"nu" Labour - A Decade Of Neglect....
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
From: Bury St. Edmunds
"nu" Labour - A Decade Of Neglect....
I read in todays Telegraph that the armed forces under the Labour govt have been cut by almost 20% in spite of the unquestionable need for more troops in Afganistan, and other sandy places....
There are now over 46,000 FEWER servicemen and women than when the Tories were in power and cuts have meant the loss of 479 armoured vehicles, 168 fixed-wing ac, 30% fewer subs, surface warships and what is left is getting older and not being replaced.
The MOD admits that there is a shortage of 6,500 soldiers, sailors and airmen from what it calls its "trained requirement".
The real issue is that in spite of these cuts the MOD is still in a funding crisis. Do the armed forced need to lose a further 46,000 in order to balance the books? Do we stop pretending to have any polititical influence on the world stage and allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by world events - something that might not have happened if we had maintained our "clout". It's about time the "Top Brass" spoke out to end what has become a disasterous decade of neglect....and our guard lowered for ever.
They need to learn the word NO! and stop saying "Can do!" to every NU Labour's whim......if only they had the ba**s to do so they would gain the respect of those they are supposed to lead and represent and be doing the country a great service.
MB
There are now over 46,000 FEWER servicemen and women than when the Tories were in power and cuts have meant the loss of 479 armoured vehicles, 168 fixed-wing ac, 30% fewer subs, surface warships and what is left is getting older and not being replaced.
The MOD admits that there is a shortage of 6,500 soldiers, sailors and airmen from what it calls its "trained requirement".
The real issue is that in spite of these cuts the MOD is still in a funding crisis. Do the armed forced need to lose a further 46,000 in order to balance the books? Do we stop pretending to have any polititical influence on the world stage and allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by world events - something that might not have happened if we had maintained our "clout". It's about time the "Top Brass" spoke out to end what has become a disasterous decade of neglect....and our guard lowered for ever.
They need to learn the word NO! and stop saying "Can do!" to every NU Labour's whim......if only they had the ba**s to do so they would gain the respect of those they are supposed to lead and represent and be doing the country a great service.
MB
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 35
From: Hong Kong
I can not remember a time when the Armed Forces were not underfunded and in crisis. Like a lot of other things reliant on tax quids. As I recall the Armed Forces were ill prepared etc for The Falklands, WWII and the Battle of Grange Hill.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
I would condemn Labour's cuts to force structure just as energetically as you do, but to emphasise the party political nature of the phenomenon is foolish, and quite probably counter-productive.
The Tories have been every bit as lethal to the UK's defences, and indeed cuts to the RAF under their reviews (Options for Change, Front Line First, etc.) were more swingeing than New Labour's have been. But because they have a 'reputation' as being pro-Forces, too many people believe their 'schtick', making it even more likely that these 'friends of the forces' will screw you lot over again, and they won't get anything like the flak that Labour would for doing so.
The problem is that defence cuts are electorally easier than cuts to services that people actually care about. The great bulk of the British public will wear their poppies with pride, will applaud at parades, will cry real tears when the coffins come home (or watching emotive documentaries) but they wouldn't stomach another penny in the pound on their income tax, and they'd rather see cuts to the defence budget than to the NHS or education.
And those who give the Tories an easy ride on defence make it easier for them to wield the axe.
(And the Liberals would be just as bad, before anyone mentions them!)
The Tories have been every bit as lethal to the UK's defences, and indeed cuts to the RAF under their reviews (Options for Change, Front Line First, etc.) were more swingeing than New Labour's have been. But because they have a 'reputation' as being pro-Forces, too many people believe their 'schtick', making it even more likely that these 'friends of the forces' will screw you lot over again, and they won't get anything like the flak that Labour would for doing so.
The problem is that defence cuts are electorally easier than cuts to services that people actually care about. The great bulk of the British public will wear their poppies with pride, will applaud at parades, will cry real tears when the coffins come home (or watching emotive documentaries) but they wouldn't stomach another penny in the pound on their income tax, and they'd rather see cuts to the defence budget than to the NHS or education.
And those who give the Tories an easy ride on defence make it easier for them to wield the axe.
(And the Liberals would be just as bad, before anyone mentions them!)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: UK
Agreed - the Tories have already said they'd be looking to make heavy defence cuts under their stewardship. So I'd say no matter who you vote for, defence is stuffed - despite the realities of how they're being used.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
From: Bury St. Edmunds
Thanks for the replies gents, it still doesn't explain the deafening silence from CDS, CAS and CNS nor the fact that it is this government which has made the policies which now mean that the armed forces are scattered around the world in the way that they are.
How on earth can the armed forces be expected to mount a "surge" of 4,000 additional troops to Afganistan in the summer without recognition of the need for additional resourses from the Treasury?
Hasn't anyone heard of the "straw" and its effect on the camel's back? The military are at breaking point as it is IMHO, and if it carries on like this we will never get back lost capabilities and the idea of projecting power via new super carriers is just futile and the "capability holidays" will become permanent. Is that really what we want long term?
