SDSR - Can the Min Def and Joint Chiefs just say no!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDSR - Can the Min Def and Joint Chiefs just say no!?
Rarely do I initiate a post, but......
Am I being thick here? If HMT (Mr Osborne) has decided that the MoD has all of sudden got to pay for Trident due to cost, then cannot the military just say 'no' to supporting Afghanistan due to cost.
Why don't the Joint Chiefs just offer their resignations as even I can see that this is just too far and with that poor level of funding then nothing can be achieved in the future - even with the best non-miliatry civili servant slashing costs to appease his/her treasury masters.
Is the British public truly aware of exactlywhat the implications are of this Defence review? Not one person involved in this 'review' believes that it is policy driven, but merely a method to reduce costs.
What I find slightly unnerving is that the Treasury is about to decimate (on a long term basis) an already overstretched and underfunded MoD under the belief of cost cutting, when actually the city (Goldman Sachs) believes that the UK economy will grow quicker than both the US and Eurozone.
History as shown that the economy can and will turn around quickly, but an experienced, trained and well resourced military force will take significantly longer. We are certainly not in a stable and peaceful phase in world history, so I do not see any 'peace dividends' that can truly deliver real savings.
When the SDSR axe falls in October I am not too sure that the British public will be aware that they will be very vunerable indeed and more to the point not to expect too much from its military anymore.
From my part it will be interesting to see who within the Senior Officers (2 star and above) actually stay or have the honour to resign knowing that this review based purely upon cost has now threatened the number one requirement of any UK Government, the protection and defence of the UK and its global interests.
The way that our PM is flying around the world ensuring his/the UK's 'stamp' is made on Pakistan, Turkey etc, I hope that he will not want to call on his/H M Queen's military in future to help him with his policies and influence, as he will be sorely disappointed or responsible for a British tactical failure when he requests that they act on his behalf after the previous cost cutting outcomes of the SDSR.
What am I missing?
Am I being thick here? If HMT (Mr Osborne) has decided that the MoD has all of sudden got to pay for Trident due to cost, then cannot the military just say 'no' to supporting Afghanistan due to cost.
Why don't the Joint Chiefs just offer their resignations as even I can see that this is just too far and with that poor level of funding then nothing can be achieved in the future - even with the best non-miliatry civili servant slashing costs to appease his/her treasury masters.
Is the British public truly aware of exactlywhat the implications are of this Defence review? Not one person involved in this 'review' believes that it is policy driven, but merely a method to reduce costs.
What I find slightly unnerving is that the Treasury is about to decimate (on a long term basis) an already overstretched and underfunded MoD under the belief of cost cutting, when actually the city (Goldman Sachs) believes that the UK economy will grow quicker than both the US and Eurozone.
History as shown that the economy can and will turn around quickly, but an experienced, trained and well resourced military force will take significantly longer. We are certainly not in a stable and peaceful phase in world history, so I do not see any 'peace dividends' that can truly deliver real savings.
When the SDSR axe falls in October I am not too sure that the British public will be aware that they will be very vunerable indeed and more to the point not to expect too much from its military anymore.
From my part it will be interesting to see who within the Senior Officers (2 star and above) actually stay or have the honour to resign knowing that this review based purely upon cost has now threatened the number one requirement of any UK Government, the protection and defence of the UK and its global interests.
The way that our PM is flying around the world ensuring his/the UK's 'stamp' is made on Pakistan, Turkey etc, I hope that he will not want to call on his/H M Queen's military in future to help him with his policies and influence, as he will be sorely disappointed or responsible for a British tactical failure when he requests that they act on his behalf after the previous cost cutting outcomes of the SDSR.
What am I missing?
1. The British public do not really care about Defence when their jobs and lifestyles are on the line.
2. The war in Afghanistan is unpopular. The war in Iraq is seen as an outright disaster. Do not mistake support for the troops with support for Defence policy.
3. The Armed Forces in this country work for the Government. That means your boss is a politician, not a 'starred Officer'. To say no would start us down the slippery slope of some of the dodgiest countries around.
