Labour take on Defence - City AM article
[QUOTE=Chugalug2;11632751]The Nimrod MRA4 wasn't airworthy and never could be.[QUOTE]
I didn't say they would be airworthy or not, I said the contract was mismanaged (in this case by BAe) and they should have been held accountable for the public money that they wasted.
I didn't say they would be airworthy or not, I said the contract was mismanaged (in this case by BAe) and they should have been held accountable for the public money that they wasted.
Personal social services is social workers, carers, mental health crisis team, occupational therapists etc
[QUOTE=Lomon;11633575][QUOTE=Chugalug2;11632751]The Nimrod MRA4 wasn't airworthy and never could be.
I didn't say they would be airworthy or not, I said the contract was mismanaged (in this case by BAe) and they should have been held accountable for the public money that they wasted.
Er. No. BAES were trying to deliver something mandated by a bunch of incompetents in the RAF/MoD and elsewhere. It is arguable that they should not have signed up to that contract, but equally so that those who let it needed a kicking of biblical proportions.....
I didn't say they would be airworthy or not, I said the contract was mismanaged (in this case by BAe) and they should have been held accountable for the public money that they wasted.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,035
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Or IIRC like the AEW3 Nimrod where BAe tried to squeeze the software onto a minuscule hard drive whilst spending a fortune of tax payers monies trying to do it, instead of increasing the size of the drive because they were getting paid for it
Thanks Abrahn...give with one hand,take back with the other..
Thread Starter
A Labour government would aim to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP "as soon as resources allow", Sir Keir Starmer has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435
The Labour leader also told the i newspaper he would conduct a strategic review of defence and security "to be clear what the priorities are".
Sir Keir's aim matches that of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who has also said he wants defence spending to rise to 2.5%. It currently stands at 2.1% of GDP. Earlier this year, two ministers - Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Tom Tugendhat - publicly urged the government to invest in defence at a "much greater pace".
In his spring Budget, Mr Hunt said the UK's armed forces were the "best funded in Europe" and that spending would rise to 2.5% "as soon as economic conditions allow". In a statement ahead of a visit to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria on Friday - where nuclear submarines are made - Sir Keir said Labour's commitment to the UK having nuclear weapons was "total".
"In the face of rising global threats and growing Russian aggression, the UK's nuclear deterrent is the bedrock of Labour's plan to keep Britain safe," said Sir Keir. "It will ensure vital protection for the UK and our Nato allies in the years ahead, as well as supporting thousands of high-paying jobs across the UK."
He also described his party as one that has "changed" - referring to his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time opponent of the UK's Trident submarine-based missile system and vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Speaking to the i, Sir Keir said nuclear weapons were "expensive but it's absolutely vital and needed".
Annual running costs are estimated at 6% of the defence budget - about £3bn for 2023-24. The new Dreadnought boats being built at Barrow-in-Furness to replace the current submarines in the early 2030s carry an estimated cost of £31bn.
Asked about defence spending, Sir Keir told the paper: "Obviously we want to get to 2.5% as soon as resources allow that to happen. "That was the position when Labour left government and we absolutely stand by our commitment to Nato."
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the Labour leader and shadow defence secretary had "tried twice to put Jeremy Corbyn in charge of the nation's armed forces. The same man who wanted to scrap our nuclear deterrent, dismantle Nato and questioned the integrity of British intelligence community," Mr Shapps said. "They are not the party to be trusted with our nation's defences."
SNP defence spokesperson Martin Docherty-Hughes MP - whose party does not support Trident - said Westminster had "already wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on nuclear weapons".
He added it was "grotesque that Sir Keir Starmer is prepared to throw billions more down the drain when his party claim there is no money to improve our NHS, help families with the cost of living or to properly invest in our green energy future".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790435
The Labour leader also told the i newspaper he would conduct a strategic review of defence and security "to be clear what the priorities are".
Sir Keir's aim matches that of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who has also said he wants defence spending to rise to 2.5%. It currently stands at 2.1% of GDP. Earlier this year, two ministers - Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Tom Tugendhat - publicly urged the government to invest in defence at a "much greater pace".
In his spring Budget, Mr Hunt said the UK's armed forces were the "best funded in Europe" and that spending would rise to 2.5% "as soon as economic conditions allow". In a statement ahead of a visit to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria on Friday - where nuclear submarines are made - Sir Keir said Labour's commitment to the UK having nuclear weapons was "total".
"In the face of rising global threats and growing Russian aggression, the UK's nuclear deterrent is the bedrock of Labour's plan to keep Britain safe," said Sir Keir. "It will ensure vital protection for the UK and our Nato allies in the years ahead, as well as supporting thousands of high-paying jobs across the UK."
He also described his party as one that has "changed" - referring to his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time opponent of the UK's Trident submarine-based missile system and vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Speaking to the i, Sir Keir said nuclear weapons were "expensive but it's absolutely vital and needed".
Annual running costs are estimated at 6% of the defence budget - about £3bn for 2023-24. The new Dreadnought boats being built at Barrow-in-Furness to replace the current submarines in the early 2030s carry an estimated cost of £31bn.
Asked about defence spending, Sir Keir told the paper: "Obviously we want to get to 2.5% as soon as resources allow that to happen. "That was the position when Labour left government and we absolutely stand by our commitment to Nato."
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the Labour leader and shadow defence secretary had "tried twice to put Jeremy Corbyn in charge of the nation's armed forces. The same man who wanted to scrap our nuclear deterrent, dismantle Nato and questioned the integrity of British intelligence community," Mr Shapps said. "They are not the party to be trusted with our nation's defences."
SNP defence spokesperson Martin Docherty-Hughes MP - whose party does not support Trident - said Westminster had "already wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on nuclear weapons".
He added it was "grotesque that Sir Keir Starmer is prepared to throw billions more down the drain when his party claim there is no money to improve our NHS, help families with the cost of living or to properly invest in our green energy future".
I'm not entirely impressed by this conversion to maintaining a military posture by Labour. At the same time it is beyond doubt that the Tories have abandoned defence as a serious matter for concern, a few weeks ago, a young tory MP was on Question Time advancing the argument that we have a nuclear deterrent so.... This was his response to the accusation that defence spendng needed increasing. However, the Labour party are still the Labour party, they still have Angie Rayner as the deputy leader. If you look at the background of many current labour MPs, they all opposed the nuclear deterrent, supported a policy to never send UK forces on operations overseas (an interesting one) and to oppose all military operations against ISIS. The latter two points are supported by Sir Kier Starmer, or were?
FB
FB
I'm not entirely impressed by this conversion to maintaining a military posture by Labour. At the same time it is beyond doubt that the Tories have abandoned defence as a serious matter for concern, a few weeks ago, a young tory MP was on Question Time advancing the argument that we have a nuclear deterrent so.... This was his response to the accusation that defence spendng needed increasing. However, the Labour party are still the Labour party, they still have Angie Rayner as the deputy leader. If you look at the background of many current labour MPs, they all opposed the nuclear deterrent, supported a policy to never send UK forces on operations overseas (an interesting one) and to oppose all military operations against ISIS. The latter two points are supported by Sir Kier Starmer, or were?
FB
FB
If the tories had any sense whatsoever, they'd be checking on how each Labour frontbencher voted on deterrent renewal and how many of them agreed openly with Magic Grandpa - and then publicising that incessantly. But they won't because they don't think there are votes in it.
The vast majority of the labour party could be covered by the phrase "they haven't gone away you know...."
If the tories had any sense whatsoever, they'd be checking on how each Labour frontbencher voted on deterrent renewal and how many of them agreed openly with Magic Grandpa - and then publicising that incessantly. But they won't because they don't think there are votes in it.
In favour of retention - Starmer, Healey, Reeves, Cooper, Phillipson, McFadden, Kendall, Reynolds, Miliband, Mahmood, Streeting, Reed, Kyle, Benn, Powell, Campbell.
Against: Rayner, Lammy, Haigh, Stevens, Murray
Did not vote: Debbonaire, Thornberry.
Ellie Reeves wasn't an MP at the time of that vote.
One of Corbyn's own MPs, Jamie Campbell is recorded in Hansard as noting that the party policy was to retain the deterrent, and that:“For the first time I think ever we’ve witnessed the leader of the Labour Party stand up at the despatch box of this House and argue against the policy of the party he leads. This is unprecedented, moreover this reckless, juvenile, narcissistic irresponsibility makes me fearful for the future of the party that I love.”
Thornberry had been Shadow Defence Secretary and Corbyn got her to do a review into Trident replacement - she did question whether Trident was the right technology (she'd obviously been briefed about the whole 'submarines will be detectable by drones before the mid-2030s so SCAD will be obsolete as it enters service' stuff that was floating about at the time, and bought into it), but was given a duffing up when she expressed this view to the PLP. Whether she refused to vote for the reasons she said ('Tory game-playing') or because she felt it impolitic to reveal her hand I don't know. As far as I can tell, Debbonaire's contributions, such as they've been, have recently been of the sort of which John Healey would approve ('Russian threat means we shouldn't be starving forces of the money they need' sort of stuff).
Did I not hear on the news today that Starmer had committed to 4 replacements for the Dreadnought class?
Thread Starter
""In the face of rising global threats and growing Russian aggression, the UK's nuclear deterrent is the bedrock of Labour's plan to keep Britain safe."
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,035
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Bloody skimmers!
Thread Starter
Hmm - Starmer will be doing well - the original (actually the sixth of the name) cost less than £ 1.8 million and took less than a year to build...................
On the other hand the lack of stealthy smoke was a bit of a design issue..............
On the other hand the lack of stealthy smoke was a bit of a design issue..............
And where is the coal going to come from, not to mention and unacceptable carbon footprint?
Now if a way could be devised of making steam without coal and of making it much harder to detect - we could be on to a winner!
Hang on . . . I have an idea.
Now if a way could be devised of making steam without coal and of making it much harder to detect - we could be on to a winner!
Hang on . . . I have an idea.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
China??
The following users liked this post:
