all that counts) in the Defence Budget - and despite all the spin I believe it equates to some £2B. If there were an increase, as some claim, why are the Navy about to lose boats, the RAF be reduced in size by 25% and the army lose large chunks of "armour" all at a time when the Armed Forces are undergoing the longest period of sustained Op Tempo since .......?
Lies, damn lies and spin!
You beat me to it. prOOne and his spin yet again!! He obviously does not understand RAB. The Defence budget may have increased, on paper, but that does not take into account the savings measures that 2nd PUS and the Ministers (particularly HMT) have imposed on Defence. Once the "savings" measures have been taken into account there is a net reduction (in cash terms - and lets face it that is all that counts) in the Defence Budget - and despite all the spin I believe it equates to some £2B. If there were an increase, as some claim, why are the Navy about to lose boats, the RAF be reduced in size by 25% and the army lose large chunks of "armour" all at a time when the Armed Forces are undergoing the longest period of sustained Op Tempo since .......?
Lies, damn lies and spin!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spending Spending Spending.
The comments above about Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) are partially correct. The budget is indeed split into Capital and Resource, with Resource further split into Programmes and Administration. The important points to note are these:
1. Not all bits of the Budget are equal. Admin funding is magic (ask “Admin Guru”): Admin can be converted into Programme spending, and all Admin and Programme (Resource) spending can be converted into Capital spending. The reverse is NOT true; Capital has to be spent on Capital, and Programme cannot be spent on Admin. The reason for this is that faced with the choice of employing more people (admin) and doing stuff (programme) or buying or building something, historically the UK public sector as a whole – and defence wasn’t too different – employed lots of people and under invested in capital. Hence the Treasury set up rules to ensure that Departments were forced to invest in capital by not letting them spend investment money on resource / programme; hey presto, investment increased.
2. RAB was introduced in two stages – and in both stages Departments worked with Treasury to establish what the baseline was. If MOD messed up the figures, they’ve only got themselves to blame.
3. The equipment programme in SDR was overly ambitious and never funded – it couldn’t have been as the Spending Reviews only cover three years at a time (the next one conducted next year will be superseded in April 2007). As a result, everyone has been assuming that all the new toys are funded; now that the bill is becoming due, there’s insufficient cash to pay for it. It looks to me like MOD has run all of these projects in the hope that the Treasury would bail them out; if Treasury haven’t then MOD has a procurement cash crisis. Again, MOD to explain.
4. Project management? MOD procurement disasters? (Err… Astute, Nimrod MRA4, Bowman etc etc etc)
So think that there are lots reasons for the current cash crunch; and looking around we can all see things that are being done badly or aren’t necessary. Lots of opportunity for the new S of S to make a difference!
1. Not all bits of the Budget are equal. Admin funding is magic (ask “Admin Guru”): Admin can be converted into Programme spending, and all Admin and Programme (Resource) spending can be converted into Capital spending. The reverse is NOT true; Capital has to be spent on Capital, and Programme cannot be spent on Admin. The reason for this is that faced with the choice of employing more people (admin) and doing stuff (programme) or buying or building something, historically the UK public sector as a whole – and defence wasn’t too different – employed lots of people and under invested in capital. Hence the Treasury set up rules to ensure that Departments were forced to invest in capital by not letting them spend investment money on resource / programme; hey presto, investment increased.
2. RAB was introduced in two stages – and in both stages Departments worked with Treasury to establish what the baseline was. If MOD messed up the figures, they’ve only got themselves to blame.
3. The equipment programme in SDR was overly ambitious and never funded – it couldn’t have been as the Spending Reviews only cover three years at a time (the next one conducted next year will be superseded in April 2007). As a result, everyone has been assuming that all the new toys are funded; now that the bill is becoming due, there’s insufficient cash to pay for it. It looks to me like MOD has run all of these projects in the hope that the Treasury would bail them out; if Treasury haven’t then MOD has a procurement cash crisis. Again, MOD to explain.
4. Project management? MOD procurement disasters? (Err… Astute, Nimrod MRA4, Bowman etc etc etc)
So think that there are lots reasons for the current cash crunch; and looking around we can all see things that are being done badly or aren’t necessary. Lots of opportunity for the new S of S to make a difference!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel
I cannot disagree with anything you have written, you know more than I do. However, I wanted to stop the apples and oranges comparison that was going on about how much more is now being invested when the money is counted differently.
It would be more accurate IMHO to compare C-DEL only against previous budgets but I do not have the number sor the brains to do it.
regards
Retard
I cannot disagree with anything you have written, you know more than I do. However, I wanted to stop the apples and oranges comparison that was going on about how much more is now being invested when the money is counted differently.
It would be more accurate IMHO to compare C-DEL only against previous budgets but I do not have the number sor the brains to do it.
regards
Retard
16 blades,
Whilst you are right that Labour returned more MP’s than the Tories, or all other parties combined, my original point is still valid, more people voted Labour than Tory. 9,556,183 voted labour as opposed to 8.772,598 who voted Tory, so it actually IS exactly the same thing isn’t it?