4. I cannot forsee any politician of any persuasion voting for another overseas adventure like the aformentioned for the forseeable future. That makes the Armed Forces ripe for cuts from a very big budget (in their eyes).
5. What can you do about it? Resign and/or exercise your democratic right at the Ballot Box.
6. It is about raw politics, pure and simple. All the arguments going about capability etc will fall on deaf ears. When it comes to Defence, they will protect the Defence Industry because that is an export business. That does not mean they will support you.
7. In pure military terms, the powers (mil and civil) that be at the MOD will state quite clearly that there is no conventional military threat to the UK and probably won't be in the next 50 odd years. Hence, out of Afghanistan (which will happen before the next election) and no threat means reduce the Armed Forces to no more than a critical hub that can be regenerated in the event of an emerging threat.
8. Trident will be saved because it is seen as a very big political bargaining tool.
I am not saying that I agree with all/some of the above. I just feel that the threads on here discussing capabilities are completaly missing the point. We are a very small cog in a very big and bankrupt machine. To even suggest saying no is, IMHO, pointless and misses the point. To think that, come the crunch, Joe Public will take to the streets to make sure we get our 'kit' is wide of the mark by a country mile.
Very sad times ahead.
2. The war in Afghanistan is unpopular. The war in Iraq is seen as an outright disaster. Do not mistake support for the troops with support for Defence policy.
3. The Armed Forces in this country work for the Government. That means your boss is a politician, not a 'starred Officer'. To say no would start us down the slippery slope of some of the dodgiest countries around.
4. I cannot forsee any politician of any persuasion voting for another overseas adventure like the aformentioned for the forseeable future. That makes the Armed Forces ripe for cuts from a very big budget (in their eyes).
5. What can you do about it? Resign and/or exercise your democratic right at the Ballot Box.
6. It is about raw politics, pure and simple. All the arguments going about capability etc will fall on deaf ears. When it comes to Defence, they will protect the Defence Industry because that is an export business. That does not mean they will support you.
7. In pure military terms, the powers (mil and civil) that be at the MOD will state quite clearly that there is no conventional military threat to the UK and probably won't be in the next 50 odd years. Hence, out of Afghanistan (which will happen before the next election) and no threat means reduce the Armed Forces to no more than a critical hub that can be regenerated in the event of an emerging threat.
8. Trident will be saved because it is seen as a very big political bargaining tool.
I am not saying that I agree with all/some of the above. I just feel that the threads on here discussing capabilities are completaly missing the point. We are a very small cog in a very big and bankrupt machine. To even suggest saying no is, IMHO, pointless and misses the point. To think that, come the crunch, Joe Public will take to the streets to make sure we get our 'kit' is wide of the mark by a country mile.
Very sad times ahead.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that I had thought along the same lines - why should the military care about the country having a nuclear deterrent exactly? It’s a political tool for our leaders to use to effect foreign policy. The problem comes when you think that, for example, the RN might require the deterrent to maintain their budget – but you have to remember to look around the newspaper headlines – that sounded patronising, it wasn’t meant to be I promise! The treasury know that by telling the military to pay for the deterrent itself, they (the Services) will have to make significant cuts elsewhere. This is what the Government wants, to allow those cuts and subsequent ‘capability holidays’ to not be ‘completely’ attributable to the Government. Another name for it is, I suppose, ‘manufacturing consent’ where the government asks the people for their opinions on how to save money – it is then able to, when pushed, say ‘you guys gave us the ideas – we’re in this together’. Don’t listen to Goldman Sachs’ comments on the recovery, anyone but Goldmans! – they just got hit with a $600 miliion fine for lying and it’s in their interest to tell you about the recovering economy – it’s like believing everything the BBC says as an ‘impartial’ voice even though it’s directors are appointed by, wait for it – the Government (or estate agent saying ‘house prises are on the rise again – buy now!) Think also – if you were the CAS, CDS, CGS, 1SL/CNS etc, would you leave in a huff, losing all the prestige and honour that you’ve worked so hard to gain (and your peerage Lord West – not such a ‘simple sailor’ after all) or do you concentrate on your pension and your future earnings of millions advising the defence industry. You are right, though, when you say that it’s not a policy driven review, I agree- but then it never really has been. No military has ever fought with everything they’ve always wanted; they just do the best with what they have. I guess the people that will survive this will be those that just roll with the punches, not those that throw their teddies out. Drop kick the Harriers and don’t buy anymore tanks, as much fun as tanks are – The Times, which I hate btw, was saying that the RN are looking at F/A-18’s instead of the JSF to save money; again – do you think BAE Systems will let that go unchallenged, er – no - British jobs and all that. This country has gone to the dogs under a Labour Government, this is the Tories trying to patch things up – you want to know where the money’s gone then look at the Government that allowed the gap between the rich and the poor to increase at a greater rate than that of any British Government ever – a Labour Government, not exactly supporting the little man in my eyes.
