UKIP Defence Policy Released
 

Having mixed thoughts on this...

Defence

...it all seems a bit amateurish to me...:eek:

I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers from recently retired HM Forces personnel that could help Mr Farage develop something better.

LJ

It's a bit thin.....! (Understatement of the year...)

To be fair the apparently professionally thought out defence policy isn't panning out brilliantly...

It might be fag packet and a little light on detail, but the finely crafted ponderous swathes we wade thought these days don't guarantee results either.

It is a shame that there is no specific mention of revised pension rights for military widows. FPS - you need to get in there, chaps.

I think they got though quite a few crayons knocking that one up..... :hmm:

I don't know if we're just getting more verbose, but its interesting to revisit the entire defence element of the 1979 Tory manifesto.

Ouch!! :ouch:

What could possibly go wrong there?!

I don't think it will get off the ground Leon :E

http://www.toonpool.com/user/2041/fi...age_827785.jpg

Sorry - was this some kind of comedy 'if Iwere running the show' policy dreamt up in a pub?
Clearly written by people who've never had the slightest understanding of Defence beyond some gucci youtube footage and 1950s war movies.

In short order, no I don't think the idea of the RAuxAF operating GR4 is a terribly sensible idea.
No I don't think disbanding MOD makes much sense, because you still need someone to give oversight and direction to how an organisation based across the globe, operating in deep space and deep underwater, and which does everything from health care, schooling, riding schools, dockyard maintenance and the odd spot of extreme violence does its business.
I dont think randomly suggesting procurement of equipment like extra Type 45 which isn't currently inbuild at a cost of billions, and which will mess up our long term equipment programme is a terribly good idea.
I dont think introducing a stand alone tactical cruise missile for use in a nuclear role without any thought about deterrence, or how a nuclear armed opponent may perceive an attack with dozens of missiles coming his way is a very sensible idea either.
I also think that anyone who seriously believes that the Regular Armed Forces somehow represent a more cost effective body of staff than the MOD when it comes to normal office duties is probably taking drugs (average MOD salary cost is £23K, while everyone in the military at the rank of Cpl or above is on at least £26K plus a very generous allowance and housing support system - the regular military is bloody expensive, which is why we have so many budget problems).

If we had infinite money and time, then they may be on to something. But frankly given the huge responsibilities defence has, the limited funding its got, and the very real constraints we all operate under, I think all political parties of any view would quickly produce a document looking remarkably like the SDSR did.

Well it's a manifesto that will not be tested. Parts I agree with, other parts I don't. Which is which is immaterial because of the reason first stated. As a rabid opponent of the European federalist superstate, I have sympathy which UKIP's main theme, but they are a bit of a flaky group. Their main achievement right now is to have seriously rattled the cages of the mainstream parties. Hence the sudden rush by all the major parties to comment on immigration issues once UKIP had dared to raise the issue. Hence also the sudden increase in smear stories about how right wing/fascist they may be.

We are burdened with parties led by forgetables who are certainly not leaders. We are further encumbered by parties which are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate. None could even loosely be described as radical, and radical thinking is needed now more than ever. UKIP is as flawed as they come, but at least Farage has gumption, conviction, and a simple way of getting his point over. And boy does he tell it like it is. Also, I could actually understand the simple language of their defence manifesto, so a big thumbs up for that. Clearly not written by the usual defence specialists as it's way too short of jargon and acronyms to be a credible military document. They also appear to genuinely care about the defence of the country and that is somehow quaintly old-fashioned.

All in all, I think our political process needs the prodding that it gets from UKIP in those spots where our leaders are most loath to be prodded. But the reality is, when the chips are down, we will once more be blessed with grey men speaking lots, saying little and achieving less.

Keep shaking the tree Nigel!

LF

This highlights the fundamental problem with non-mainstream parties. They appeal to the populace and go to the polls with promises of fixes to the issues which are important to the proverbial 'man in the street', but underlying and vital components such as finance, defence, and international relations of running a country only get superficial and inadequate coverage.

It's one of the reasons I won't vote, and never have voted, for any political party, although I am a member of UKIP and support its aims.

If they gave the other useless bunch a challenge, they've achieved something but there's a risk that they split the vote to the extent that neither mainstream party gets a clear mandate to govern and the result is a weak and useless coalition, the current UK situation being a perfect illustration of that.

Many years ago I was chatting to a USAF reservist pilot who was flying F16s out of Aviano AFB in support of the Bosnia No Fly Zone. He was an airline pilot for his day job, but was a Lt Col in the Air National Guard as a "hobby". His unit had recently taken up the F16 in the ground attack role having previously flown the A10. He said that maintaining competency on the F16 was much harder than on the A10 due to the complexity of the aircraft and the 16 hours weekend flying per month that he was receiving was not enough.

I wonder if the same would apply to the GR4?

Yip, Yip. Wibble, wibble. Hatstand.

I'd vote for anyone who'll promise to bin Trident. It's beginning to get like someone who is prepared to live in a tent so he can carrying on running his Ferrari - our present defence forces are starting to resemble the tent :(

why on earth does anyone think that binning trident - or it's replacement will help the mil budget - if it does go then the pennies earmarked for it would very (as in head spinningly) quickly be swallowed up by whichever vanity project/votewinner/vote keeper/bribe needs it.

the defense budget is looked at arse about face - they ought to be saying we need to do this much - here is how much this will cost.

Not the current way of mismanaging budgets - my budget is "X" that I run/manage/spend for a hobby.
when I run oout of budget and the factory is stopped does my MD say "but you've spent your allowance and you cant have any more!"..... No

he says spend what you have to and try and be frugal next month - maybe my budget is set too small, maybe I should not be buying ferraris on company dine (JOKE)

you need to set out your aims and then tell the accounts dept how much it will cost and have them find you the money.

(here is a helpful hint) look at housing benefit - using taxpayer cash to pay mortgages of property barons to house people.........

Einstein was wrong, the next World War will be fought with stick and stones on our side at the current reduction rate, not the fourth one.

And why on earth do you think the treasury would just hand over the money? I should think your view has unanimous support, no matter who you speak to, but we have finite resources and should try and spend them as wisely as we can.

I agree with TT, £25 billion that has already been agreed the government can afford, could be much better spent! I doubt the CDS would willingly just let it go while we have such monumental capability gaps!

UKIP are a mixture of blokes who believe what their mates tell them in the pub and a significant bunch of "entryists" from the EDL and similar far right outfits....

remember the guy who founded them quit because of the sort of people who were joining them

they'll get the protest vote but once you turn a bright light on them..... zillions of pounds in give aways and no plans on how they'll pay for them

Gentlemen

I have to agree with CS. We should:

- Decide what we as a nation want to be capable of doing (NEO, stabilisation, intervention, global (thermo-nuclear) warfare etc).
- Decide what capabilities we want/need to achieve our aims.
- Decide what size manpower requirement we need to man those capabilities.
- And the bloody well fund them. Properly.
Getting rid of Trident or son of Trident will only allow more money to be spent on the UK's Sacred Cows - Education (2.5 times the Defence budget); Health (3 and a bit times the Defence budget) and welfare and pensions (6 times the Defence budget). Even our interest payment on the national debt is more than the Defence budget (thanks Labour). :ugh:

The country can easily afford to spend more on Defence, our politicians just choose not to.

There is no reason why defence should be immune to the financial needs of the time. It has to justify it's expenditure and literally get the biggest bang for our bucks. If there were no financial limit then you would be wide open to the even more of the inefficient procurement practices that have dogged us for years. Does our inventory look like the 4th largest (or wherever we are now) defence expenditure in the world? So, whilst I too I would like to see defence properly funded to meet its objectives, I wouldn't contemplate any increase until the procurement process has been fixed. If (a very big IF) that can be achieved, then even the same expenditure would get us further towards meeting very demanding objectives.

Of course the same financial discipline should to be applied to all the really big areas of government expenditure too; they should not be given free rein either. Pity those budgets are more likely to win more votes though.

Current options for such a fix are being debated elsewhere on PPRuNe. I sincerely hope that initiative is successful. If not, there is always UKIP's radical solution of sacking the entire MoD and starting again. :E

LF

UKIPs defence policy may look a little flimsy but so do some of their mainstream ideas. Arguably though, they could well become the party of choice.

Vote for the party that promises the least, for sure you will be the least disappointed! !


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Nah ... Ignore the Locals yesterday ...

http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/h3/h19741.jpg

Says it all really :E

LF

Would that be as opposed to Health, Education and Overseas Aid, all of which are exempt? Whilst I may have some sympathy with education, the other 2 are ripe for some savings measures.

overseas aid is washers and a lot of it comes back to the UK in some form

health covers pensioners as well - and they go crazy when you suggest they can afford to pay for a bus for example - and politicians know they all vote

He should pledge to bring back the Harrier, then he'd be able to recruit another nutter to UKIP.

Slight tangent here, but...

Am I completely missing the point when I perceive that the issue is not the amount of money (fourth largest defence budget in the world and all that) but the crippling inefficiency with which it is spent?

Yes. You are.

No one suggests that DE&S is a model of efficiency (although a large part of the inefficiencies originate at the other end of the M4). However, of the £30-odd Bn budget, only £6-8Bn is spent on new kit. Another £6-8Bn is spent on supporting existing kit. The rest goes largely on people, who are (rightly) expensive. And no, they're not all CS on huge annual bonuses sitting in hi-spec offices in MB. The number of CS in that category throughout MoD is probably less than 200.

Which is unfortunately where UKIPs assertions about getting the army back up to 100000 and buying lots of kit by "scrapping the MoD" fall over.

No, it wouldn't. They should not automatically be ring-fenced either, but subject to the same value-for-money scrutiny as every other area of government spending. There may be a valid reason (other than vote-grabbing) why one or other ministry needs more resources at a particular time, but that is for the government of the day to decide at that point. Making promises in advance makes a politician a hostage to fortune.

But just how you manage the NHS for example, goodness only knows. The more successful it is the more cash it requires. Double it's budget today and by 2020 it will be short of cash again.

But I digress. UKIP has just done very well at council level. Even the BBC has noticed them, almost to the point where you would think they had achieved a landslide victory rather than just having inserted a large spanner in the works. Maybe I should go back and read their defence policy more carefully. It might not be as academic as I first thought.

LF

You have to feel sorry for them here in Oxon -

Labour: 16% of vote, 11/63 council seats
Lib Dem: 16% of vote, 11/63 council seats
Green: 9% of vote, 2/63 council seats
UKIP: 16% of vote, 0/63 council seats
(Conservative: 34% of vote, 31/63 council seats)

I have to say, sitting as I do on the fringes of the RAF and Army* as a VR(T) but working in a civilian job in the private sector, that I'm afraid I see staggering inefficiencies in the MOD. As a trivial example, white fleet coach hires come in at 70-80% more expensive than the civilian equivalents used by our school. Why? Because someone signed an inefficient contract? Because back-handers were given?

I'm not saying I have the answers: I don't, but the waste is very clear.

Tim

*PS in my post I actually deal more with the Army on logs and supply than with the RAF.

I've just realised who the "brainchild" is for the UKIP's Defence Policy as he's just been sacked! Billy Gilpin was never the brightest spark on the Tornado F3 (despite doing Maths/Computer Science at Cambridge!). No wonder the policy document was "a bit thin"...

Here's a video showing Billy explaining his grand (now failed) plan...


LJ :ugh:

To be fair it's no worse than the policies of some mainstream parties; like the "hand delivery" option for nuclear weapons (lib dem) or the Blair/brown extravaganza of ordering lots of super stuff with no money budgeted to pay for it!

And is their RAuxAF proposal really so controversial? It more closely resembles the well proven system in the US and indeed UK (till the60's) than our sponsored reservist scheme.

Given I've as much chance as governing the country as they do, who gives a rats what their policy is on anything :confused:

Yes but support for Beer micro breweries must shirley be a vote winner:ok:

Wonder what the position on Pop Rivet is?

SGC

Not so much "released" but "escaped" and slithered down the corridor leaving an ugly mark

The really worrying thing is that Billy was an F3 pilot so surely he must know that the F3 airframes were f*cked - in no way were they mid-life and fit for service within this Reservist Fast Jet Force that he's suggesting. The F3s were supposed to last for 15-20 years maximum and they had served for upwards of 25 already when they retired. If he suggests using some of the GR4s then some of those are over 30 years old - that's ancient in Combat Aircraft terms.

The niaivity of the comment that Wellington needed only a staff of 28 to raise his Army just beggars belief! I don't believe that the Napoleonic Wars had anyware near the complexity of modern day warfare and legal requirements. Yes, 80-odd thousand MOD Civil Servants is excessive but many of them are essential if the military are to function - isn't that why the current shower are streamlining MOD and thinning out some of the MOD Civil Servants? Abolishing the MOD in toto is just plain dumb!

As for 'choosing your allies wisely' - does anyone else want to state the bleedin' obvious? :ugh:

I voted for UKIP for the local elections for one reason: they are given their own heads for local policy making and not whipped to a national 'Party Line'. It was also a sort of 'protest vote' to awaken the mainstream. However, I cannot see UKIP ever being fit to govern the UK in its current guise with its current bunch of clowns and this woefully lacking policy proves it.

LJ

LJ - if youre feeling brave you may care to air your views over on JB and see what sort of reception you get ;)


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Dead Pan

Seeing as this is about military policy then why would I post it on Jet Blast? :confused:

LJ

"Yes, 80-odd thousand MOD Civil Servants is excessive but many of them are essential if the military are to function - isn't that why the current shower are streamlining MOD and thinning out some of the MOD Civil Servants? Abolishing the MOD in toto is just plain dumb!"

the current target is 52,500 in 2 years time, and last I heard they were already down to 65,000. Its worth noting that the MOD CS is being cut by more under the SDSR than all three services combined, even though the powers that be hadnt worked out whether the same comensurate reduction in workload could be made.

The interesting stat I heard recently is that barely 2% of the MOD CS are involved in Policy, and the rest are involved in delivery or other roles.

And long may that spending priority continue. I don't want to live in a country that spends more on defence than it does on Education and Health thank you. What we need to do is be realistic about how we spend what we do on defence not spend more. We are no longer a military global power fella nor should we aspire to be so. That does not mean we become less than what we are.

New UKIP candidate ex pongo
 

Andrew on Better off Out, Fair Deal for Armed Forces, Immigration and why vote UKIP - YouTube

Sounds interesting especially on waving the flag and supporting the forces.:ok: