David Cameron, the pension and that 2% defence budget.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron, the pension and that 2% defence budget.
It seems he wants to include the military pension in it, to bolster it up. You might need to pay to read this.
UK looks to pad out defence spending - FT.com
UK looks to pad out defence spending - FT.com
Why do we care about 2%?
Since when did we decide that we should let other countries tell us what to spend money on?
Since when did we decide that we should let other countries tell us what to spend money on?
The fact that we may be about to dip below that 2%, and that our politicians are trying to find ways to spin this, shows us that we can no longer dictate to others from a position of strength.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone really question UK commitment? Only four members now meet the 2% target and they include Estonia and Greece - which is lovely except it's 2% of not very much. Thanks to present govt's financial competence, our % is of a very large and increasing amount.
With prostitution and street drugs being used to bolster the GDP fiction it seems HMG have been hoisted by their own petard. Want more jets? Better visit the red-light district so that the military finances can be improved.
Originally Posted by Darkroom
Why do we care about 2%?
Since when did we decide that we should let other countries tell us what to spend money on?
Since when did we decide that we should let other countries tell us what to spend money on?
If nations sign up to the Treaty and then fail to pay their way, they are simply freeloading. The UK has been rightly critical of nations doing that, now the Government is cynically and, frankly, somewhat obviously trying to get away with their own form of "tax evasion", if you see what I mean.
Some may think that any excuse to make cryptic cuts is self-justified. But watch out. Gather all those disparate budgets under the Defence umbrella now, and the seemingly larger Defence Budget will simply become a bigger target for domestic cuts.
Come on, guys, this is such an obvious load of bollocks. Are we taken in by it? Do we really think we are being dictated to by other countries?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're not being "dictated" to, then why are we one of the few that ARE putting in 2%?
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data | Table
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data | Table
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC,
Here you go. Rather than engaging with the problem now, this shameless accounting fudge will only allow further dilution. In a few years, it'll give the state more scope to trim the budget - at a time when (particularly at the moment) we should be spending, if anything, more.
Voxpop, if the military pension has always been by prerogative instrument, does this mean that now changes? I assume that the FT writer has got the terminology slightly wrong, it isn't 'just' the war pension being bumped to defence.
Here you go. Rather than engaging with the problem now, this shameless accounting fudge will only allow further dilution. In a few years, it'll give the state more scope to trim the budget - at a time when (particularly at the moment) we should be spending, if anything, more.
Voxpop, if the military pension has always been by prerogative instrument, does this mean that now changes? I assume that the FT writer has got the terminology slightly wrong, it isn't 'just' the war pension being bumped to defence.
David Cameron has asked ministers to investigate if the intelligence agencies budget can be counted as “defence spending”, as Downing Street eyes creative accountancy to head off US criticism of military spending.
Amid anxiety in Washington that Britain’s defence budget will soon fall below Nato’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, Mr Cameron has asked whether he can boost it without actually spending more money. Oliver Letwin, head of policy at Number 10, has been asked to consider what kinds of spending can be categorised by Nato as “defence” expenditure in order to keep the UK close to the 2 per cent target, one government figure said.
“If we need to get to 2 per cent of GDP, there is a question of whether you can increase overall spending by counting funding of the intelligence agencies as defence spending,” he said.
A second government figure confirmed that officials were looking closely at what Nato classifies as defence spending to see if different member states include different elements to meet their target. The future of Britain’s shrinking war chest has burst into the open as a politically sensitive issue despite efforts by politicians to avoid becoming embroiled in yet another awkward budgetary issue before May’s general election.
US officials — including army head Ray Odierno — have been unrelenting in their criticism of the sliding UK’s defence budget. The US sees the Nato target as symbolically critical: Britain is the only large European Nato power to meet its commitment to the alliance.
Sir Nick Harvey, a former Liberal Democrat defence minister, said he was told to expect “all kinds of dodgy weaving and creative accounting” when Britain’s defence spending is expected to dip below the 2 per cent target next year.
