Summer budget 2015.
TotD:-
Ah, the voice of received wisdom, a declaration that sounds both instant and profound but is instead the dreary regurgitation of the mutterings of the chattering classes and Hampstead thinkers. Danny might have something more pithy to add, but for myself I find it insulting that those aircrew who served in that long, bloody, and very dangerous campaign are portrayed as merely following orders. They volunteered to a man, admittedly not really understanding the dire odds against survival, but I doubt many would have had second thoughts had they had them explained in detail. This was total war and the only means of taking it to the enemy heartland pre D-Day was (for the UK) by means of Bomber Command. The rest is detail and this is neither the time nor place to count angels on pin-heads.
As to D-Day, not sure where you are going with that. Unlike Harris I don't believe victory was possible solely with the use of Air-Power and thus final victory required boots all the way to Berlin. Now, the great majority of course were worn by the Red Army, and if that is the elephant in your room, point taken.
By victory I meant a victory for us. Without D-Day there would have been no such victory, nor liberation for Europe. If that is your point, I'm sorry, for there we are in violent agreement!
Easy Street, given that this discussion was triggered by Mr Osborne's surprise announcement of a grant for the restoration of the Uxbridge Bunker, and a previous grant for the Bomber Command Memorial announced by Mr Cameron, there would seem to be happily no such conflict as your premise suggested. In which case, each to their own. For myself I think it more becoming that a nation remembers sacrifice rather than battles, lost or won. The scandal of the Bomber Campaign is that no such remembrance was encouraged by successive post war UK governments, and it took a British musician from Australia to force the issue. Shame on them, shame on us, and shame on the Royal Air Force for kowtowing to such a betrayal!
Whether the orders given were sensible or useful is a different matter.
As to D-Day, not sure where you are going with that. Unlike Harris I don't believe victory was possible solely with the use of Air-Power and thus final victory required boots all the way to Berlin. Now, the great majority of course were worn by the Red Army, and if that is the elephant in your room, point taken.
By victory I meant a victory for us. Without D-Day there would have been no such victory, nor liberation for Europe. If that is your point, I'm sorry, for there we are in violent agreement!
Easy Street, given that this discussion was triggered by Mr Osborne's surprise announcement of a grant for the restoration of the Uxbridge Bunker, and a previous grant for the Bomber Command Memorial announced by Mr Cameron, there would seem to be happily no such conflict as your premise suggested. In which case, each to their own. For myself I think it more becoming that a nation remembers sacrifice rather than battles, lost or won. The scandal of the Bomber Campaign is that no such remembrance was encouraged by successive post war UK governments, and it took a British musician from Australia to force the issue. Shame on them, shame on us, and shame on the Royal Air Force for kowtowing to such a betrayal!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Jul 2015 at 09:40. Reason: incorrect nationality stated
Guest
Posts: n/a
Al R,
My dear old Mum used to say: "The names of fools are like their faces - always seen in public places!"
She was right: I would not dream of having anything to do with Facebook, Twitter or any of their derivatives. "Keep a low profile" has always been a good policy.
I can vaguely remember the long summer of 1940, and the miracle of the BoB (Dunkirk had been a defeat - a disastrous rout, in fact - there's no other way of describing it).
As for the BoB, it's worth pouring a glass of Guinness to that. As I said in a Post long ago: "Two hundred years ago, old Admiral Lord St.Vincent declared: "I do not say the French cannot come - I only say they cannot come by sea".
.....To that we'd added: "Or by air !"
Easy Street,
As you say, the Government could easily have financed both memorials from "petty cash".... "But politics doesn't work like that".
Nobody would gainsay that !
Danny42C
My dear old Mum used to say: "The names of fools are like their faces - always seen in public places!"
She was right: I would not dream of having anything to do with Facebook, Twitter or any of their derivatives. "Keep a low profile" has always been a good policy.
I can vaguely remember the long summer of 1940, and the miracle of the BoB (Dunkirk had been a defeat - a disastrous rout, in fact - there's no other way of describing it).
As for the BoB, it's worth pouring a glass of Guinness to that. As I said in a Post long ago: "Two hundred years ago, old Admiral Lord St.Vincent declared: "I do not say the French cannot come - I only say they cannot come by sea".
.....To that we'd added: "Or by air !"
Easy Street,
As you say, the Government could easily have financed both memorials from "petty cash".... "But politics doesn't work like that".
