SDSR 2016?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prOOne. The British armed forces ARE shrinking to the point were they cannot do their job. The RAF, for example until recently had the job of patrolling our sea lanes using the best aircraft in the world for that task. Now, due to the ongoing assault on the armed forces by the present political clique, the RAF is unable to do that job. This leaves Britain, a maritime nation, dangerously exposed. What part of that don't you understand?
The world is growing more unstable not less. The armed forces are the ultimate insurance policy against national oblivion. If those forces are reduced in capability/numbers/actual fighting prowess, to the point were they could not contest the field against a serious opponent because they lack sufficient trained manpower/sufficient numbers of ships/vehicles/aircraft/logistics, then those forces will be overwhelmed. The consequences for national survival would then become perilous indeed. That you regard such opinion as "BS" speaks volumes.
You think that spending large amounts of money absolves the rabble in Westminster? I've heared the same argument in regard to the NHS, education, social services etc. Whatever money is being spent, clearly it is NOT ENOUGH. Although a root and branch sort-out of defence procurement is long overdue.
Given that you sound like a typical PR man/person for the lib-lab-con, and are obviously rabidly keen to defend their record viz the "defence" of Her Majesty's Realm, it is not unreasonable to refer to those creatures as your "apparent friends." So I did/do.
"Anyone proposing treason is a traitor?" As Napoleon once said, "He who saves a nation violates no law." I myself, though unworthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as Bony. Fully concur.
The world is growing more unstable not less. The armed forces are the ultimate insurance policy against national oblivion. If those forces are reduced in capability/numbers/actual fighting prowess, to the point were they could not contest the field against a serious opponent because they lack sufficient trained manpower/sufficient numbers of ships/vehicles/aircraft/logistics, then those forces will be overwhelmed. The consequences for national survival would then become perilous indeed. That you regard such opinion as "BS" speaks volumes.
You think that spending large amounts of money absolves the rabble in Westminster? I've heared the same argument in regard to the NHS, education, social services etc. Whatever money is being spent, clearly it is NOT ENOUGH. Although a root and branch sort-out of defence procurement is long overdue.
Given that you sound like a typical PR man/person for the lib-lab-con, and are obviously rabidly keen to defend their record viz the "defence" of Her Majesty's Realm, it is not unreasonable to refer to those creatures as your "apparent friends." So I did/do.
"Anyone proposing treason is a traitor?" As Napoleon once said, "He who saves a nation violates no law." I myself, though unworthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as Bony. Fully concur.
The RAF, for example until recently had the job of patrolling our sea lanes using the best aircraft in the world for that task. Now, due to the ongoing assault on the armed forces by the present political clique, the RAF is unable to do that job.
What caused cancellation of MRA4 is well known. The political input was the decision to upgrade Nimrod in the first place, but they were poorly advised by those in MoD who knew it was compromised from day 1.
The decision not to replace this capability, which is a different argument, must lie at the feet of both politicians and VSOs. The former will, quite rightly, be mightily pissed off at £5Bn being poured down the drain after MoD (and in particular RAF VSOs) made a point of first deepening and widening the drain. The latter say nothing, because the truth exposes their feeble leadership and poor decisions.
Stendec5,
While I respect your view that more should be spent on Defence (although I note you've ignored my suggestion to suggest where additional money should come from), you are unfortunately peeing in the wind.
A YouGov survey from January asked people: Thinking about the government's plans to make further cuts for spending, which areas should they cut the most?
Defence came fourth on the list (with 20% wanting to cut), behind Overseas Aid, Welfare benefits, and Environment; and ahead of Local Govt, Transport, Pensions, Education, NHS, and Policing.
The survey then asked what areas should be protected. Defence came fifth on this list (with 18% wanting to protect - I'm assuming a different 18% from the 20% who wanted to cut!).
So my point is that if only 18% of the population want Defence spending to be protected from cuts (forget about increased!), while 20% want it targeted and the remaining 62% don't care, then the plain fact is that short of a major war, Defence spending is, at very best, going to stay level (which will actually be a drop seeing as how our budget assumes a 1% uplift in the Equipment Procurement Plan post 2015).
Source: The spending battleground
While I respect your view that more should be spent on Defence (although I note you've ignored my suggestion to suggest where additional money should come from), you are unfortunately peeing in the wind.
A YouGov survey from January asked people: Thinking about the government's plans to make further cuts for spending, which areas should they cut the most?
Defence came fourth on the list (with 20% wanting to cut), behind Overseas Aid, Welfare benefits, and Environment; and ahead of Local Govt, Transport, Pensions, Education, NHS, and Policing.
The survey then asked what areas should be protected. Defence came fifth on this list (with 18% wanting to protect - I'm assuming a different 18% from the 20% who wanted to cut!).
So my point is that if only 18% of the population want Defence spending to be protected from cuts (forget about increased!), while 20% want it targeted and the remaining 62% don't care, then the plain fact is that short of a major war, Defence spending is, at very best, going to stay level (which will actually be a drop seeing as how our budget assumes a 1% uplift in the Equipment Procurement Plan post 2015).
Source: The spending battleground
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Line Entry.
I would pay little attention to any survey carried out as their accuracy is questionable at the best of times (especially if you disagree with the findings), and anyway you can get very different survey results by a sly rewording of the question(s).
Where would I get the money from? For a start I would reduce the foreign aid budget to little more than a holding-fund. I would put aside a £1 billion fund to help any country that had been genuinely overtaken by some natural disaster with whatever humanitarian/rescue activities we might provide. Fine.
However, the idea that we should be funding myriad projects across the planet whilst imposing austerity cuts at home is unacceptable. That would release about £10 billions.
Secondly, I would wish to withdraw from the so-called "EU" at the very earliest opportunity (they're now asking for an additional £100 millions from the UK taxpayer) This would release an additional £8 billions. That's a very useful £18 billions for starters.
Of course it wouldn't all go defence, but it would release, in the short term, a substantial amount to be spent on those defence areas that have been most damaged in recent years (a renewed Maritime Patrol/ASW platform being an obvious requirement).
I would also get Mr Murdoch on my side. As Winston said "There's no such thing as public opinion. Only published opinion."
I would pay little attention to any survey carried out as their accuracy is questionable at the best of times (especially if you disagree with the findings), and anyway you can get very different survey results by a sly rewording of the question(s).
Where would I get the money from? For a start I would reduce the foreign aid budget to little more than a holding-fund. I would put aside a £1 billion fund to help any country that had been genuinely overtaken by some natural disaster with whatever humanitarian/rescue activities we might provide. Fine.
However, the idea that we should be funding myriad projects across the planet whilst imposing austerity cuts at home is unacceptable. That would release about £10 billions.
Secondly, I would wish to withdraw from the so-called "EU" at the very earliest opportunity (they're now asking for an additional £100 millions from the UK taxpayer) This would release an additional £8 billions. That's a very useful £18 billions for starters.
Of course it wouldn't all go defence, but it would release, in the short term, a substantial amount to be spent on those defence areas that have been most damaged in recent years (a renewed Maritime Patrol/ASW platform being an obvious requirement).
I would also get Mr Murdoch on my side. As Winston said "There's no such thing as public opinion. Only published opinion."
Jabba_TG12,
You would be kinda really wrong.
You would be kinda really wrong.
Sadly, I suspect the survey that Redders alludes to is probably very accurate although, it would support the views of Stendec 5 (and the vast majority of our population), to put Overseas Aid on hold at the very least.
I would like to see SDSR 15 supervised by a cross party committee that analysed the views of our Defence Chiefs but then made a STRATEGIC decision on what is right for the country, what is right for the next 20 years, how much it would cost and an acceptance that no matter which party was in power, the insurance policy of defence should be maintained and ring fenced funded accordingly.
What we actually got in SDSR 10 was purely a cost cutting exercise with in fighting between the 3 Defence Chiefs. A totally independant body should decide what is best for the UK, not an inexperienced minister agreeing to what our Defence leaders told him is best for the Army, RN and RAF in isolation. Perhaps a beefed up HCDC with teeth?
Then again, I'd like to see a political party that made strategic decisions on what is best for the UK long term, rather than pandering to short term voting to stay in power at all costs.....
pr00ne,
Quick question - when I'm trying to make a caramel macciato at home, how much milk should be mixed with the water and what boiling temperature should I use?
I would like to see SDSR 15 supervised by a cross party committee that analysed the views of our Defence Chiefs but then made a STRATEGIC decision on what is right for the country, what is right for the next 20 years, how much it would cost and an acceptance that no matter which party was in power, the insurance policy of defence should be maintained and ring fenced funded accordingly.
What we actually got in SDSR 10 was purely a cost cutting exercise with in fighting between the 3 Defence Chiefs. A totally independant body should decide what is best for the UK, not an inexperienced minister agreeing to what our Defence leaders told him is best for the Army, RN and RAF in isolation. Perhaps a beefed up HCDC with teeth?
Then again, I'd like to see a political party that made strategic decisions on what is best for the UK long term, rather than pandering to short term voting to stay in power at all costs.....
pr00ne,
Quick question - when I'm trying to make a caramel macciato at home, how much milk should be mixed with the water and what boiling temperature should I use?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting piece in the Times today...echoes what many leading economists have been saying for years. Basically, austerity has not even started yet. What limited cuts we have seen so far do not even begin to address the problem...a view I personally very much agree with.
Also in the same paper IFS are trying to turn the spotlight on the public sector pension black hole which they estimate as 1.7 trillion...ouch.
Basically we had 10 years of the Blair government running a ponzi scheme, but before we descend into politics, even the right wing acknowledge that trying to meet the public's expectation of what decent public services (including defence) even look like is now impossible.
So whatever your political bent, you can expect a decade of more of even greater austerity that you have seen so far...and even less focus on defence.
That's the reality of the situation and no amount of outrage in social media will make a blind bit of difference. It would take a proper full on old fashioned war to do that.
Also in the same paper IFS are trying to turn the spotlight on the public sector pension black hole which they estimate as 1.7 trillion...ouch.
Basically we had 10 years of the Blair government running a ponzi scheme, but before we descend into politics, even the right wing acknowledge that trying to meet the public's expectation of what decent public services (including defence) even look like is now impossible.
So whatever your political bent, you can expect a decade of more of even greater austerity that you have seen so far...and even less focus on defence.
That's the reality of the situation and no amount of outrage in social media will make a blind bit of difference. It would take a proper full on old fashioned war to do that.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOFO,
The problematic point is that the Blair and Brown governments attempted to have European public services at low, US-style taxes. Worse, they allowed the tax base to become very reliant on narrow taxes on corporate profits and stamp duty. When these revenues collapsed, the result was an 11% deficit and spiralling debt - the bank bailouts didn't help, but wasn't the primary cause.
Ultimately, if the British people want improved public services then they need to pay higher taxes; for the same taxes, services will shrink significantly.
S41
The problematic point is that the Blair and Brown governments attempted to have European public services at low, US-style taxes. Worse, they allowed the tax base to become very reliant on narrow taxes on corporate profits and stamp duty. When these revenues collapsed, the result was an 11% deficit and spiralling debt - the bank bailouts didn't help, but wasn't the primary cause.
Ultimately, if the British people want improved public services then they need to pay higher taxes; for the same taxes, services will shrink significantly.
S41
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41
I don't think it is political issue and I certainly don't think taxation is going to get close to fixing this problem.
I mentioned the Blair government only because it was them that kicked off a huge increase in public spending as mandated by the electorate (that would be me, you and joe public). Both economics and society has changed since 2008 in the sense that we are better informed and more aware of the ponzi like nature of so much of our public spending. We have seen what happens to countries that effectively go bust and we have made aware of the giant elephant in the room caused by ever increasing longevity.
It does not matter a jot who is in power...we are facing endless austerity to the point where there will be cultural shifts in our economic society.
Bottom line for those on here...defence is going to get relentlessly hammered until somebody starts shooting at us.
I don't think it is political issue and I certainly don't think taxation is going to get close to fixing this problem.
I mentioned the Blair government only because it was them that kicked off a huge increase in public spending as mandated by the electorate (that would be me, you and joe public). Both economics and society has changed since 2008 in the sense that we are better informed and more aware of the ponzi like nature of so much of our public spending. We have seen what happens to countries that effectively go bust and we have made aware of the giant elephant in the room caused by ever increasing longevity.
It does not matter a jot who is in power...we are facing endless austerity to the point where there will be cultural shifts in our economic society.
Bottom line for those on here...defence is going to get relentlessly hammered until somebody starts shooting at us.
TOFO,
You are absolutely right. If the power were in my hands what I'd be looking for in the next review is why we're getting so little bang for our buck. For 2.5% of our GDP there's really not that much to show for the cash. Pr00ne's point about the poor management is a significant part of the problem and I would point the finger at both the politicians and VSOs, the former for being unable to resist the lobbying by defence contractors and the latter for not having the vision to request the equipment we actually need, rather than procuring for kudos or to protect their empires. If the politicians would define and prioritise the required defence capabilities then the most cost effective solution for each requirement could be calculated. As long as factors such as retaining cap badges, establishments, HQs, commands and inter-service rivalry continue to part of the equation we will continue to be royally screwed by our "defenders".
You are absolutely right. If the power were in my hands what I'd be looking for in the next review is why we're getting so little bang for our buck. For 2.5% of our GDP there's really not that much to show for the cash. Pr00ne's point about the poor management is a significant part of the problem and I would point the finger at both the politicians and VSOs, the former for being unable to resist the lobbying by defence contractors and the latter for not having the vision to request the equipment we actually need, rather than procuring for kudos or to protect their empires. If the politicians would define and prioritise the required defence capabilities then the most cost effective solution for each requirement could be calculated. As long as factors such as retaining cap badges, establishments, HQs, commands and inter-service rivalry continue to part of the equation we will continue to be royally screwed by our "defenders".
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The debt and 'endless austerity' is somewhat overhyped, yes there is a huge public sector pension burden, but that is spread over nearly 50 years and I'm sure if you had quoted the pension liability to someone back in the 70s, they would have been just as astounded as we are today. Moreover, as the post-war baby boom generation begin to die off over the next 2 decades, the burden on the state will actually ease slightly. Housing benefit is another example of a huge expense that has ballooned out of nowhere over the last few years, but there is now a cross party consensus that the housing market needs to be flooded with new homes, which will relieve the cost of rents, so that is an expense that is likely to subside over the long term.
The big headache is health as its demand is increasing and the costs of healthcare provision keep increasing exponentially...however, I think it's inevitable that some form of co-payment is going to be introduced for things like visiting your GP.
I'm going to reiterate a point I make quite a lot, there is money for the core government responsibilities, and there always will be, we just choose to spend such vast amounts on other things that the electorate has come (rather unreasonably, in my opinion) to expect from the government i.e. free TV and transport for every single pensioner WTF?
The big headache is health as its demand is increasing and the costs of healthcare provision keep increasing exponentially...however, I think it's inevitable that some form of co-payment is going to be introduced for things like visiting your GP.
I'm going to reiterate a point I make quite a lot, there is money for the core government responsibilities, and there always will be, we just choose to spend such vast amounts on other things that the electorate has come (rather unreasonably, in my opinion) to expect from the government i.e. free TV and transport for every single pensioner WTF?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you have austerity measures and huge cutbacks all round when you "ringfence" £18 billions every year (that's a staggering £70 billions approx since the 2010 election) and send that money out of OUR country via foreign aid/the so-called "EU".
All that money being used to help every country except THIS one. As long as that insanity continues no one will convince me that there is a case for cutbacks here.
What is really needed is a root and branch clearout of the British establishment. How anyone could support these idiots is beyond my comprehension.
All that money being used to help every country except THIS one. As long as that insanity continues no one will convince me that there is a case for cutbacks here.
What is really needed is a root and branch clearout of the British establishment. How anyone could support these idiots is beyond my comprehension.
With all due respect, overseas aid is not really the issue. It's a comparative drop in the ocean next to the "social" and NHS budgets. These are the elements that need tackling. For as long as it's better to be paid not to work or for as long as the NHS remains the UK's sacred cow, unable to be reformed by any political party, then we are all up the creek.
Let's face it even Defence at a purported £40B is a comparative drop in the ocean in against to these 2 behemoths! If I read it correctly then MPs are voting to limit the non-pension welfare bill to £120B or 3 times the Defence budget!! Think about it, that's circa £2K for every man, woman and child in the UK. I'm not sure where "my" 2K is going.
Let's face it even Defence at a purported £40B is a comparative drop in the ocean in against to these 2 behemoths! If I read it correctly then MPs are voting to limit the non-pension welfare bill to £120B or 3 times the Defence budget!! Think about it, that's circa £2K for every man, woman and child in the UK. I'm not sure where "my" 2K is going.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 27th Mar 2014 at 12:17.
Civilianization of Defence
Bottom line for those on here...defence is going to get relentlessly hammered until somebody starts shooting at us.
The message that was put out by the Chairman & J8 Finance was that we were encouraged to submit any bids we wanted, but must be under no illusion that getting any of them accepted would be tough and getting any liability uplift for military personnel would be more or less impossible. However, if we requested an uplift for areas such as J1/4/6/7 then civilianizing posts would be considered. This is all apparently on the back of Centre direction (blanket?) that Defence's military headcount is to be reduced at all costs across all the Services.
I understand that we are still dealing with the drawdown and various Tranches of redundancy, but unless there is a move to allow the creation of military liability where required, I am concerned that we are going to end up with a 2 tier Defence. On the hand we will have a huge number of low grade Civil Servants (most of the submissions I have seen have had E2s and E1s - roughly cpl equivalent -being recruited to do the job of experienced SNCOs, WOs and in some cases JOs) doing 9-4, nothing above and beyond what is written in their TORs, no station duties and certainly not deploying. Unless the drive to civilianize wherever possible is checked, the huge number of civilians will be balanced out by an ever dwindling number of miltary personnel whose raison d'etre would appear to be little more than extra duties, deploy and take all the risk.
Seeing as we are supposed to be all one team, I can't see how this approach can be anything other than divisive with large number of people turning up to do the minimum required to fulfill their contracts (I realise there are also some that really pull out the stops, but they are in a minority in my experience) whilst all the risk and long days, missed leave and extra duties are borne by a shrinking number of military personnel who now also have limited opportunities to move into broadening posts as they have all been civilianized.
If the past few years and weeks have shown us anything, the unpredictability of events means we must have a balanced military capability. The continuity achieved by civilianizing certain posts is undeniably valuable, but there has to be a limit. The desire for Defence on the cheap by civilanizing and contractorizing everything that isn't nailed down, will at worst lead to an unsustainable capability. Indeed, I have no doubt that Centre would like all the CS and contractors to also join the Reserves so they can be mobilized, however, at that point all the 'support' and staff functions stop. But once that military capability is lost, we won't get it back, or if somehow we do, it will be inexperienced and no match for a hardened opposition should the unthinkable actually happen.
Not only is Defence not repairing the roof, they are now flogging off what few slates are left and replacing them with polystyrene tiles. So my question is just how far is too far when civilianizing military capability for the sole purpose of saving a few quid?
Last edited by Melchett01; 26th Mar 2014 at 21:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but there is now a cross party consensus that the housing market needs to be flooded with new homes, which will relieve the cost of rents, so that is an expense that is likely to subside over the long term....
I have not seen a single projection anyway that suggests we are likely to get a balanced supply of housing anywhere in the next 50 years. Where on earth do you get this stuff from, or is it just some sort of wishful thinking???As for austerity being over-hyped...Stephanie Flaunders wrote a lengthy piece about this very issue circa 2010, before the last election. Basically she pointed out that the level of cuts needed to balance the books were so large they were simply not do-able - the public would never tolerate the public service levels left. That was fours ago and it was virtually word for word the same as the article by Daniel Finklewhatshisname in the Times on Tuesday. Osborne has been banging this drum incessantly over the past 12 months, although as a serving politician he necessarily sugar coats it.
Of course Labour could get in and start spending, but is that what we really want? Personally, if we are going to switch to the Greek model, I'd prefer to actually live there so i can at least enjoy the sunshine.