Ministry of Defence officials have already managed to boost the amount included in Nato calculations significantly this year. The ministry is to add war pensions, worth slightly more than £800m annually, to its Nato submission for 2015-16. This means UK spending will just meet the 2 per cent commitment this year.
UK defence expenditure could also be officially increased if troops are called on to be deployed overseas in greater numbers than anticipated. The Treasury has about £500m allocated for such an eventuality. Britain’s three intelligence agencies — GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 — are jointly funded from the single intelligence account, with the precise breakdown of spending classified.
In 2013-14 the SIA was allocated just over £1.9bn. It is likely to be one of the few national security budget lines protected in the next parliament. Nato pointed out that the alliance’s agreed definition of defence spending could only be amended by a consensus of all 28 members but there appears to be plenty of scope for flexibility in its interpretation.
GCHQ, for example, works very closely with the British military. The UK’s mission in Afghanistan, part of a Nato-led operation, involved the use of tonnes of GCHQ equipment. The UK’s contribution to the anti-Isis coalition is also heavily dependent on the agency.
Other Nato nations have also bent the alliance’s rules on calculating their expenditures. France only stopped including the gendarmerie in its defence metrics in 2009. Countries such as Greece, Nato critics say, flatter their statistics with massive pension commitments.
Sending large numbers of troops on UN peacekeeping missions — something the UK has not done for years — has also become a useful accounting wheeze for some nations: troops on deployment are paid for by the UN, allowing Nato nations in effect to double-count the numbers when it comes to costs.
The US has been critical of Britain’s defence spending plans: none of the main parties has promised to maintain the 2 per cent of GDP spending into the next parliament.
Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, appealed on Tuesday to European governments to spend more. Conservative MPs will press home that argument in a Commons debate on Thursday. Mr Cameron has said the UK meets the Nato target and presided over an alliance summit in Wales last year where he persuaded other leaders to commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence.
The prime minister hinted at his thinking on Tuesday in an interview on LBC radio. Asked about prominent figures raising concerns over defence spending, Mr Cameron said: “I have responsibility to make sure we make the right decisions about defence and other security spending. I look at these things in the round, so I am also concerned about the budget for MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ, counter-terrorism policing. To me all of these things are part of our national defence.”
Michael Fallon, defence secretary, will come under pressure to reaffirm Britain’s commitment to the 2 per cent of GDP target on Wednesday when he holds his first meeting with Ash Carter, his US counterpart, in Washington.
Amid anxiety in Washington that Britain’s defence budget will soon fall below Nato’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, Mr Cameron has asked whether he can boost it without actually spending more money. Oliver Letwin, head of policy at Number 10, has been asked to consider what kinds of spending can be categorised by Nato as “defence” expenditure in order to keep the UK close to the 2 per cent target, one government figure said.
“If we need to get to 2 per cent of GDP, there is a question of whether you can increase overall spending by counting funding of the intelligence agencies as defence spending,” he said.
A second government figure confirmed that officials were looking closely at what Nato classifies as defence spending to see if different member states include different elements to meet their target. The future of Britain’s shrinking war chest has burst into the open as a politically sensitive issue despite efforts by politicians to avoid becoming embroiled in yet another awkward budgetary issue before May’s general election.
US officials — including army head Ray Odierno — have been unrelenting in their criticism of the sliding UK’s defence budget. The US sees the Nato target as symbolically critical: Britain is the only large European Nato power to meet its commitment to the alliance.
Sir Nick Harvey, a former Liberal Democrat defence minister, said he was told to expect “all kinds of dodgy weaving and creative accounting” when Britain’s defence spending is expected to dip below the 2 per cent target next year.
Ministry of Defence officials have already managed to boost the amount included in Nato calculations significantly this year. The ministry is to add war pensions, worth slightly more than £800m annually, to its Nato submission for 2015-16. This means UK spending will just meet the 2 per cent commitment this year.
UK defence expenditure could also be officially increased if troops are called on to be deployed overseas in greater numbers than anticipated. The Treasury has about £500m allocated for such an eventuality. Britain’s three intelligence agencies — GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 — are jointly funded from the single intelligence account, with the precise breakdown of spending classified.
