UK National Defence Association
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
UK National Defence Association
Grauniad: Military chiefs demand more cash
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is facing calls from senior military figures for an urgent cash injection for Britain's Armed Forces.
The UK National Defence Association is being launched, under the patronage of three former chiefs of defence staff, to press for a major increase in defence spending.
With British troops committed on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will argue that the Armed Forces budget needs to rise from around 2% of national income to 3% - a target it wants all the political parties to sign up to.
The association's patrons are ex-defence chiefs General Lord Guthrie, Admiral Lord Boyce and Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig, and former foreign secretary Lord Owen. Other supporters include ex-MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove and Mr Brown's security adviser, Tory MP Patrick Mercer.
Former Tory MP Winston Churchill - the grandson of the Second World War leader - is the association president.
Speaking ahead of the launch, Lord Guthrie said the lack of sufficient resources for the military had become "a most pressing issue".
"Underfunding of our Armed Forces is already having consequences, both for our overall defence capability and for our forces at the sharp end, which are too thinly spread and being required to go to war with equipment which is often outdated and not fit for purpose," he said.
Lord Boyce, who was chief of defence staff at the time of the Iraq invasion, added: "Even though defence did see an increase in the most recent comprehensive spending review, that goes nowhere near addressing the fundamental issue of proper funding and over-commitment."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is facing calls from senior military figures for an urgent cash injection for Britain's Armed Forces.
The UK National Defence Association is being launched, under the patronage of three former chiefs of defence staff, to press for a major increase in defence spending.
With British troops committed on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will argue that the Armed Forces budget needs to rise from around 2% of national income to 3% - a target it wants all the political parties to sign up to.
The association's patrons are ex-defence chiefs General Lord Guthrie, Admiral Lord Boyce and Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig, and former foreign secretary Lord Owen. Other supporters include ex-MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove and Mr Brown's security adviser, Tory MP Patrick Mercer.
Former Tory MP Winston Churchill - the grandson of the Second World War leader - is the association president.
Speaking ahead of the launch, Lord Guthrie said the lack of sufficient resources for the military had become "a most pressing issue".
"Underfunding of our Armed Forces is already having consequences, both for our overall defence capability and for our forces at the sharp end, which are too thinly spread and being required to go to war with equipment which is often outdated and not fit for purpose," he said.
Lord Boyce, who was chief of defence staff at the time of the Iraq invasion, added: "Even though defence did see an increase in the most recent comprehensive spending review, that goes nowhere near addressing the fundamental issue of proper funding and over-commitment."
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EU Land
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical Whitehall Flannel
'The Ministry of Defence said it welcomed any initiative aimed at promoting informed debate about the forces. But it added that military spending was due to rise by £7.7bn by 2011, extending the Forces' longest period of sustained growth since the 1980s.'
So much for inflation.
So much for inflation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its actually bang on 3.5% inflation. Now, if you currently look at RPI, you could argue we are getting completely shafted. completely completely shafted. M4 money growth stands at 14%, and I for one have noticed many increases in purchase price that funny old thing, CPI does not represent. IN fact, if you can look at what goes into the cpi basket and see that its fine if you are going out and buying a cheap widescreen tv or dvd player from tescos, but when it comes to food produce, the basics, we are all getting right royally shafted.
The fact that they give us sub-inflationary increases in defence spending at a time we are engaged on 2 fronts is an absolute disgrace, and one they should be ashamed of. But yet again, that great cash sink the NHS will get every penny spare.
I just worry that if we enter a UK recession, which, from where I am stood at the moment is looking fairly likely, it isnt education or health that will suffer.
The fact that they give us sub-inflationary increases in defence spending at a time we are engaged on 2 fronts is an absolute disgrace, and one they should be ashamed of. But yet again, that great cash sink the NHS will get every penny spare.
