UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Reeves signalled Labour now plans to fund their plans through savings to future government spending, rather than an alternative tax rise.
That second table perfectly demonstrates why the NHS in current form is unsustainable. The RDEL budget - essentially people and consumables for NHS England alone is larger than all the other departments combined by at least 30%.
Given that the Treasury hates RDEL because it has no balance sheet value, that gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.
Given that the Treasury hates RDEL because it has no balance sheet value, that gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.
Am I just not understanding or are there unannounced defence cuts planned as highlighted by ORAC? I see a 6.3% cut in Defence planned RDEL between 2023-24 and 2024-25, and a 1.6% cut in CDEL. £2.3Billion in total, so bang goes the second trance of the £5 billion over two years.
To quote the (right leaning) IFS via Civil Service World
<Rant> IMO any sensible party would be suggesting raising the personal allowance to c. 20k and introducing a >=30% band at Median Income level, settting the higher threshold at the 90th Income Centile, substantially reducing the starting rate for additional rate, adjusting higher and additional rates to fund a 2% overall rise in income tax and NI take, and scrapping the NI upper earnings limit and also the allowance taper to get rid of the 60% trap,. </Rant>
To quote the (right leaning) IFS via Civil Service World
Defence-spending pledge "not worth the paper it's written on"
Yesterday's budget saw Hunt set out a handful of aspirational pledges. They included floating the idea that a future Conservative government might abolish National Insurance contributions and promising defence spending would rise to 2.5% of gross domestic product from the current 2% "as soon as economic conditions allow".
IFS director Paul Johnson said today that Hunt's stance on defence spending was remarkable.
"Economic conditions allowed a £10bn cut in NICs this year. So they could have allowed a £10bn increase in defence spending instead," he said. "That would have just about met the target. Actions speak louder than words."
Johnson said the aspiration to abolish National Insurance was as unrealistic as the restated defence-spending stance.
"This pledge to cut taxes by more than £40bn goes in the same bucket as pledges to increase defence spending – not worth the paper its written on unless accompanied by some sense of how it will be afforded," he said.
Yesterday's budget saw Hunt set out a handful of aspirational pledges. They included floating the idea that a future Conservative government might abolish National Insurance contributions and promising defence spending would rise to 2.5% of gross domestic product from the current 2% "as soon as economic conditions allow".
IFS director Paul Johnson said today that Hunt's stance on defence spending was remarkable.
"Economic conditions allowed a £10bn cut in NICs this year. So they could have allowed a £10bn increase in defence spending instead," he said. "That would have just about met the target. Actions speak louder than words."
Johnson said the aspiration to abolish National Insurance was as unrealistic as the restated defence-spending stance.
"This pledge to cut taxes by more than £40bn goes in the same bucket as pledges to increase defence spending – not worth the paper its written on unless accompanied by some sense of how it will be afforded," he said.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...war-in-europe/
Britain appears to cut defence budget during war in Europe
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...1/summary.html
Public Accounts Committee, Nineteenth Report - MoD Equipment Plan 2023–2033
Summary
This year’s Equipment Plan (the Plan) reveals that there is a £16.9 billion deficit between the Ministry of Defence’s (the MoD’s) capability requirements and its budget, despite the MoD having increased the Plan’s budget by £46.3 billion. This is the largest funding deficit in any of the 12 Plans the MoD has published since 2012. It is also a marked deterioration in the reported financial position since last year’s Plan, which the MoD judged to be affordable but this Committee concluded was not and that is characterised by optimism bias. The real deficit, however, is even larger, because some parts of the Armed Forces have not included costs for all the capabilities government expects the MoD to provide, but only those they can afford. The Army, for example, could need around £12 billion more to fund all the capabilities the government seeks.
The MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford. Instead, it has opted to assume—or perhaps, given the uncertainty, hope—that fiscal and economic circumstances will improve during the next ten years so that government will fulfil its aspiration to annually spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. This, combined with the marked deterioration in the Plan’s affordability, means that the MoD has not credibly demonstrated to Parliament how it will manage its funding to deliver the military capabilities that government wants…..
Britain appears to cut defence budget during war in Europe
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...1/summary.html
Public Accounts Committee, Nineteenth Report - MoD Equipment Plan 2023–2033
Summary
This year’s Equipment Plan (the Plan) reveals that there is a £16.9 billion deficit between the Ministry of Defence’s (the MoD’s) capability requirements and its budget, despite the MoD having increased the Plan’s budget by £46.3 billion. This is the largest funding deficit in any of the 12 Plans the MoD has published since 2012. It is also a marked deterioration in the reported financial position since last year’s Plan, which the MoD judged to be affordable but this Committee concluded was not and that is characterised by optimism bias. The real deficit, however, is even larger, because some parts of the Armed Forces have not included costs for all the capabilities government expects the MoD to provide, but only those they can afford. The Army, for example, could need around £12 billion more to fund all the capabilities the government seeks.
The MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford. Instead, it has opted to assume—or perhaps, given the uncertainty, hope—that fiscal and economic circumstances will improve during the next ten years so that government will fulfil its aspiration to annually spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. This, combined with the marked deterioration in the Plan’s affordability, means that the MoD has not credibly demonstrated to Parliament how it will manage its funding to deliver the military capabilities that government wants…..
Thread Starter
I think you could have written that any time in the last 50 years - the politicians won't face the facts
Thread Starter
"<Rant> IMO any sensible party would be suggesting raising the personal allowance to c. 20k and introducing a >=30% band at Median Income level, settting the higher threshold at the 90th Income Centile, substantially reducing the starting rate for additional rate, adjusting higher and additional rates to fund a 2% overall rise in income tax and NI take, and scrapping the NI upper earnings limit and also the allowance taper to get rid of the 60% trap,. </Rant>"
The whole questions of "bands " is so Victorian - there is nothing to stop them having a smooth curve for tax and benefits accessible through an app on your phone. Cut out the "cliffs" and ridiculous changes in tax/benefits when you make one extra quid......................
The whole questions of "bands " is so Victorian - there is nothing to stop them having a smooth curve for tax and benefits accessible through an app on your phone. Cut out the "cliffs" and ridiculous changes in tax/benefits when you make one extra quid......................
The following 3 users liked this post by Asturias56:
The following 2 users liked this post by ORAC:
"<Rant> IMO any sensible party would be suggesting raising the personal allowance to c. 20k and introducing a >=30% band at Median Income level, settting the higher threshold at the 90th Income Centile, substantially reducing the starting rate for additional rate, adjusting higher and additional rates to fund a 2% overall rise in income tax and NI take, and scrapping the NI upper earnings limit and also the allowance taper to get rid of the 60% trap,. </Rant>"
The whole questions of "bands " is so Victorian - there is nothing to stop them having a smooth curve for tax and benefits accessible through an app on your phone. Cut out the "cliffs" and ridiculous changes in tax/benefits when you make one extra quid......................
The whole questions of "bands " is so Victorian - there is nothing to stop them having a smooth curve for tax and benefits accessible through an app on your phone. Cut out the "cliffs" and ridiculous changes in tax/benefits when you make one extra quid......................
taxing the very rich never pays off… when Gordon brown cut the super tax - tax take went up as it is not worth going through convoluted tax vehicles….. the one thing everyone should be worried about is the size of the pension pot for the nhs and council. Nearly two pennies in five of your council tax goes on pension payments to council staff. You imagine with doctors getting 30 odd percent pay rise what that is going to do to the public purse once the 20 percent nhs contribution to pension is factored in, let alonecthe gold plated inflation rises etc
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://htsf.substack.com/p/breaking...meOnShare=true
Breaking ranks or firing blanks? Tory calls for Defence spending hike unheeded
Why is UK strategic thinking paralysed by peacetime fiscal rules? Here's three alternative scenarios...
Breaking ranks or firing blanks? Tory calls for Defence spending hike unheeded
Why is UK strategic thinking paralysed by peacetime fiscal rules? Here's three alternative scenarios...
Through successful negotiations between MOD’s procurement arm - Defence Equipment & Support - and the US Government, the UK has reduced costs for elements of the programme by more than £300 million, ensuring value for money whilst providing our armed forces with a cutting-edge heavy lift capability.
...which will pump an estimated £151 million into the UK economy.
(...)
As part of the deal, UK companies will also produce components critical for manufacturing and maintaining the Chinooks, supporting jobs in areas such as aircraft avionics and electric power, supporting skills development and wider UK industry.
(...)
As part of the deal, UK companies will also produce components critical for manufacturing and maintaining the Chinooks, supporting jobs in areas such as aircraft avionics and electric power, supporting skills development and wider UK industry.
Beyond the Chinook, the Government’s extensive negotiations with United States has helped to enshrine critical reforms into law that will benefit the UK. These laws will increase the speed and predictability of military procurement from the US going forward, and will strengthen shared partnerships like AUKUS through technology sharing.
Anyway, I look forward to having them rattle my windows in the (hopefully) no too distant future. And hearing if the F Block II is quieter.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
“RAF's Autonomous Collaborative Platform strategy paper is out. As CAS had anticipated, first range of Tier 1 (attritable) collaborative drones is to be operational by the end of this year. We might have one name, too: AUKLET, mentioned alongside BANSHEE.
As far as i'm concerned, AUKLET is new; don't know what shape it might have. BANSHEE, of course, is known to be the base for the Royal Navy's own project VAMPIRE and has been developed in interesting ways, including for Strike use, and is already in Ukraine too”.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...m_Strategy.pdf
As far as i'm concerned, AUKLET is new; don't know what shape it might have. BANSHEE, of course, is known to be the base for the Royal Navy's own project VAMPIRE and has been developed in interesting ways, including for Strike use, and is already in Ukraine too”.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...m_Strategy.pdf
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Very interesting: Spain's air force is looking for contractor support for BRIMSTONE missiles, but also for SPEAR 3. As far as we know, that would make Spain the first SPEAR 3 customer outside of the UK……
So poorly paid that you have to steal electronics to order
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2519260.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2519260.html
So poorly paid that you have to steal electronics to order
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2519260.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2519260.html