In 2013-14 the SIA was allocated just over £1.9bn. It is likely to be one of the few national security budget lines protected in the next parliament. Nato pointed out that the alliance’s agreed definition of defence spending could only be amended by a consensus of all 28 members but there appears to be plenty of scope for flexibility in its interpretation.
GCHQ, for example, works very closely with the British military. The UK’s mission in Afghanistan, part of a Nato-led operation, involved the use of tonnes of GCHQ equipment. The UK’s contribution to the anti-Isis coalition is also heavily dependent on the agency.
Other Nato nations have also bent the alliance’s rules on calculating their expenditures. France only stopped including the gendarmerie in its defence metrics in 2009. Countries such as Greece, Nato critics say, flatter their statistics with massive pension commitments.
Sending large numbers of troops on UN peacekeeping missions — something the UK has not done for years — has also become a useful accounting wheeze for some nations: troops on deployment are paid for by the UN, allowing Nato nations in effect to double-count the numbers when it comes to costs.
The US has been critical of Britain’s defence spending plans: none of the main parties has promised to maintain the 2 per cent of GDP spending into the next parliament.
Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, appealed on Tuesday to European governments to spend more. Conservative MPs will press home that argument in a Commons debate on Thursday. Mr Cameron has said the UK meets the Nato target and presided over an alliance summit in Wales last year where he persuaded other leaders to commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence.
The prime minister hinted at his thinking on Tuesday in an interview on LBC radio. Asked about prominent figures raising concerns over defence spending, Mr Cameron said: “I have responsibility to make sure we make the right decisions about defence and other security spending. I look at these things in the round, so I am also concerned about the budget for MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ, counter-terrorism policing. To me all of these things are part of our national defence.”
Michael Fallon, defence secretary, will come under pressure to reaffirm Britain’s commitment to the 2 per cent of GDP target on Wednesday when he holds his first meeting with Ash Carter, his US counterpart, in Washington.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
The prime minister hinted at his thinking on Tuesday in an interview on LBC radio. Asked about prominent figures raising concerns over defence spending, Mr Cameron said: “I have responsibility to make sure we make the right decisions about defence and other security spending. I look at these things in the round, so I am also concerned about the budget for MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ, counter-terrorism policing. To me all of these things are part of our national defence.”
I still remember him standing on the Ark Royal telling the chaps they are doing a spiffing job whilst he had already decided to scrap the ship on its return from its cruise.
No doubt they will throw everything into the pot and call it defence from Selly Oak to the intelligence agencies thus pre election being able to announce an increase over the 2% in defence spending whilst actually reducing it.
It's okay for him bleating on about the intelligence agengies being essential, but at the end of the day, all the intelligence in the world is worth the square root of F all, if you have nothing to back it up with and act on the said information.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Mr Fallons speech today in Washington.
"You want to see an end to the decline in Europe’s defence spending that has a quarter of the alliance spending less than 1% of GDP on defence, and 20 countries spending less than 1.5%.
So do we."
Link below
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...angerous-world
I hope this does not come back to bite him in the arse.
"You want to see an end to the decline in Europe’s defence spending that has a quarter of the alliance spending less than 1% of GDP on defence, and 20 countries spending less than 1.5%.
So do we."
Link below
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...angerous-world
I hope this does not come back to bite him in the arse.
Don't worry Bannock, if it does, I'm sure Mr Fallon won't feel a thing assuming he's carrying the usual teflon-coated rhino hide posterior that most of them seem to have these days.
Including pensions could, it strikes me, be hypothetically a very dangerous move. At the moment the AFPS scheme is unfunded, in that it meets its liabilities out of general government expenditure and is unrelated to the rest of Defence spending. For all the criticism of the AFPS being unfunded, at least it means it gets paid regardless of what the rest of the Defence budget is doing.
But if you try to get creative with the accounts and you suddenly decide your military pensions are going to be included in the overall figures, what's to then stop them cutting pensions further still on the grounds of affordability within Defence spending limits? If they are part of an overall fixed Defence budget surely that opens them up to attack and cuts as required? I can imagine the conversation now "sorry CAS, but it's either flying hours and ammo or pensions, we can't afford both".