I just worry that if we enter a UK recession, which, from where I am stood at the moment is looking fairly likely, it isnt education or health that will suffer.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7 July 2004
SPEECH BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, GORDON BROWN AT THE BRITISH COUNCIL ANNUAL LECTURE
Thinking globally in an insecure world – and more important in the world since September 11th - requires us of course to take necessary steps to discharge a British government’s first duty – the defence of its citizens, the people of Britain. And as we look forward to next week’s spending review, I will make available the resources needed to strengthen security at home and take action to counter the terrorist threat at home and abroad. Those who wish to cut in real terms the budget even for security will need to answer to the British people. We will spend what it takes on security to safeguard the British people
Hollow words Mr Brown. you will now have to reap what you have sown
SPEECH BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, GORDON BROWN AT THE BRITISH COUNCIL ANNUAL LECTURE
Thinking globally in an insecure world – and more important in the world since September 11th - requires us of course to take necessary steps to discharge a British government’s first duty – the defence of its citizens, the people of Britain. And as we look forward to next week’s spending review, I will make available the resources needed to strengthen security at home and take action to counter the terrorist threat at home and abroad. Those who wish to cut in real terms the budget even for security will need to answer to the British people. We will spend what it takes on security to safeguard the British people
Hollow words Mr Brown. you will now have to reap what you have sown
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really depends on what he means by security at home and abroad. Defence or the spooks?
I believe the Security Services have had uplifts in their spending. The argument could be advanced that the Armed Forces are not part of that arrangement by a suitably mealy mouthed pinko communist subversive self serving rissole, or his equally embarrassing excuse for an opposition spokesman.
I believe the Security Services have had uplifts in their spending. The argument could be advanced that the Armed Forces are not part of that arrangement by a suitably mealy mouthed pinko communist subversive self serving rissole, or his equally embarrassing excuse for an opposition spokesman.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Lord Guthrie said he believed that funding shortages were behind Lord Drayson's decision.
He added: 'I would think that probably - and I'm putting words into his mouth - that he was frustrated by the bureaucracy and that some of his plans for modernising procurement are just not achievable unless more money is available.' "
He's clearly speaking for Drayson there.
Shame Drayson doesn't have the balls to say it himself, but it's still progress I guess.
He added: 'I would think that probably - and I'm putting words into his mouth - that he was frustrated by the bureaucracy and that some of his plans for modernising procurement are just not achievable unless more money is available.' "
He's clearly speaking for Drayson there.
Shame Drayson doesn't have the balls to say it himself, but it's still progress I guess.
Yet again, another cry for help that will go unanswered. Of course, Bob Ainsworth has just appeared on the news utterly refuting every allegation leveled at those who shaft us on a regular basis, stating that the priority for spending has to be operations.
What he and all the Islington Luvvies have singularly failed to grasp is that we need more money to pay for both operations AND daily UK acitivies such as training to ensure that they are not learning on ops. And without funding, that training will not happen. Regardless of what Bob and his cronies say.
Now call me a cynic, but it is quite interesting about all the talk of special schools and special hospitals that we have seen over the past few months. Wouldn't have anything to do with the unfortunate (and I use the term sincerely) position that the current PM and Leader of the Opposition find themselves in with members of their families - would it? I suspect that if Gordon and Dave had members of their immediate families in the Armed Forces and serving on ops, this thread and the entire issue would not be an issue.
I wait with baited breath to see what the UK NDA will achieve, but I suspect very little in real terms.
What he and all the Islington Luvvies have singularly failed to grasp is that we need more money to pay for both operations AND daily UK acitivies such as training to ensure that they are not learning on ops. And without funding, that training will not happen. Regardless of what Bob and his cronies say.
Now call me a cynic, but it is quite interesting about all the talk of special schools and special hospitals that we have seen over the past few months. Wouldn't have anything to do with the unfortunate (and I use the term sincerely) position that the current PM and Leader of the Opposition find themselves in with members of their families - would it? I suspect that if Gordon and Dave had members of their immediate families in the Armed Forces and serving on ops, this thread and the entire issue would not be an issue.
I wait with baited breath to see what the UK NDA will achieve, but I suspect very little in real terms.
I wait with baited breath to see what the UK NDA will achieve, but I suspect very little in real terms.
For your run of the mill squaddie though, will his voice be heard? Or is it a case of it'll only be heard if they cough up the cash yearly or £100 for life membership...
Maybe they should concentrate on getting members of the Armed Forces to support them first by joining for FREE rather than put their hands in their already stretched sky rocket's.
Maybe they should concentrate on getting members of the Armed Forces to support them first by joining for FREE rather than put their hands in their already stretched sky rocket's.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget also, that Adm West is the Security Minister and he understands fully the capability all three services have available/or not to bear.