You’re not missing nuffing – it’s nice to see someone posting some reasoned arguments and not just some random whingeing; I might even start reading the forum again.
Wyler's right - it's just politics buddy, just concentrate on keeping your job. Oh, and don't think about it so much - it's not personal, all industries are getting the same treatment.
You’re not missing nuffing – it’s nice to see someone posting some reasoned arguments and not just some random whingeing; I might even start reading the forum again.
Wyler's right - it's just politics buddy, just concentrate on keeping your job. Oh, and don't think about it so much - it's not personal, all industries are getting the same treatment.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I missed something, or has someone declared what the defence budget will be with the nuclear deterrent included? They haven't, so why are we getting all wound up right now? If there was an element of the capital cost of Trident moved across, then that would make a difference. Also - is the ND a political or military decision to hold?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The bottom line is that any senior rank who dared to say no would just be replaced with one who would say yes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wyler,
Thank you...but in reply to your comments below:
We are bankrupt now, but we will not be forever and yet in comparison to the economy, the UK military takes considerably longer to 'recover' - even if there is a defence review every 4 years.
The public maybe lacking support for Iraq/Afghanistan now, but does that mean that when/if future conflicts appear that the British public will not wonder why the UK has not been involved in protecting British interests, especially with a PM that is very much showing the British public that he is part of the world stage with his comments on Pakistan and Turkey this week?
I agree that Trident is a political tool, and not one that will actually win any tactical battles, control battle space etc, so it should be funded outside of MoD. If not UK MoD is unaffordable at whatever level of proposed cuts you look at it - HMT can have its Trident and an Italian style Gendarmerie (Mr C H I do see your point, but do you really see a capital rise in the Defence budget that would cover Trident costs?).
And finally, of course our politicians are our masters, but equally the starred ranks must surely be advising on the near and long term implications of the current proposed cost cuttingr that October will bring. We are not talking about single service rivalry here, with 20bn taken to fund Trident, then whichever cloth you wear the future protection of UK national interests is at risk (and the petty inter service squabbles of MBTs, FJs and CVFs pale into insignificance) - and some may argue that it is better to take on the threat in someone elses back yard rather than in your own.
A united and coherent Joint Chiefs advice to HMG must surely be valued, and if the starred officers believe that their professional judgement has been compromised by an overwhelming desire to cut costs then one could argue that a united resignation would establish the gravity of the situation.
Living space, water and food - that my friend is what we will be fighting for in the future and so I must disagree within the next 20 years we could possibly see UK shores and national interests threatened.
Thank you...but in reply to your comments below:
We are bankrupt now, but we will not be forever and yet in comparison to the economy, the UK military takes considerably longer to 'recover' - even if there is a defence review every 4 years.
The public maybe lacking support for Iraq/Afghanistan now, but does that mean that when/if future conflicts appear that the British public will not wonder why the UK has not been involved in protecting British interests, especially with a PM that is very much showing the British public that he is part of the world stage with his comments on Pakistan and Turkey this week?