MB
How on earth can the armed forces be expected to mount a "surge" of 4,000 additional troops to Afganistan in the summer without recognition of the need for additional resourses from the Treasury?
Hasn't anyone heard of the "straw" and its effect on the camel's back? The military are at breaking point as it is IMHO, and if it carries on like this we will never get back lost capabilities and the idea of projecting power via new super carriers is just futile and the "capability holidays" will become permanent. Is that really what we want long term?
MB
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 35
From: Hong Kong
Would it have made any difference at all if any other party was in power?
No - not even a little bit.
All the parties treat the armed Forces the same. Some of them are better at playing the 'We Are really Big Mates of the Armed Forces' card.
The point of supporting the Armed forces is not just to make sure they have lovely smart clothes and guns an' stuff but to make sure that via policies over a number of years that you only have to use them as a last resort.
So where should we start laying the blame then?
No - not even a little bit.
All the parties treat the armed Forces the same. Some of them are better at playing the 'We Are really Big Mates of the Armed Forces' card.
The point of supporting the Armed forces is not just to make sure they have lovely smart clothes and guns an' stuff but to make sure that via policies over a number of years that you only have to use them as a last resort.
So where should we start laying the blame then?
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,311
Likes: 365
From: uk
Agree with Jack, but would say that Labour have simply been more stealthy than Conservatives.
A good example is PFI. While introduced by the Tories, in practice it is Labour who have largely implemented and expanded the policy, which has committed huge chunks of the Defence budget for decades to come, thus reducing the scope for flexibility.
Another example is the likes of QinetiQ. Such "extramural" costs were not borne directly by projects. Suddenly, and without compensatory provision, projects had to bear the cost, plus of course a whopping profit margin. To fund this unexpected burden, other capability had to be sliced off the other end. The creation of QQ was in effect a huge cut in the defence equipment budget. The same can be said for the privatisation of, for example, NARO. And so on.
A good example is PFI. While introduced by the Tories, in practice it is Labour who have largely implemented and expanded the policy, which has committed huge chunks of the Defence budget for decades to come, thus reducing the scope for flexibility.
Another example is the likes of QinetiQ. Such "extramural" costs were not borne directly by projects. Suddenly, and without compensatory provision, projects had to bear the cost, plus of course a whopping profit margin. To fund this unexpected burden, other capability had to be sliced off the other end. The creation of QQ was in effect a huge cut in the defence equipment budget. The same can be said for the privatisation of, for example, NARO. And so on.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
From: Bury St Edmunds.
Ok that's it. I've had enough. Take the politics away. 
A change of constitution then, remove the political parties juristiction from the way that the armed forces are run and funded. They choose when and where to use them but make it a law that not less than 3.25% GDP should be spent on the armed forces. Oh, also you're not allowed to mess about with the method of calculating GDP either Gordon. Simple then, damn this Merlot's good.
A change of constitution then, remove the political parties juristiction from the way that the armed forces are run and funded. They choose when and where to use them but make it a law that not less than 3.25% GDP should be spent on the armed forces. Oh, also you're not allowed to mess about with the method of calculating GDP either Gordon. Simple then, damn this Merlot's good.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 144
From: MARS
Imagine the scene, Torpy, Band and Stirrup standing shoulder to shoulder upon retirement, laying into the government and exposing the situation that led to recent blows......now that would be something...don't hold your breath!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: London UK
I'm not sure what those three will do after they retire but I suspect they are probably making life as difficult as possible for the Treasury. After all no politician wants to make the type of very visible cuts that are currently being proposed in SR 09, especially not in the run up to the General Election.
There seems to be a little bit of dissension over the pressure on the MoD's budget in the ranks of backbench Labour MPs. Bruce George tabled EDM 1017 - see below - but only 14 MPs have signed so far.
That this House welcomes the proposal by Ofcom on 31 January 2008 that the Government should share, trade or release valuable radio spectrum currently allocated to public sector bodies, and draws attention to reports that this could generate up to £20 billion for Treasury funds; congratulates the Government on its decision to incorporate the £959 million generated by the sale of Chelsea Barracks into the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) budget; notes the MoD currently holds 75 per cent. of public spectrum holdings below 15Ghz that are being considered for sale later this year; calls on the Government to reconsider its decision to allow only £500 million of the proceeds from the Ofcom proposal to be returned to the MoD and urges it to significantly increase this amount; and further calls on the Government to use any additional funds generated above the ceiling of £500 million to improve service housing, increase support for seriously injured service personnel and their families and ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped both now and in the future.
There seems to be a little bit of dissension over the pressure on the MoD's budget in the ranks of backbench Labour MPs. Bruce George tabled EDM 1017 - see below - but only 14 MPs have signed so far.