Nobody would gainsay that !
Danny42C
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Perhaps terminology could be better....a memorial is a memory of the people who were there.....surely the Bunker at Uxbridge is more of a Heritage Site that was used by those people we remember? Memorials are to remember - heritage sites are to educate about the past. Both are valuable in their own right despite the different purpose.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chugalug, (your #41)
".....They volunteered to a man, admittedly not really understanding the dire odds against survival, but I doubt many would have had second thoughts had they had them explained in detail....."
Not quite like that. Unlike today's young men, whose only concept of having a war actually on your doorstep is limited to seeing old war films (most of which were as convincing as a nine-dollar note), plus what they've read, plus what Dad may have told them when they were small, our generation had a war bright in living memory.
Most of our fathers and uncles would have been in the trenches (the guns had fallen silent only 22 years before); we were accustomed to seeing crippled ex-servicemen begging in the street when we were growing up; there were to be maiden aunts in plenty. I've heard that the chances of survival of a young infantry officer in that war were much the same as those of aircrew in Bomber Command in ours. The "Times" headed their daily lists of officer casualties:
"All Second Lieutenants except where otherwise stated".
One of the "spin-offs" of the BoB was the enormous fillip it gave to recruiting in general and the RAF in particular. Three years ago, on the "Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet..." Thread (p.114/#2271), I wrote:
"So, with Churchill's words ringing in their ears, just about every red-blooded young man in Britain (and the Empire), with School Certificate and in the age group (17 and a half to 23) flocked to volunteer as RAF aircrew. I was one of them. All wanted to be pilots, of course. There would be many hurdles ahead: it was reckoned that only 2% of all original applicants got to wear the coveted double wing. People were almost down on their knees to get into the RAF, it could afford to be fussy".
Although the bien-pensants will certainly sneer at the word today, it was simple patriotism which drove us, (the Empire volunteers, in most cases, gave up their jobs and paid for their own passages back to the UK, in which many landed penniless), just on the chance of acceptance by the RAF.
For most of us, it was indeed "our finest hour".
Cheers, Danny.
".....They volunteered to a man, admittedly not really understanding the dire odds against survival, but I doubt many would have had second thoughts had they had them explained in detail....."
Not quite like that. Unlike today's young men, whose only concept of having a war actually on your doorstep is limited to seeing old war films (most of which were as convincing as a nine-dollar note), plus what they've read, plus what Dad may have told them when they were small, our generation had a war bright in living memory.
Most of our fathers and uncles would have been in the trenches (the guns had fallen silent only 22 years before); we were accustomed to seeing crippled ex-servicemen begging in the street when we were growing up; there were to be maiden aunts in plenty. I've heard that the chances of survival of a young infantry officer in that war were much the same as those of aircrew in Bomber Command in ours. The "Times" headed their daily lists of officer casualties:
"All Second Lieutenants except where otherwise stated".
One of the "spin-offs" of the BoB was the enormous fillip it gave to recruiting in general and the RAF in particular. Three years ago, on the "Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet..." Thread (p.114/#2271), I wrote:
"So, with Churchill's words ringing in their ears, just about every red-blooded young man in Britain (and the Empire), with School Certificate and in the age group (17 and a half to 23) flocked to volunteer as RAF aircrew. I was one of them. All wanted to be pilots, of course. There would be many hurdles ahead: it was reckoned that only 2% of all original applicants got to wear the coveted double wing. People were almost down on their knees to get into the RAF, it could afford to be fussy".
Although the bien-pensants will certainly sneer at the word today, it was simple patriotism which drove us, (the Empire volunteers, in most cases, gave up their jobs and paid for their own passages back to the UK, in which many landed penniless), just on the chance of acceptance by the RAF.
For most of us, it was indeed "our finest hour".
Cheers, Danny.
Last edited by Danny42C; 12th Jul 2015 at 02:00. Reason: Format
Thank you Danny. I stand corrected, and as ever truly humbled by what drove an incredible generation to such sacrifice. For whom? For their country, for their loved ones, for their children, and for their children's children, for us!
The lofty dissection of that supreme effort, by those weaned in safety and fed upon PC apologist tracts that were being espoused even as the war raged, I find insufferable. Of course things could have been done better, what couldn't be, but the cost would still have been prodigious.
That is war. It is evil, there is no such thing as a just war, there is just war. Sometimes though it it is the lesser of two evils, and that was certainly the case for this country when faced with the threat of a fascist Europa. It had to be defeated. It was, and we should remember with gratitude and reverence those that gave their lives for that cause. That is why we have a Bomber Command Memorial. Though late, better than never.
The lofty dissection of that supreme effort, by those weaned in safety and fed upon PC apologist tracts that were being espoused even as the war raged, I find insufferable. Of course things could have been done better, what couldn't be, but the cost would still have been prodigious.
That is war. It is evil, there is no such thing as a just war, there is just war. Sometimes though it it is the lesser of two evils, and that was certainly the case for this country when faced with the threat of a fascist Europa. It had to be defeated. It was, and we should remember with gratitude and reverence those that gave their lives for that cause. That is why we have a Bomber Command Memorial. Though late, better than never.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Jul 2015 at 11:43. Reason: Words, dear boy, words.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chugalug,
No, not corrected ! It is just that later generations (as they must) are looking at those times from a different angle.
Changing the subject, I do not normally wave the flag for the Daily Tel., but Saturday's edition (I'm a leisurely reader) has on P18 a marvellous leader from Charles Moore (the Editor), which I would recommend all to read, and this is followed on P.22 by an article on cosmetic surgery which links in well with a Post I put in about East Grinstead some days ago (P.359/#7178 on "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet...).
Salutations, Danny.
No, not corrected ! It is just that later generations (as they must) are looking at those times from a different angle.
Changing the subject, I do not normally wave the flag for the Daily Tel., but Saturday's edition (I'm a leisurely reader) has on P18 a marvellous leader from Charles Moore (the Editor), which I would recommend all to read, and this is followed on P.22 by an article on cosmetic surgery which links in well with a Post I put in about East Grinstead some days ago (P.359/#7178 on "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet...).
Salutations, Danny.
Last edited by Danny42C; 13th Jul 2015 at 00:34. Reason: Addn.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unlike today's young men, whose only concept of having a war actually on your doorstep is limited to seeing old war films"
my dear old Mum always used to say that the kids in the 70's & 80's wouldn't hold a candle to those of her youth in 1939-45
She had the decency to admit she had been very very wrong when the Falklands conflict broke out...................
my dear old Mum always used to say that the kids in the 70's & 80's wouldn't hold a candle to those of her youth in 1939-45
She had the decency to admit she had been very very wrong when the Falklands conflict broke out...................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heathrow Harry,
I may have given the wrong impression. Indeed I have myself said in a Post a while back: "The Right Stuff was as Right as ever it was - it was merely Different" (or words to that effect).
In this case I was drawing a comparison between our boyhood, (when the war had been "only yesterday", and there was evidence of its effects all around us), and the circumstances of today, when the last world war, 70 years ago, is no more than history - even the Falklands war is now 33 years past.
You'd have to be at least 45 to remember that clearly - what chance have today's youngsters unless they're told ?
Danny.
I may have given the wrong impression. Indeed I have myself said in a Post a while back: "The Right Stuff was as Right as ever it was - it was merely Different" (or words to that effect).
In this case I was drawing a comparison between our boyhood, (when the war had been "only yesterday", and there was evidence of its effects all around us), and the circumstances of today, when the last world war, 70 years ago, is no more than history - even the Falklands war is now 33 years past.
You'd have to be at least 45 to remember that clearly - what chance have today's youngsters unless they're told ?
Danny.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osbourne wants 25% -40% cuts
Save £20bn, George Osborne tells Whitehall departments - BBC News
George Osborne has launched his spending review with a call for £20bn cuts to Whitehall budgets.
Each unprotected department has been asked to come up with savings plans of 25% and 40% of their budget.
The chancellor said departments had also been asked to help meet a target of 150,000 new homes on public sector land by 2020.
The NHS and per-pupil schools budgets will be protected in the review, which will be published on 25 November.
Mr Osborne told MPs that "with careful management of public money, we can get more for less".
The Treasury said "large savings" would be required of unprotected departments, which have been asked to model two scenarios: of 25% and 40% cuts to their budgets by 2020.
George Osborne has launched his spending review with a call for £20bn cuts to Whitehall budgets.
Each unprotected department has been asked to come up with savings plans of 25% and 40% of their budget.
The chancellor said departments had also been asked to help meet a target of 150,000 new homes on public sector land by 2020.
The NHS and per-pupil schools budgets will be protected in the review, which will be published on 25 November.
Mr Osborne told MPs that "with careful management of public money, we can get more for less".
The Treasury said "large savings" would be required of unprotected departments, which have been asked to model two scenarios: of 25% and 40% cuts to their budgets by 2020.
"Fortunately, 'defence' is now a protected budget."
Would love to think so but I read it as:
"Funding to maintain 'real-terms' Defence budget at 2% of GDP"
To my cynical mind this means:
"Humphrey, add all the possible Defence related budgets together (don't forget to include all the Security and Foreign Affairs ones not currently included) - then chop anything over the magical 2% GDP figure"
Would love to think so but I read it as:
"Funding to maintain 'real-terms' Defence budget at 2% of GDP"
To my cynical mind this means:
"Humphrey, add all the possible Defence related budgets together (don't forget to include all the Security and Foreign Affairs ones not currently included) - then chop anything over the magical 2% GDP figure"
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regretfully AVM Parts is correct - the defence budget is not protected in the same way as the NHS and we've already seen a bunch of odd stuff (such as increased spending on the the Secret Services) being lumped in when previously they came out of the FO budget
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latest:-
"It also sets out plans to sell off publicly-owned land that is surplus to requirements, including assets owned by the Ministry of Defence.
The Treasury said the MoD, alone, accounted for 1% of all land in the UK, while the state land holdings were worth £300bn.
Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock told the BBC that £1.5bn of land had been disposed of during the last Parliament and that ministers had only "just started getting going".
"It is clear we can release much, much more," he told Radio 4's World at One. "It also contributes to our wider objectives like housebuilding. The two go hand in hand."
"It also sets out plans to sell off publicly-owned land that is surplus to requirements, including assets owned by the Ministry of Defence.
The Treasury said the MoD, alone, accounted for 1% of all land in the UK, while the state land holdings were worth £300bn.
Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock told the BBC that £1.5bn of land had been disposed of during the last Parliament and that ministers had only "just started getting going".
"It is clear we can release much, much more," he told Radio 4's World at One. "It also contributes to our wider objectives like housebuilding. The two go hand in hand."
As Heathrow Harry said
Cameron needs to be careful just how far he lets Osborne run with this; they were elected on the basis of sorting the economy out not dismantling the country and selling it off to the lowest bidder. Contracting services out is a double edged sword; I've never been a great fan of contractorisation in the military, but in less than a week MT contractors at my unit have told me "we're contractors not a taxi service for the military, you can't make us do that" (the request was to support operational tasking!) and the Med Centre saying "we're not contracted to support 'fun days'" (run during normal working hours!) when asked if they were providing any support after the decree that a minimum number of first aides were required on duty during the event.
If the Govt contracts a huge swathe of services out and there isn't a concomitant reduction in taxes to compensate for the reduction and the fact that we would have to go to the private sector for service provision there'll be all hell to pay by the small statists. If there is a reduction in services, as is likely given local authorities previous form, cue howls of anger from big statists and Keynesian types. It's a fine line to tread and getting it wrong will cause huge problems.
Contractors aren't everything, sometimes you really do get monkeys when you pay peanuts and this could easily become a false economy if done dogmatically rather than pragmatically.
Each unprotected department has been asked to come up with savings plans of 25% and 40% of their budget
If the Govt contracts a huge swathe of services out and there isn't a concomitant reduction in taxes to compensate for the reduction and the fact that we would have to go to the private sector for service provision there'll be all hell to pay by the small statists. If there is a reduction in services, as is likely given local authorities previous form, cue howls of anger from big statists and Keynesian types. It's a fine line to tread and getting it wrong will cause huge problems.
Contractors aren't everything, sometimes you really do get monkeys when you pay peanuts and this could easily become a false economy if done dogmatically rather than pragmatically.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One last word on the question of which of the two Memorials was more worthy of the taxpayer's support: of course it is really a case of "chacun à son goût".
My contention is that a memorial to the actual heroism itself must always "trump" the memory of a place which formed such a vital part in our 1940 sruggle for survival as a nation. (In the war, it is well said: "Courage is the supreme virtue").
Just think for a minute of those young men in Bomber Command. They took off in the dark or at last light for a 8-10 hour flight over enemy territory (all hand-flown by the pilot), in a cramped, freezing, unheated bomber. At any moment of that long night they might be caught by searchlights, hit by flack, hunted down by a night fighter, or (as is now increasingly suspected) suffer a collision.
They knew the odds against surviving a "tour", and that, if hit and not lucky enough to get out (with only a "hope" of years of captivity), they would probably burn to death. They had had all the prevous day to think about that prospect.
I would say that one such night deseves a medal, wouldn't you? But that wasn't all - a day or two later they they knew they'd have to do it all again. And again and again, say twice a week, until they'd chalked up 30 trips.
Could you do that? Could I do that? I hope so, but was never called upon to do so - I had a much easier war. But they did, and that is what we are commemorating.
Yes, they were just "obeying orders", I suppose !
Danny42C
My contention is that a memorial to the actual heroism itself must always "trump" the memory of a place which formed such a vital part in our 1940 sruggle for survival as a nation. (In the war, it is well said: "Courage is the supreme virtue").
Just think for a minute of those young men in Bomber Command. They took off in the dark or at last light for a 8-10 hour flight over enemy territory (all hand-flown by the pilot), in a cramped, freezing, unheated bomber. At any moment of that long night they might be caught by searchlights, hit by flack, hunted down by a night fighter, or (as is now increasingly suspected) suffer a collision.
They knew the odds against surviving a "tour", and that, if hit and not lucky enough to get out (with only a "hope" of years of captivity), they would probably burn to death. They had had all the prevous day to think about that prospect.
I would say that one such night deseves a medal, wouldn't you? But that wasn't all - a day or two later they they knew they'd have to do it all again. And again and again, say twice a week, until they'd chalked up 30 trips.
Could you do that? Could I do that? I hope so, but was never called upon to do so - I had a much easier war. But they did, and that is what we are commemorating.
Yes, they were just "obeying orders", I suppose !
Danny42C
Last edited by Danny42C; 22nd Jul 2015 at 00:09. Reason: Error
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well if osbourne moved every Ministry out of C London he'd have a load of space he could convert into flats.... the minimum in C London is around
£ 1 million a shot so he needs a few but every little helps..............
Whitehall Towers anyone?
only problem is that the area is infested with MP's...................
£ 1 million a shot so he needs a few but every little helps..............
Whitehall Towers anyone?
only problem is that the area is infested with MP's...................
Originally Posted by Tom
Wonder how the chancellor's recent target for Whitehall budget savings will impact on MoD, albeit the intention is to increase spending there.?
Originally posted by Courtney Mil
A good question indeed, Tom. Is the intention to increase spending or is the intention to appear as if he's going to increase spending there? Or am I being too cynical?
A good question indeed, Tom. Is the intention to increase spending or is the intention to appear as if he's going to increase spending there? Or am I being too cynical?
If you'd suggested that I might think you were being cynical.
If the economy grows as predicted, HMG will probably need some creative accounting in addition to the .5% real terms increase if it's to keep to the 2% commitment. I realise that hard bitten cynicism is the only safe line on here (and it's generally justified in the light of experience) but in this case I think it's probably true to say that the defence budget is largely protected, even if some of the "increase" needed to achieve 2% over the next 5 years comes from smoke and mirrors. If that makes sense.
But expect also to see a push for efficiencies despite the resource commitment. In the public sector you don't get commercial pressures driving efficiency, it has to be driven out to some degree, otherwise a proportion of any resource increase gets mopped up by efficiency losses.
Oh, and don't forget that even before any extra resources flow through from the recent commitments, there's still an £8bn unallocated pot waiting to be spent. Enough to cover the up front cost of a slack handful of P8s and more besides.
It's always possible that the govt will go overboard on the creative accounting but even so I think there's some justification for just a glimmer of cautious optimism, even on here - and certainly by comparison with what we expected before the budget.
But expect also to see a push for efficiencies despite the resource commitment. In the public sector you don't get commercial pressures driving efficiency, it has to be driven out to some degree, otherwise a proportion of any resource increase gets mopped up by efficiency losses.
Oh, and don't forget that even before any extra resources flow through from the recent commitments, there's still an £8bn unallocated pot waiting to be spent. Enough to cover the up front cost of a slack handful of P8s and more besides.
It's always possible that the govt will go overboard on the creative accounting but even so I think there's some justification for just a glimmer of cautious optimism, even on here - and certainly by comparison with what we expected before the budget.