I agree that Trident is a political tool, and not one that will actually win any tactical battles, control battle space etc, so it should be funded outside of MoD. If not UK MoD is unaffordable at whatever level of proposed cuts you look at it - HMT can have its Trident and an Italian style Gendarmerie (Mr C H I do see your point, but do you really see a capital rise in the Defence budget that would cover Trident costs?).
And finally, of course our politicians are our masters, but equally the starred ranks must surely be advising on the near and long term implications of the current proposed cost cuttingr that October will bring. We are not talking about single service rivalry here, with 20bn taken to fund Trident, then whichever cloth you wear the future protection of UK national interests is at risk (and the petty inter service squabbles of MBTs, FJs and CVFs pale into insignificance) - and some may argue that it is better to take on the threat in someone elses back yard rather than in your own.
A united and coherent Joint Chiefs advice to HMG must surely be valued, and if the starred officers believe that their professional judgement has been compromised by an overwhelming desire to cut costs then one could argue that a united resignation would establish the gravity of the situation.
Living space, water and food - that my friend is what we will be fighting for in the future and so I must disagree within the next 20 years we could possibly see UK shores and national interests threatened.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... but we are bankrupt now ..... so it doesn't matter if we are in a better place in 5 or 10 years. We can't afford it and we can't afford to borrow more. It really is that black and white.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Living space, water and food - that my friend is what we will be fighting for in the future and so I must disagree within the next 20 years we could possibly see UK shores and national interests threatened
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good view points....
Personally, despite being bankrupt now I would not 'slash and burn' knowing that the future growth of the economy will happen much quicker than any desired (4 yearly) future Defence growth.
As to nothing to nick here in UK, you are assuming that we as a nation are really going to pull up the drawbridge and adopt an isolationist policy - is that what people think?
I do not get that feeling, hence my belief that despite the recent British public distaste for Iraq and Afghanistan, that when/if NATO or another Coalition force is required that the UK military will be asked to fight again. Lets ignore UK shores (and the much talked of resurgence of the Russian bear) and also the historical examples of Gib and the Falklands, but are we going to ignore Commonwealth/other nations in the future when South East Asia spills over, or when Afican nations population/resources result in war and bloodshed?
Has anyone forgotten that only in 1918 people were saying that the 'Great War' was 'the war to end all wars' - are we now saying that the UK people will not get involved with future wars?
If so, I fully accept all of the posts above, and humbly revert to a military that will do the occasional overseas NEO and/or International Disaster relief.
Personally, despite being bankrupt now I would not 'slash and burn' knowing that the future growth of the economy will happen much quicker than any desired (4 yearly) future Defence growth.
As to nothing to nick here in UK, you are assuming that we as a nation are really going to pull up the drawbridge and adopt an isolationist policy - is that what people think?
I do not get that feeling, hence my belief that despite the recent British public distaste for Iraq and Afghanistan, that when/if NATO or another Coalition force is required that the UK military will be asked to fight again. Lets ignore UK shores (and the much talked of resurgence of the Russian bear) and also the historical examples of Gib and the Falklands, but are we going to ignore Commonwealth/other nations in the future when South East Asia spills over, or when Afican nations population/resources result in war and bloodshed?
Has anyone forgotten that only in 1918 people were saying that the 'Great War' was 'the war to end all wars' - are we now saying that the UK people will not get involved with future wars?
If so, I fully accept all of the posts above, and humbly revert to a military that will do the occasional overseas NEO and/or International Disaster relief.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We really need to pull out of Afghanistan , there is no requirement or benefit of being there except the stupid excuse that it will stop terrorisn. Why dont we say we are off home , you leave us alone we wont bother you and lets end it at that . nobody else has to die.
We also save Billions , much needed to restore the country back to health
We also save Billions , much needed to restore the country back to health
MaroonMan4
The current generation of politicians do not look further than the next election. To them, that is long term.
Cameron has said we will be out of Afghanistan by 2015, the date of the next election. He cares little about the actual state of that country when we leave, just that we do with the minimum amount of egg on our face. That will, he hopes, buy votes. That and the subtle promise never to do anything like that again. Crippling us before then will mean he does not have to say 'we won't' but 'we can't'. He is in PR after all.
