New Defence Review, higher or lower?
Lacking the first, one can't answer key Requirement Scrutiny questions, which will at best cause significant delay.
Lacking the second, one cannot cost the 'requirement', which tends to lead to a lack of funding, which is later misrepresented as a 'cost overrun' when actually the cost is fair and reasonable.
As an aside, the Defence Committee issued an interesting report yesterday recommending a return (although it didn't say 'return') to the system whereby one could take a contractor's past performance into account when considering a bid. (Now I wonder where they read that suggestion? Are they finally having a look at successful programmes?) When that authority was withdrawn (at roughly the same time as the demise of the LTC), it introduced enormous risks, which manifested immediately. Successful mitigation relied almost entirely on the programme manager having prior experience of the above Service HQ posts within the LTC process, or having managed programmes across every (e.g.) aircraft domain. Both were very rare. All these things are linked.
If the recommendation is accepted, the first logical step is to resurrect and reissue the hitherto mandatory procedures for doing this, which set out who the authority was vested in. The Services and DSA/MAA won't do this, as the authority is too low down the food chain. We can't have plebs doing important stuff! Another difficulty being (as a matter of policy) lack of SQEP. Perhaps more to the point, it would mean DSA/MAA having to rewrite many of the important (but incorrect) parts of the new Regulatory Set. And they, too, having SQEP.
It's all about people. Without the right people, implementing the correct regulations, there can be no solid foundations.
I'm no mathematician so happy to be corrected, but I think GDP would need to collapse by something like 25% in order for 3% of GDP not to represent a real increase in defence spending over 2.2%. By comparison, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a GDP reduction of a little over 6%. Of course any GDP reduction would trim the size of the spending increase, but if my rusty o-level maths is anywhere near correct we'd be approaching Mad Max territory before it wiped it out completely.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,687
Received 97 Likes
on
45 Posts
Given the vast amounts of taxation income the new Chancellor has just given away, I would say "Lower" ... unless the Magic Money Tree in the garden of No. 11 is in fruit again.
How do Labour government’s tend to treat the Forces? (Rhetorical question). Time to get used to a bare cupboard.
I can't see any extra money being available for defence - it 's not even mentioned in all the hoo-hah over the new budget. Lower exchange rate, higher inflation, lower taxes = major defence review in 2025 under a Labour Govt. Voters have this odd habit of remembering "bonus for bankers" for a very long time
Seriously, if you look at which party actually cuts the armed forces you'd maybe be surprised.
I'm no mathematician so happy to be corrected, but I think GDP would need to collapse by something like 25% in order for 3% of GDP not to represent a real increase in defence spending over 2.2%. By comparison, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a GDP reduction of a little over 6%. Of course any GDP reduction would trim the size of the spending increase, but if my rusty o-level maths is anywhere near correct we'd be approaching Mad Max territory before it wiped it out completely.
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/history/GBP-USD-2015
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-pound-crashes
"Seriously, if you look at which party actually cuts the armed forces you'd maybe be surprised."
people forget it was the Labour party that started the atomic weapons programme, took us into Korea and built Chevaline on the quiet
people forget it was the Labour party that started the atomic weapons programme, took us into Korea and built Chevaline on the quiet
A lot of defence equipment is essentially priced in US dollars, much as oil and most major commodities are. In May 2015 when the Brexit referendum became law the GBP/USD rate was approx 1.55. It is now (23-Sep-2022) only 1.10. That is 0.45/1.55 = 29% reduction on what it was. This exceeds 25%, and to quote your own words is therefore a "max Max outcome" in the UK's ability to fund stuff priced in USD. The UK is reaping what Brexit voters have sown, and it is likely to get far worse before - if ever - it gets better. The defence budget implications ought to be obvious. At the same time the UK has seriously $%%^-off all the local partner nations with whom it has shared costs for the last 70-years, and is instead shopping around (quite successfully) for new partners to foot the bill in Australia and Japan (well at least initial indications are promising).
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/history/GBP-USD-2015
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-pound-crashes
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/history/GBP-USD-2015
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-pound-crashes
so please amend your europhillic drivel.
The pound tanked against the dollar after Brexit, and its just getting worse. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...vote-hit-chart
if you like a little research, look at a chart of the euro v the usd. You’ll soon learn Brexit is irrelevant.
The pound may have tanked after Brexit. All market based trading incurs emotional responses. But the fundamentals are the same, spend more than you earn = currency debasement.
if you like a little research, look at a chart of the euro v the usd. You’ll soon learn Brexit is irrelevant.
if you like a little research, look at a chart of the euro v the usd. You’ll soon learn Brexit is irrelevant.
Anybody managing the defence budget in that time, or the one to come, will be under no illusions as to the consequences.
Anybody denying these facts is obviously feeling rather uncomfortable that the penny is dropping out there in voterland.
(For completeness GBP/EUR was 1.40 in May 2015, now 1.13 as of 23-Sep-2022. That is 0.27/1.40 = 19% reduction in GBP vs the EUR in the same time the GBP declined 29% against USD. The direction of travel is pretty clear.)
I'm no fan of Brexit but I really don't think it has impacted the defence budget. We've all remarked for years how amazing it is that Defence never gets a mention in normal politics and especially at budget time. What has hurt UK defence is an overall lack of cash and some awful examples of managing projects
Hopefully, the F35 order will be honoured and sped up. Maybe an increase in Typhoon numbers and another first line aerodrome opened. To have only three main operating bases, Lossie, Marham and Conningsby is a disgrace and surely limits capability. Cottesmore could be reopened amongst others.
Re Labour, it was notable that post Ukraine invasion they were pushing HMG to up defence spending and emphasised that any increase would be supported by them - indeed they criticised the govt for not coming forward with an increase this year. Of course words are cheap when you're in opposition, but I'd agree with others that it's not simply a case of "Tories good, Labour bad" when it comes to defence spending. The Cameron administration was particularly bad.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate all the political rubbish that is spouted in the Military Aviation section BUT for all you know-alls I think you'll find that the £ was almost at parity with the US Dollar in the early eighties( 1980s ). Way way before Brexit.
