Times details proposed UK defence cut options
"So, what will the Defence Sec tell the British public next?"
I posed this question. No replies? However, today I see that things are going on behind the scenes. Is Gavin Williamson doing any good for Defence? I think possibly not and I expect he will now go deep and silent for a while. However, if he is deeply wounded, standby for fireworks!
OAP
I posed this question. No replies? However, today I see that things are going on behind the scenes. Is Gavin Williamson doing any good for Defence? I think possibly not and I expect he will now go deep and silent for a while. However, if he is deeply wounded, standby for fireworks!
OAP
Hi Guys,
I wish to respond to comments made on the first page of this thread.
I had hoped to comment earlier, using quotes from one of the financial newsletters I subscribe to, which I believed was still on my system. However, I have been unable to find the quote I wanted so I am going to have to quote, as best I can, from other sources and from memory. I’m not a finance professional, just a small-time, civvy, personal investor, but I’ll do my best.
Alber Ratman had commented: Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.
Melchett01 had commented: Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy. Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?
O.K. Here goes with my best attempt to explain. At the end of the financial year ending March 2017, UK government gross debt was £1.72 trillion, equivalent to 88.0% of GDP – and mounting! We're still borrowing year on year. Bear in mind that this is just the ‘on-balance sheet’ public indebtedness.
If you then include the ‘off-balance sheet’ items, such as: -
1. public sector pensions, (apparently the largest item) some of which have no investment fund and are paid directly out of revenue; (i.e. teachers, fire brigade, police, etc.), and black holes in the funds of the remainder resulting from low interest rates.
2. Nuclear decommissioning,
3. Hinkley Point,
4. PFI contracts; (hospitals etc.),
5. Government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.
That's why we can't afford proper defences but only something that looks like defences but in truth is only a sorry shadow of what it is supposed to be. Please don't ask me how this will end.
Best regards,
BP.
I wish to respond to comments made on the first page of this thread.
I had hoped to comment earlier, using quotes from one of the financial newsletters I subscribe to, which I believed was still on my system. However, I have been unable to find the quote I wanted so I am going to have to quote, as best I can, from other sources and from memory. I’m not a finance professional, just a small-time, civvy, personal investor, but I’ll do my best.
Alber Ratman had commented: Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.
Melchett01 had commented: Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy. Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?
O.K. Here goes with my best attempt to explain. At the end of the financial year ending March 2017, UK government gross debt was £1.72 trillion, equivalent to 88.0% of GDP – and mounting! We're still borrowing year on year. Bear in mind that this is just the ‘on-balance sheet’ public indebtedness.
If you then include the ‘off-balance sheet’ items, such as: -
1. public sector pensions, (apparently the largest item) some of which have no investment fund and are paid directly out of revenue; (i.e. teachers, fire brigade, police, etc.), and black holes in the funds of the remainder resulting from low interest rates.
2. Nuclear decommissioning,
3. Hinkley Point,
4. PFI contracts; (hospitals etc.),
5. Government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.
That's why we can't afford proper defences but only something that looks like defences but in truth is only a sorry shadow of what it is supposed to be. Please don't ask me how this will end.
Best regards,
BP.
In the event of this country being attacked or needing to utilise most all of its military assets in order to prevent such an attack, you can be sure that massive funds would be allocated to our defences. Quite probably these would dwarf the 'so called' 2% fefence expenditure. It is like a home owner not paying for house insurance. They may be lucky but in the event of a major problem, it is likely that refurbishment costs would dwarf the insurance cost.
And THAT is precisely what governments do. But in this case it is not just a house but a country with over 65 million people...
It's been confirmed by MoD and the Intelligence Services that he leaked precisely nothing. The are however some in the party that clearly don't like him, and this briefing against him would appear to reflect that.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s not sound it’s nonsense.
‘A strong defence is only possible with a strong economy’, this is the latest Conservative tag line to answer any problem. What constitutes a strong economy? What is a strong defence? It is a meaningless soundbite.
‘Our economy is a lot weaker than many on here think it is’, various international organisations rate the UK economy as the 5/6 largest in the world. Despite current political turmoil we are still growing. Politicians, technocrats, financiers and most people acknowledge that the UK economy is in pretty good shape albeit with some problems.
‘Would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?’ Indeed but the question could also be why does the military squander such a large budget and fail to deliver what it promises?
Broomsticks comments on debt to GDP are statistically accurate but incomplete. As PDR says who owns that debt and how/when can they call it in? Due to quantative easing the BoE currently holds 25% of it. The 88% figure sounds awful until you consider in the early 1950s our ratio was above 200% and defence spending over 5% of GDP for the entire decade. For perspective Japans current debt to GDP ratio 240%, France 96, Spain 99, Italy 132, you get the idea.
In short the UKs finances are nothing like Carillion or any other private company, we are not teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and our creditors can not just demand their money back.
‘Proper defences’ whatever that means? Defence capabilities are a matter for government on the advice of the chiefs. Just what that advice should be is something we will never agree on this forum.
Broomsticks post was ill informed tripe.
‘A strong defence is only possible with a strong economy’, this is the latest Conservative tag line to answer any problem. What constitutes a strong economy? What is a strong defence? It is a meaningless soundbite.
‘Our economy is a lot weaker than many on here think it is’, various international organisations rate the UK economy as the 5/6 largest in the world. Despite current political turmoil we are still growing. Politicians, technocrats, financiers and most people acknowledge that the UK economy is in pretty good shape albeit with some problems.
‘Would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?’ Indeed but the question could also be why does the military squander such a large budget and fail to deliver what it promises?
Broomsticks comments on debt to GDP are statistically accurate but incomplete. As PDR says who owns that debt and how/when can they call it in? Due to quantative easing the BoE currently holds 25% of it. The 88% figure sounds awful until you consider in the early 1950s our ratio was above 200% and defence spending over 5% of GDP for the entire decade. For perspective Japans current debt to GDP ratio 240%, France 96, Spain 99, Italy 132, you get the idea.
In short the UKs finances are nothing like Carillion or any other private company, we are not teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and our creditors can not just demand their money back.
‘Proper defences’ whatever that means? Defence capabilities are a matter for government on the advice of the chiefs. Just what that advice should be is something we will never agree on this forum.
Broomsticks post was ill informed tripe.
‘A strong defence is only possible with a strong economy’
A better phrase would be ‘a strong defence is only possible if the the people are prepared to pay for it’. Even that doesn’t tell the story in our case, as despite the whingeing we do have a large defence budget by global standards!
How the UK armed forces would look if you started from scratch
Article inThe Guardian today.
Snip:-
Health warning - might cause raised blood pressure! 
Snip:-
The argument over the UK’s defence budget and the shape of the armed forces has been raging for a while but the debate has reached boiling point this month. Newly appointed secretary of state for defence, Gavin Williamson, and the chief of the general staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, have been arguing for an increase in spending to meet a £20bn funding shortfall and stave off cuts to key capabilities and personnel numbers. But what if we ignore that reality for a moment and imagine that the UK were buying a fully formed military off the shelf. What would that look like and how much would change?
Not certain if that linky to the Gruinard is the complete piece? Shirley not, it tosses around ideas with no rhyme or reason. Utter waste of effort, like PH on the Beeb the other day.
OAP
OAP