Everything, the short term pain etc etc is all geared to the political calendar. It's about getting power and keeping it. Pawns like you and me are nothing more than an irritation in the overall scheme of things.
The current generation of politicians do not look further than the next election. To them, that is long term.
Cameron has said we will be out of Afghanistan by 2015, the date of the next election. He cares little about the actual state of that country when we leave, just that we do with the minimum amount of egg on our face. That will, he hopes, buy votes. That and the subtle promise never to do anything like that again. Crippling us before then will mean he does not have to say 'we won't' but 'we can't'. He is in PR after all.
Everything, the short term pain etc etc is all geared to the political calendar. It's about getting power and keeping it. Pawns like you and me are nothing more than an irritation in the overall scheme of things.
I have to say that when the Chancellor said that Trident replacement costs would have to be borne by the Defence Budget, then I wondered what would happen if the MOD put Trident replacement up as a savings measure and stated that all of the conventional stuff provided a better "bang for buck" and that Trident replacement was not going to be funded in order to provide all of the other stuff we need. It is within the gift of the Defence Board.
Then it would be back to HMT and our glorious government to fund it, if that was policy. Now unfortunately the spineless bunch of politicians we have would say we need it and the Defence budget MUST fund it, therefore lots of other kit will be scrapped/not bought to pay for son of Trident. At least that way it would be a political not "military" decision.
Then it would be back to HMT and our glorious government to fund it, if that was policy. Now unfortunately the spineless bunch of politicians we have would say we need it and the Defence budget MUST fund it, therefore lots of other kit will be scrapped/not bought to pay for son of Trident. At least that way it would be a political not "military" decision.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Balanced Force :)
OK, suppose we go along with the whole SDSR intent - militarily.
The politicos say we need an independent deterrent; we need power projection; we need to ensure safe navigation of the seas; we need air policing of the UK air space.
The MOD says we need; SSBN; we need an amphibious facility and we need a naval air component; we need patrol craft; we need a quick reaction air policing capability.
The MOD now has to cut its cloth to purchase and operate a number of SSBN, an amphibious group, a carrier component and blue water patrol craft with a small element of interceptors.
Once that cost has been calculated they can then clothe it with additional assets such as SSN, ASW Vessels, Strike/Attack/Reconnaisance etc.
But it all stems from what the politicians deem is necessary for UK policy.
The politicos say we need an independent deterrent; we need power projection; we need to ensure safe navigation of the seas; we need air policing of the UK air space.
The MOD says we need; SSBN; we need an amphibious facility and we need a naval air component; we need patrol craft; we need a quick reaction air policing capability.
The MOD now has to cut its cloth to purchase and operate a number of SSBN, an amphibious group, a carrier component and blue water patrol craft with a small element of interceptors.
Once that cost has been calculated they can then clothe it with additional assets such as SSN, ASW Vessels, Strike/Attack/Reconnaisance etc.
But it all stems from what the politicians deem is necessary for UK policy.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It surely must be quicker in this day and age to resurrect a nuclear deterrent capability with missiles that just have to be aimed froim somewhere (sub-surface, land-based or in a small suitacase) than rsurrect a capability that needs currency and experience. So drop Trident and tell the Government we'll restore it with sufficient warning!
Well, if we retire the GR4 then there is no hope of the cheaper alternative of putting the Nuke deterrent back with the RAF!! We could, of course, go down the cheaper route of the nuke tipped Tomahawk launched from the hunter/killer subs and ditch the SSBN beasts??
Or we could just stop trying to be the world police and withdraw into international obscurity and lead a sheltered life such as Sweden et al. I mean, what good has our crap foreign policy done us anyway over the past 30 years??
Great Britain - maybe 100 years ago - now Broke Britain maybe more apt...(sigh)
Or we could just stop trying to be the world police and withdraw into international obscurity and lead a sheltered life such as Sweden et al. I mean, what good has our crap foreign policy done us anyway over the past 30 years??