That this House welcomes the proposal by Ofcom on 31 January 2008 that the Government should share, trade or release valuable radio spectrum currently allocated to public sector bodies, and draws attention to reports that this could generate up to £20 billion for Treasury funds; congratulates the Government on its decision to incorporate the £959 million generated by the sale of Chelsea Barracks into the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) budget; notes the MoD currently holds 75 per cent. of public spectrum holdings below 15Ghz that are being considered for sale later this year; calls on the Government to reconsider its decision to allow only £500 million of the proceeds from the Ofcom proposal to be returned to the MoD and urges it to significantly increase this amount; and further calls on the Government to use any additional funds generated above the ceiling of £500 million to improve service housing, increase support for seriously injured service personnel and their families and ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped both now and in the future.
Joined: Sep 2006
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,024
Likes: 102
From: Somewhere flat
Imagine the scene, Torpy, Band and Stirrup standing shoulder to shoulder upon retirement, laying into the government and exposing the situation that led to recent blows......now that would be something...don't hold your breath!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: London UK
prOOne
No but all you need to do is talk to the people who are involved (at whatever level) or just read the posts on here to realise what's happening. Do you really think that the MoD isn't under significant financial pressure?
No but all you need to do is talk to the people who are involved (at whatever level) or just read the posts on here to realise what's happening. Do you really think that the MoD isn't under significant financial pressure?
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
From: West Sussex
JackoNicko,
Couldn't agree more; it's conveniently forgotten that Thatcher was all for selling off HMS Invincible until the task force saved her political arse, then later refused funding for the Advanced STOVL P-1216 which made the JSF look like a pushbike ( I am NOT a labour supporter either ).
Dumping the Sea Harrier - radar range around 100 miles, AMRAAM range 50 miles + in any weather, in exchange for the slower, radar-less GR7/9 with Sidewinders good for all of 1 mile against a retreating enemy, must be blamed on the Navy ( Admirals don't fly ).
Seems to me that defence needs to be taken away from idiot politicians & career types, who are only watchfull of their limited time in office, and placed in the hands & budget of someone who knows what they're doing ...
Couldn't agree more; it's conveniently forgotten that Thatcher was all for selling off HMS Invincible until the task force saved her political arse, then later refused funding for the Advanced STOVL P-1216 which made the JSF look like a pushbike ( I am NOT a labour supporter either ).
Dumping the Sea Harrier - radar range around 100 miles, AMRAAM range 50 miles + in any weather, in exchange for the slower, radar-less GR7/9 with Sidewinders good for all of 1 mile against a retreating enemy, must be blamed on the Navy ( Admirals don't fly ).
Seems to me that defence needs to be taken away from idiot politicians & career types, who are only watchfull of their limited time in office, and placed in the hands & budget of someone who knows what they're doing ...
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 287
Likes: 7
From: Exit stage right.
Irrespective of the party in power there will always be cuts to the service and equipment people want or desire.........BUT remember that real expenditure rises, its just you get less for it.
In an ideal world everybody would all get what they want BUT that cannot happen because the consequences would be to shut down NHS and lots of other services for the people who actually pay the taxes for the equipment to be bought.
It would be great having lots of equipment ready for a war while the homefront collapses as there is nothing there for people and they are starved of services, equipment might end up being used for war alright but at home as people demand more.
The benefit of a recession is that you will get more volunteers and also people who were due to leave will stay on given that no one really wants to exit when 3 million people are unemployed unless they have a reasonable guarantee of an income.
Governments fortunately have to compromise on what is best for everyone but if you equip a military with everything it wants the danger from history is that it decides it needs to use it to gain more resources and power.
In an ideal world everybody would all get what they want BUT that cannot happen because the consequences would be to shut down NHS and lots of other services for the people who actually pay the taxes for the equipment to be bought.
It would be great having lots of equipment ready for a war while the homefront collapses as there is nothing there for people and they are starved of services, equipment might end up being used for war alright but at home as people demand more.
The benefit of a recession is that you will get more volunteers and also people who were due to leave will stay on given that no one really wants to exit when 3 million people are unemployed unless they have a reasonable guarantee of an income.
Governments fortunately have to compromise on what is best for everyone but if you equip a military with everything it wants the danger from history is that it decides it needs to use it to gain more resources and power.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
From: Witney UK
Whilst the military should not have all that it wants in the way of equipment it is right that it should be given the recourses to meet the tasking that is laid upon them by their government Lords and Masters. The equipment should be modern and reliable to ensure the forces can most effectively carry out those tasks. The more obsolete the equipment the more effort is wasted in trying to maintain it.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 910
Likes: 5
From: England
Not arming your armed forces is foolish, handing over your ability to rule, to an unelected bunch of foreign cronnies is treason.
Get them in court, and the good doctors murder would not completely be in vain.
Get them in court, and the good doctors murder would not completely be in vain.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 253
From: London/Oxford/New York
tonker,
What on EARTH are you on about?
The UK armed forces are extremely heavily armed.
Treason? How can you prattle on about unelected foreign cronies when the Monarchy is unelected, and foreign!
What on EARTH are you on about?
The UK armed forces are extremely heavily armed.
Treason? How can you prattle on about unelected foreign cronies when the Monarchy is unelected, and foreign!