Oggin
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I right in thinking that Patrick Mercer is the Tory MP that Gordon caused a big hoo-haa about when he recruited him as an advisor on non-party line policies the other month?
If so - fair play. He's paying back Gordy by giving him the headaches he deserves, albeit possibly being seen as taking this into a wider party-lines policy debate.
If so - fair play. He's paying back Gordy by giving him the headaches he deserves, albeit possibly being seen as taking this into a wider party-lines policy debate.
The minister states that spending on defence is due to rise by £8 billion (I'll work round figures) by 2011.
Lets say spending in 2007 (again I'll just mention one year, rather than 2007-2008, for simplicity) on defence is £35 billion.
So, spending rises as follows:
2007 £35 billion
2008 £36 billion
2009 £37 billion
2010 £38 billion
2011 £39 billion
Compare that to it staying at £35 billion each year and you have a £1b + £2b + £3b + £4b = £9 billion rise. Yet each year is less than a 3% increase, and the defence budget has not risen by £9 billion, i.e it is not now £44 billion!
A typical politicians trick. While what is said is accurate in once sense, it is presented in a misleading manner. Oh, and they are all as bad as each other, whether they be Labour, Tory, etc.....
I'm not saying this is exactly the case with the defence budget, but it is the sort of thing ministers get up to. In fact, I beleive I read somewhere that a large proportion of the £7.7 billion rise comes at the end of this period, in 2011 ish (a case of promising jam tomorrow!). So plenty of time between now and then to go back on promises, find excuses (such as not being in Iraq any more) to review/revise previous statements, etc.......
You may have got the hint that I am not too keen on politicians.....!!!
Lets say spending in 2007 (again I'll just mention one year, rather than 2007-2008, for simplicity) on defence is £35 billion.
So, spending rises as follows:
2007 £35 billion
2008 £36 billion
2009 £37 billion
2010 £38 billion
2011 £39 billion
Compare that to it staying at £35 billion each year and you have a £1b + £2b + £3b + £4b = £9 billion rise. Yet each year is less than a 3% increase, and the defence budget has not risen by £9 billion, i.e it is not now £44 billion!
A typical politicians trick. While what is said is accurate in once sense, it is presented in a misleading manner. Oh, and they are all as bad as each other, whether they be Labour, Tory, etc.....
I'm not saying this is exactly the case with the defence budget, but it is the sort of thing ministers get up to. In fact, I beleive I read somewhere that a large proportion of the £7.7 billion rise comes at the end of this period, in 2011 ish (a case of promising jam tomorrow!). So plenty of time between now and then to go back on promises, find excuses (such as not being in Iraq any more) to review/revise previous statements, etc.......
You may have got the hint that I am not too keen on politicians.....!!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr-Burns
Any chance of some present big-knobs saying anything?? methinks not.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
For your run of the mill squaddie though, will his voice be heard? Or is it a case of it'll only be heard if they cough up the cash yearly or £100 for life membership...
Maybe they should concentrate on getting members of the Armed Forces to support them first by joining for FREE rather than put their hands in their already stretched sky rocket's.
Maybe they should concentrate on getting members of the Armed Forces to support them first by joining for FREE rather than put their hands in their already stretched sky rocket's.
Military chiefs demand more cash?
If ever the ‘UK National Defence Association’ needed a ‘gift’ to launch & maybe justify their existence, they should hop over to the ‘Nimrod Information / Panorama Mon 4th June (Merged)’ thread, watch the next Beeb news or read today’s Times online.
They are employed by the MOD, a government department, and will therefore do their best whilst they're in the job. It's their, and our, duty to support HMG.
PN - I had a look at the website, can't comment on the BAFF, but they do say that if you want to "join" you can do for either £12/yr or a one-off £100 life membership, the proceeds of which go to help the running of the website and various other fees etc.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett01
Support doesn't mean a one way relationship. Our Senior officers should do our bidding for us, and say:
a. What is, and what is not possible.
b. Financial, material and personal cost of following a course of action
b. What the risks are.
a. What is, and what is not possible.
b. Financial, material and personal cost of following a course of action
b. What the risks are.