Great Britain - maybe 100 years ago - now Broke Britain maybe more apt...(sigh)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I would refuse to offer up any cuts. The government is looking for someone else to make the decision and to take the blame.
The deterrent, being a strategic weapon, is not one that any of the services should bear.
I would throw the problem back to the PM and get an instruction from him. Then the blame would reside where it belongs
The deterrent, being a strategic weapon, is not one that any of the services should bear.
I would throw the problem back to the PM and get an instruction from him. Then the blame would reside where it belongs
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If HMT (Mr Osborne) has decided that the MoD has all of sudden got to pay for Trident due to cost, then cannot the military just say 'no' to supporting Afghanistan due to cost.
Why don't the Joint Chiefs just offer their resignations as even I can see that this is just too far and with that poor level of funding then nothing can be achieved in the future - even with the best non-miliatry civili servant slashing costs to appease his/her treasury masters.
Is the British public truly aware of exactly what the implications are of this Defence review? Not one person involved in this 'review' believes that it is policy driven, but merely a method to reduce costs.
What I find slightly unnerving is that the Treasury is about to decimate (on a long term basis) an already overstretched and underfunded MoD under the belief of cost cutting, when actually the city (Goldman Sachs) believes that the UK economy will grow quicker than both the US and Eurozone
History as shown that the economy can and will turn around quickly, but an experienced, trained and well resourced military force will take significantly longer. We are certainly not in a stable and peaceful phase in world history, so I do not see any 'peace dividends' that can truly deliver real savings.
When the SDSR axe falls in October I am not too sure that the British public will be aware that they will be very vunerable indeed and more to the point not to expect too much from its military anymore.
From my part it will be interesting to see who within the Senior Officers (2 star and above) actually stay or have the honour to resign knowing that this review based purely upon cost has now threatened the number one requirement of any UK Government, the protection and defence of the UK and its global interests.
The way that our PM is flying around the world ensuring his/the UK's 'stamp' is made on Pakistan, Turkey etc, I hope that he will not want to call on his/H M Queen's military in future to help him with his policies and influence, as he will be sorely disappointed or responsible for a British tactical failure when he requests that they act on his behalf after the previous cost cutting outcomes of the SDSR.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD strategy
I think that's a good list of priorities above.
I think also significant is that those strategic capabilities need to align with industrial capabilities. Far example one might argue that if UK had cancelled Eurofighter and bought F-18s or whatever UK'd be in a 'better' ££ situation today, however maintaining UK strategic capability required maintenance of onshore development capability. I think there are similar arguments in respect of subs, warships, missiles as well.
I think what this means is that in the near-term forces capability may appear to be cut-back very severely apparently in order to allow the flow of new equipment to continue (particularly that with UK interest), but that this is like an investment which enables strategic capability to be accesible in future.
That make sense?
I think also significant is that those strategic capabilities need to align with industrial capabilities. Far example one might argue that if UK had cancelled Eurofighter and bought F-18s or whatever UK'd be in a 'better' ££ situation today, however maintaining UK strategic capability required maintenance of onshore development capability. I think there are similar arguments in respect of subs, warships, missiles as well.
I think what this means is that in the near-term forces capability may appear to be cut-back very severely apparently in order to allow the flow of new equipment to continue (particularly that with UK interest), but that this is like an investment which enables strategic capability to be accesible in future.
That make sense?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I missed something, or has someone declared what the defence budget will be with the nuclear deterrent included?
Wyler, excellent posts, well said.
For those that are interested in this sort of thing, various economic commentators have been discussing the gap between the amount of public sector savings that need to be made against the political viability of achieving cuts of this magnitude. Such discussions and articles can be found going back over a year and all were agreed that to realise the actual amounts, the savings would have to be on a never-seen-before scale.
There is still a school of thought that a lot of the rhetoric is aimed squarely at the money markets and that the cuts just are not do-able. I'm not so sure...from where I am sitting, they appear to have the bit between their teeth and enough of a popular mandate (primarily from a thoroughly pee'd off private sector) to change the face of public sector spending for a very long time.
Hang on to your hats, it's going to be a rough ride.