UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

[Asturias56]

Today's "Times" says that the Treasury are asking all departments for a 5% cut in expenditure for the next year

[tucumseh]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Today's "Times" says that the Treasury are asking all departments for a 5% cut in expenditure for the next year

A Chief of Defence Procurement once reacted to one of these regular edicts by suspending all delegated technical and financial approval, insisting he would henceforth sign all approvals. He was swamped within hours, expenditure more or less ceased, and the target was met. Although there was the minor issue of penalty clauses companies invoked when they had to 'pause'. (A favourite MoD word).

We were never sure if this 'success' went to his head, but 3 years later he upheld a ruling that it was a 'routine expectation' of any project manager that he/she make savings of 33% on any project, without affecting operational capability. This was upheld by PUS and two Cabinet Secretaries.

Might I suggest current departmental heads seek out these retired gents? Or, indeed, those who achieved the 33%?

[Asturias56]

"insisting he would henceforth sign all approvals. He was swamped within hours, "

Just the same in private industry I'm afraid - a new FD was horrified when the Chief Accountant showed him round and asked me to show him my " Two files" - these were the backup documentation for the companies major project at the the time - one was 10 pages, the other over 200.

The CEO would send down an avalanche asking "what idiot thinks I can sign off hundreds of millions with only a 10 page attachment FFS?" - after which he always got the 200 pager...

after about 4 months I'd get the "YOU may have all the time in the world to read this c*** but I'm a busy man and need a precis" so put the 200 pager back in the file and take out the ten pager... then in 4 months......... "

It was remarkably effective and saved soooo much hassle

[tucumseh]

The CEO would send down an avalanche asking "what idiot thinks I can sign off hundreds of millions with only a 10 page attachment FFS?" - after which he always got the 200 pager...

Perhaps surprising to many, MoD used be quite efficient at this. My very first task in DGA(N) HQ was to draw up Admiralty Board Submissions for a helicopter Inertial Nav upgrade and a Radar processing upgrade. It was something you were already expected to know, but I was being checked out. The only reason I was allowed to drift on to the second side of A4 was because I suggested a single submission, as both would be embodied at the same time. My immediate boss signed it; the section head, a Commander RN, and his 2i/c, were too senior to be bothered with trivialities.

I suspect today that the Commander would be part of a large committee that sat for a year or so drafting hundreds of pages. I must admit though that I had an advantage. There were no computers or e-mails.

[ORAC]

Scholz has just announced that Germany will now spend more than 2% of its GDP on defence every year from now on.

This will mean the Integrated Review claim that the UK is the second highest NATO defence spender no longer hold true.

Increasingly loud calls for the review to be…. err…. reviewed…

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Scholz has just announced that Germany will now spend more than 2% of its GDP on defence every year from now on.

This will mean the Integrated Review claim that the UK is the second highest NATO defence spender no longer hold true.

Increasingly loud calls for the review to be…. err…. reviewed…

This, along with their decision to supply weaponry to Ukraine, is a very significant development. They have also announced , in addition to exceeding the NATO 2% of GDP on defence, a one off spend of 100 billion Euro's on the military. That's over twice the UK defence budget in one hit!

[trim it out]

I wonder if they'll announce the NMH sooner rather than later now.

[Fonsini]

Suddenly money isn’t as important.

[Asturias56]

wars tend to have that effect...................

[ancientaviator62]

Putin has managed to do in a couple of days what decades of nagging by the USA and others have failed to do. That is to get Germany to cough up and spend the appropriate amount on defence spending ! The 'Law of Unintended Consequences ' strikes again.

[Finningley Boy]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

This, along with their decision to supply weaponry to Ukraine, is a very significant development. They have also announced , in addition to exceeding the NATO 2% of GDP on defence, a one off spend of 100 billion Euro's on the military. That's over twice the UK defence budget in one hit!

Should we try and match this?

FB

[Davef68]

The 'Peace Dividend' was always a false economy, especially as we (UK) spent the next 30 years fighting a series of foreign wars.

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by Finningley Boy

Should we try and match this?

FB

Johnson will just do as he did last week in the Commons, bleat on about last years uplift, point out that we have a defence budget of a minimum of 2% of GDP, and continue to cut numbers and remove capabilities.

[Asturias56]

sadly I agree with pr00ne - the Tory Party really believes that cutting taxes is the only way to be reelected

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

Johnson will just do as he did last week in the Commons, bleat on about last years uplift, point out that we have a defence budget of a minimum of 2% of GDP, and continue to cut numbers and remove capabilities.

Which begs the question - which other budgets do you suggest he cuts to pay for a defence increase? We are already at the highest levels of overall taxation and government spending as a proportion of GDP for generations. The glib answer is to suggest that "the rich and/or evil US corporations" pay more. Trouble is "the richest 10%" are already paying something like 50% of total income tax (I forget the exact proportion). When you actually get away from the "sales" as opposed to profit figures quoted, the potential recoveries are actually quite low - a couple of billion here and there, that the NHS would swallow in a week or two.

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

Which begs the question - which other budgets do you suggest he cuts to pay for a defence increase? We are already at the highest levels of overall taxation and government spending as a proportion of GDP for generations. The glib answer is to suggest that "the rich and/or evil US corporations" pay more. Trouble is "the richest 10%" are already paying something like 50% of total income tax (I forget the exact proportion). When you actually get away from the "sales" as opposed to profit figures quoted, the potential recoveries are actually quite low - a couple of billion here and there, that the NHS would swallow in a week or two.

Absolutely no need to cut any other budget! This wasn't done during the unprecedented and massive spending on Test and Trace, PPE, Furlough and Covid business support. Govt can very easily and quickly borrow money, and it could do it now. It is only the dogmatic Tory adherence to cutting public expenditure and insisting on efficiency and cost savings every time it alters a departmental budget that causes things such as the impending hike in National Insurance.

Dogma driven fools.

[SLXOwft]

Top 1% of earners pay >28% of tax take.
Top 10% pay >33% - I'll fess up that percentile includes me.

It's the mythical squeezed middle in the UK who are substantially undertaxed by international standards for developed countries. Problem is that is probably where the floating voters are, and no politicians like telling the truth if it could keep them out of power.

Borrowing rates are likely to climb, but there will be a nice VAT windfall for HMT from gas, electric and petroleum.

The other problem is that the NHS has become the national religion and anyone suggesting it gets the root and branch overhaul and refocus it requires is treated as a heretic who should be burned at the stake. So it will continue to be the super massive blackhole of public expenditure.

In a few weeks when Vlad has won, as is inevitable without external armed intervention on the Ukrainian side, any impetus for increased expenditure on defence (with internal law enforcement, one of the only two duties of government) will begin to dissipate.

[Red Line Entry]

Top 1% of earners pay >28% of tax take.

Not correct.
From the Full Fact website: https://fullfact.org/economy/do-top-...28-tax-burden/

The top 1% are projected to pay about 28% of income tax in 2017/18....Income tax is only a fraction of the total tax take. Over three-quarters of the Government’s income comes from other taxes....There are direct taxes, such as Council Tax, and National Insurance contributions. There are also indirect taxes, such as VAT, Tobacco and Alcohol Duty, and Corporation Tax.

It is much more difficult to say what percentage of these other taxes the top 1% of earners pay. Households earning the top 10% of incomes pay about 27% in total of most direct and indirect taxes, according to Office of National Statistics (ONS) data. This figure has remained roughly constant since 2009/10.

These numbers at least indicate that the top 1% of households would be paying a smaller fraction of total taxes than 27%

[SLXOwft]

Fair enough, I was referring to income tax take. 42% of the overall UK 'tax' take is Income Tax + NI. Employers NIC is flat rate above the Secondary Threshold so is directly income related. My point is it's the highest earners and the lowest earners who bear a disproportionate burden. In 2018-19 the 91st %ile (before tax) was £59,100 the 25th %ile was 17,800, the 50th %ile was 25,000. https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-and-after-tax To afford higher public expenditure HMG needs to tax those between the 51st and 90th %iles more. A non-sequitur, yes, but a 50% increase in defence spending would equal a 50% rise in corporation tax take or a 11.25% rise in income tax take.

More up-to-date figures here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8513/

[The B Word]

In 2018-19 the 91st %ile (before tax) was £59,100 the 25th %ile was £17,800, the 50th %ile was £25,000.

I’ve always been a bit troubled by these comparisons. Firstly, how many on the £25k and below are either only declaring that amount for tax purposes and are earning a cash-based take home pay without paying tax (there is still a lot of business done “cash in hand”). Also, compared to the individuals up to the 91st percentile how many are getting income augmentation in benefits and allowances?

When you start to scratch into some of these areas then you start to see that some are paying way more into the state than others are getting out, but all have similar amounts of total expenditure to maintain their families.