As to your little private fantasy about the future of the Labour party, dream on. The Conservatives are the ones who now need to take a good hard look at themselves and decide where they go from here. Labour has the luxury of a third term for the first time in their history with a larger majority than Thatcher had in 1979 and are about to prove that New Labour is far more than just Tony Blair.
As to your summary, remove the Blair and Iraq war effect from voting habits and you will see a very different outcome. In a few years time those effects will have passed and the Conservatives will have a real battle on their hands again.
airborne-artist,
Seeing as it wasn’t an “English” election what is your point?
engineer(retard),
No I am not a politician, I am ex RAF GD(P) and am now a Barrister, I specialised in commercial law for quite some time, as such I was deeply involved with some companies who had a very keen interest in what happened to the Defence budget when RAB was first being proposed. This was in 1993 when RAB was first put forward as the new methodology for public spending accounting and reporting and prior to the 1995 White paper.
I simply do not have the time or inclination to detail RAB in all of its glory nor to declare my sympathies one way or the other.
However accruals accounting is a recognised financial reporting tool and went a very long way to making Govt departments more accountable in terms of their financial goals and overall departmental aims than previous expenditure reporting. There is no need for me to repeat what Squirrel 41 has written other than to add that in theory RAB should make it easier to plan for major expenditure as cost is accrued when capability is delivered rather than when that capability is either purchased or budgeted for. This is more complicated but far more sensible than mere cash accounting.
Below is an extract from an old finance committee I have dug up, it sums up what I am struggling to say in a few words.
“This new system involves expenditure and income being recorded in the year to which it directly relates, irrespective of whether the cash is paid out or received in that year. Also, capital expenditure is spread out over the useful life of an asset in the form of an annual depreciation charge rather than a simple capital procurement sum.”
Roland Pulfrew,
As to savings and efficiency measures of the PUS etc, this is a sum which will be reinvested in the Defence budget so it IS taken into account in the overall size of the budget. IF the Tories had won they were going to find the additional £2.7b of front line funding by doing exactly the same thing only on top of the Labour target of £2.8b.
Whilst you are right that Labour returned more MP’s than the Tories, or all other parties combined, my original point is still valid, more people voted Labour than Tory. 9,556,183 voted labour as opposed to 8.772,598 who voted Tory, so it actually IS exactly the same thing isn’t it?
As to your little private fantasy about the future of the Labour party, dream on. The Conservatives are the ones who now need to take a good hard look at themselves and decide where they go from here. Labour has the luxury of a third term for the first time in their history with a larger majority than Thatcher had in 1979 and are about to prove that New Labour is far more than just Tony Blair.
As to your summary, remove the Blair and Iraq war effect from voting habits and you will see a very different outcome. In a few years time those effects will have passed and the Conservatives will have a real battle on their hands again.
airborne-artist,
Seeing as it wasn’t an “English” election what is your point?
engineer(retard),
No I am not a politician, I am ex RAF GD(P) and am now a Barrister, I specialised in commercial law for quite some time, as such I was deeply involved with some companies who had a very keen interest in what happened to the Defence budget when RAB was first being proposed. This was in 1993 when RAB was first put forward as the new methodology for public spending accounting and reporting and prior to the 1995 White paper.
I simply do not have the time or inclination to detail RAB in all of its glory nor to declare my sympathies one way or the other.
However accruals accounting is a recognised financial reporting tool and went a very long way to making Govt departments more accountable in terms of their financial goals and overall departmental aims than previous expenditure reporting. There is no need for me to repeat what Squirrel 41 has written other than to add that in theory RAB should make it easier to plan for major expenditure as cost is accrued when capability is delivered rather than when that capability is either purchased or budgeted for. This is more complicated but far more sensible than mere cash accounting.
Below is an extract from an old finance committee I have dug up, it sums up what I am struggling to say in a few words.
“This new system involves expenditure and income being recorded in the year to which it directly relates, irrespective of whether the cash is paid out or received in that year. Also, capital expenditure is spread out over the useful life of an asset in the form of an annual depreciation charge rather than a simple capital procurement sum.”
Roland Pulfrew,
As to savings and efficiency measures of the PUS etc, this is a sum which will be reinvested in the Defence budget so it IS taken into account in the overall size of the budget. IF the Tories had won they were going to find the additional £2.7b of front line funding by doing exactly the same thing only on top of the Labour target of £2.8b.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, if Reid turns out to be bad news - he will be moved after 9 months like he has been in every other ministerial job he's had.
Reid and Kelly are particularly clear examples of the new Labour clone - their mouth move, noise come out but nothing remotely resembling words or coherent phrases ever comes out.
Reid and Kelly are particularly clear examples of the new Labour clone - their mouth move, noise come out but nothing remotely resembling words or coherent phrases ever comes out.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moggiee
I am afraid I have to disagree. I worked in MOD when Reid was Min (AF) and he was outstanding - and popular with both Service folk and civil servants. He was a great improvement on Soames - and I am sure he will be a good SoS
I am afraid I have to disagree. I worked in MOD when Reid was Min (AF) and he was outstanding - and popular with both Service folk and civil servants. He was a great improvement on Soames - and I am sure he will be a good SoS