I can't see the intelligence services being keen to come under Defence in funding terms as it would lead to all manner of chaos and discussions about primacy, legal squabbles and arguments about independence. However, if you're going down that route, then scrapping DFID and splitting it between FCO and Defence makes perfect sense as the tree hugging side of DFID sits perfectly within the broader FCO remit, but the military is often called on to support DFID and FCO objectives by setting conditions to enable future DFID / FCO activities.
Including pensions could, it strikes me, be hypothetically a very dangerous move. At the moment the AFPS scheme is unfunded, in that it meets its liabilities out of general government expenditure and is unrelated to the rest of Defence spending. For all the criticism of the AFPS being unfunded, at least it means it gets paid regardless of what the rest of the Defence budget is doing.
But if you try to get creative with the accounts and you suddenly decide your military pensions are going to be included in the overall figures, what's to then stop them cutting pensions further still on the grounds of affordability within Defence spending limits? If they are part of an overall fixed Defence budget surely that opens them up to attack and cuts as required? I can imagine the conversation now "sorry CAS, but it's either flying hours and ammo or pensions, we can't afford both".
I can't see the intelligence services being keen to come under Defence in funding terms as it would lead to all manner of chaos and discussions about primacy, legal squabbles and arguments about independence. However, if you're going down that route, then scrapping DFID and splitting it between FCO and Defence makes perfect sense as the tree hugging side of DFID sits perfectly within the broader FCO remit, but the military is often called on to support DFID and FCO objectives by setting conditions to enable future DFID / FCO activities.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not worrying Melchett. Past caring about what he has to say. Just cognitive off the fact that not once was 2% mentioned. Infact he appeared to hint that 1.5% is the new 2%.
Apparently he said:
Once more we in the UK are leading by example.
We are one of only four countries already meeting the 2% target.
We exceed the requirement to spend 20% on new equipment.
Originally Posted by Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defence
Once more we in the UK are leading by example.
We are one of only four countries already meeting the 2% target.
We exceed the requirement to spend 20% on new equipment.
MPs have approved a backbench motion calling on 2% of GDP to be spent on Defence:
BBC News - Nato 2% defence spending target should be met, MPs say
Good news one would think, until you realise that:
a) The result is not binding on the government.
b) Just 40, yes 40, MPs voted on the issue!
Also note the comment from the Shadow Defence Minister!
BBC News - Nato 2% defence spending target should be met, MPs say
Good news one would think, until you realise that:
a) The result is not binding on the government.
b) Just 40, yes 40, MPs voted on the issue!
Also note the comment from the Shadow Defence Minister!
Last edited by Biggus; 12th Mar 2015 at 19:08.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last, something positive and worthwhile that we can do to help! I like the idea, and it will give ex-service personnel from a bygone era an opportunity to support OUR red-light districts instead of those in Malta, Singapore and Hong Kong. But are they up to it?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is distressing for me to compare and contrast the numbers of HM Forces today to when I retired in 1980. The so called 'peace dividend' has allowed politicians of whatever hue to reduce a once proud and global force to a shadow of its former self.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get over it, rose! Barring the most shattering world developments we're not going back to 1980. And regardless of who wins the next election there's no shower of gold coming.
Perhaps we should have a serious think about how the money we do get is spent. The new carriers, for instance, come in at £3.1 billion a piece, and counting. To give that some context, the largest lmost modern container ships, the Triple E class, 120 m longer cost £123 million. We've just got to get a handle on cost.
Perhaps we should have a serious think about how the money we do get is spent. The new carriers, for instance, come in at £3.1 billion a piece, and counting. To give that some context, the largest lmost modern container ships, the Triple E class, 120 m longer cost £123 million. We've just got to get a handle on cost.
The last time we tried to use a container ship as an aircraft carrier it didn't go so well...
...One would hope that the extra £2.9Bn makes the QE class a bit more of a war goer than an exocet-magnet like ANTLANTIC CONVEYOR.
...One would hope that the extra £2.9Bn makes the QE class a bit more of a war goer than an exocet-magnet like ANTLANTIC CONVEYOR.