SDSR 15
Geoff Hoon was on TV this morning pledging to maintain the 2% spending target should the Tories win the next election. IIRC investment is Trident is separate from general defence spending and that George Osbourne has suggested integrating both budgets. The cynical part of me anticipates that this will happen after the election meaning that the Tories will still be able to claim that the 2% is being met despite this tactic requiring further spending cuts and a lowering of the overall defence bill when both budgets are combined.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osborne definitely stated in 2010 that the defence budget will have to cover the cost of Trident's replacement.
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...s/3746577.html (towards the end)
Cameron said in 2013 that the deterrent accounts for 5-6% of the current defence budget. Suggests that costs are already integrated.
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...s/3746577.html (towards the end)
Cameron said in 2013 that the deterrent accounts for 5-6% of the current defence budget. Suggests that costs are already integrated.
Willard it looks like you are right judging from your links and what I've just seen on the WWW. Its no wonder that HMG can claim that we have the worlds 4 largest defence budget whilst at the same time having ever smaller armed forces.
HMG has got itself into a presentational hole on the 2% target, especially after banging the drum about it so loudly at the NATO summit.
Even given what most would probably see as the "best" potential outcome of the post election spending review - ie a flat settlement overall coupled with maintenance of 1% real growth in capital spend - then defence spending will certainly dip well below 2%.
Hammond on Andrew Marr this morning went as far as to say "we are committed to the 2% target". Sounds encouraging but that's a carefully chosen form of words, as of course it's not a pledge to keep spending at 2% - rather it's an aspiration of the sort that may always remain some way off.
Even so, it's useful pressure that will hopefully prevent too much of an axe being taken to the defence budget - it looks a bit daft to be preaching the need for a 2% target while establishing yourself on a clear downward trajectory below it. And of course the more the economy grows, the bigger the shortfall will get.
Even given what most would probably see as the "best" potential outcome of the post election spending review - ie a flat settlement overall coupled with maintenance of 1% real growth in capital spend - then defence spending will certainly dip well below 2%.
Hammond on Andrew Marr this morning went as far as to say "we are committed to the 2% target". Sounds encouraging but that's a carefully chosen form of words, as of course it's not a pledge to keep spending at 2% - rather it's an aspiration of the sort that may always remain some way off.
Even so, it's useful pressure that will hopefully prevent too much of an axe being taken to the defence budget - it looks a bit daft to be preaching the need for a 2% target while establishing yourself on a clear downward trajectory below it. And of course the more the economy grows, the bigger the shortfall will get.
Geoff Hoon was on TV this morning pledging to maintain the 2% spending target should the Tories win the next election.
I think S69 must have meant Hammond, who was on Andrew Marr (my post above refers). Hammond said the govt is committed to the target of 2%, which is subtly different from saying they'll unfailingly achieve it.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that really grips me is that we have a S of S for Defence who has already accepted that the Budget will probably decline but is confident that the PM, who's committed to strong Defence (hidden that well), will save the day.
What's the bloody point of a S of S for Defence who isn't going to fight the corner? It reminds me of a certain CDS who complained to a certain PM about lack of Defence funds to be told that he would need to convince a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer. One didn't acquire the nickname Teflon for nothing.
What's the bloody point of a S of S for Defence who isn't going to fight the corner? It reminds me of a certain CDS who complained to a certain PM about lack of Defence funds to be told that he would need to convince a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer. One didn't acquire the nickname Teflon for nothing.
I got my H's mixed up and meant Hammond not Hoon.RUSI are not very optimistic about the future of the armed forces, in particular Army numbers in the near future, predicting that numbers could drop to 50,000 troops. British Army could be cut to just 50,000 over next four years, report warns - Telegraph
Parties of both colours seem hell bent on having inflexible spending plans and protecting big budget departments and policies at the expense of defence and police. Any pledge to protect NHS or education spending means more cuts in every other smaller department.
A depressing read in the a Telegraph, but most likely to be cherry picking the worst case scenario as that particular paper has been making a real push for defence to be recognised as an issue in recent weeks and months.
So despite the depressing nature of the article, it is good to see that people are starting to wake up and accept that defence is a key issue - whether the PM likes it or not. And if the PM is such a staunch supporter of defence and the issue lies with the Chancellor dragging his heels, surely the PM can issue D&G. It might be a bit of a 'courage & values' moment, but if he is being repeatedly blocked in an area he both believes in and acknowledges as vital to the national interests, it would surely be wrong for the First Lord of the Treasury not to overrule the Second Lord of the Treasury. A peerage recognising his excellent service as Chancellor would be all that's required as members if the HoL are not normally permitted to hold that particular office.
Or am I having one of my fanciful dreams again of a PM with a bit of backbone willing to do what's right rather than popular? Nurse - is it tine for my pills again?
So despite the depressing nature of the article, it is good to see that people are starting to wake up and accept that defence is a key issue - whether the PM likes it or not. And if the PM is such a staunch supporter of defence and the issue lies with the Chancellor dragging his heels, surely the PM can issue D&G. It might be a bit of a 'courage & values' moment, but if he is being repeatedly blocked in an area he both believes in and acknowledges as vital to the national interests, it would surely be wrong for the First Lord of the Treasury not to overrule the Second Lord of the Treasury. A peerage recognising his excellent service as Chancellor would be all that's required as members if the HoL are not normally permitted to hold that particular office.
Or am I having one of my fanciful dreams again of a PM with a bit of backbone willing to do what's right rather than popular? Nurse - is it tine for my pills again?
Best address any future complaints to this chappie:
Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army | World news | The Guardian
On a serious note, do any of you guys think such an entity would be feasible, effective, or practical with or without the UK?
Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army | World news | The Guardian
On a serious note, do any of you guys think such an entity would be feasible, effective, or practical with or without the UK?
Without the UK, just a collection of flowery uniforms and gold braid hung over the back of the chair at a long lunch.
With the UK, the way things are panning out, not much better. When you've all got nothing in the cupboard, it doesn't matter his many cupboards you rummage round, you've still got nothing.
With the UK, the way things are panning out, not much better. When you've all got nothing in the cupboard, it doesn't matter his many cupboards you rummage round, you've still got nothing.
Defence spending was lead item on the BBC news last night - can't remember the last time that happened. That does suggest that the subject is elbowing its way in as an issue, and the media has scented that the govt has a big presentational issue on its hands, which is all helpful grist to the mill.
The motion / debate scheduled for Thursday will hopefully help to keep the pressure up, and as has been noted the issue has a good measure of cross party support.
The motion / debate scheduled for Thursday will hopefully help to keep the pressure up, and as has been noted the issue has a good measure of cross party support.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a serious note, do any of you guys think such an entity would be feasible, effective, or practical with or without the UK?
If the Imperial Emperor can get EU nations to stump up the kind of cash you need to replace NATO without the enormous contribution that the US makes, get it organised, trained, committed and credible - I'd still ask why? We already have....well...NATO.
From Euro Army to Euro Air Force - Jane's 360 considers both as non-starters at the moment.
Analysis: Is the time right for a European Air Force? - IHS Jane's 360
Analysis: Is the time right for a European Air Force? - IHS Jane's 360
Some interesting facts and figures in there, especially in regards to budgets and inventory numbers. I can see the arguments for and against (the air force, that is), but can't see it happening anytime soon (if at all).
Perhaps more continental cooperation, along the lines outlined in the piece between the BENELUX nations, might be the way forward? Certainly for some of the smaller member states.
Perhaps more continental cooperation, along the lines outlined in the piece between the BENELUX nations, might be the way forward? Certainly for some of the smaller member states.
well a NATO MPA force would have some advantages I'd have thought
