Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by trelawney126, Jun 30, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Last one out lock the gates.
Seeing as this country was nearly brought to its knees TWICE by maritime warfare, you'd think that somebody in the corridors of power would've read a history book or done a geography lesson: this is an ISLAND, surrounded by water, which carries most of it's imports/exports; if you can't look after your seaborne trade, the whole schemozzle is up shite creek with no visible means of propulsion.
A CVF gives you an option of protecting these SLOCs at long range, by acting as a deterrent to anyone who might feck around with them, and is a visible statement of "don't feck with me". We can only rely on Uncle Sam for so much, and I wouldn't bet my house on any support from the European Community (especially the French) for any help. Let's think about cutting back on the enormous amount of bureacracy and it's inbuilt waste of public funds generated by succesive governments before we bin the carriers. If a defrocked submarine PO Jack Dusty can see it, why can't our Lords and Masters ????
But thats what Liebour wants. Us to be reliant on Yoorope. For what we pump into the Brussels money pit on a daily basis, we could be giving our troops a decent start on kit.
Get us out FFS
The report is by all 'has beens' former this and former that. No one took any notice of them when they had a job, why should they now.
(I've just posted this on ARRSE but thought it appropriate here too.)
Ask any member of the public (or most media commentators for that matter) what fraction of central Government spending goes on Defence and I wonder how they'd answer?
a. Defence is over half of all spending.
b. Defence is half of all spending.
c. Defence is a quarter of all spending.
d. Defence is a tenth of all spending.
e. Defence is a twentieth of all spending.
Of course, the closest answer is e but you wouldn't think so according to most media headlines. From 'Economics Help' (link):
Before people go overboard about cancelling major Defence projects urgently needed to replace ageing assets (especially Trident and the current aircraft carriers), I suggest they take a look at how the Defence Budget has fared over the past eight years or so in comparison with other areas of Government spending, despite the involvement of our Armed Forces in two high-intensity conflicts:
Apart from Local Government (offset by increases in Council Tax), Defence has definitely been the poor relation in recent years and now it is being looked at for possible future reductions of Â£24bn? Ye Gods!
UK PLC are brokeâ€¦
"â€¦ In 2008/09, gross income tax receipts were Â£152.5 billion. In the same year, social security benefits cost the Exchequer Â£150.1 billion.
In 2009/10, the Treasury is expecting to take in Â£140.5 billion in gross income tax receipts. Social security benefits are projected to be Â£164.7 billion.
if you look at 2008/2009 figures social services got 228 billion, a rised from 177 the previous year, defence went up by 1 billion to just 33 billion for all 3 services. if we didn't waste all our money on crap procurment project lining the pocket of bae and eds ect. and bought the top quality goods off the shelf we would be saving an equivelent of the soial services budget!!! :roll:
The IPPR are a left of centre think-tank, so it's inevitable that their policy papers tends towards that approach.
Cutting Trident does tend to be wheeled out as a panacea to the defence budget issue, which is a pretty specious argument given the projected lifetime that the money is intended to be spent over.
I believe that there is an argument for doing away with Trident, or if comes down to it the whole nuclear deterrant. The UK has to start living within its means, to me this means having what you can sensibly afford and not giving handouts to others to boost their defence spending (India anyone). My own feelings are do away with the Bombers and spend the money boosting both the Skimmer and Submarine Services. Manning problems would ease tremendously with Trident. The problem is that it wouldn't happen. Trident would be scrapped and the money saved taken out of the RN budget
Sorry the reason we don't buy 'top quality goods off the shelf' is that we can't afford them
AS ever our wonderful government has missed the trick here, we should have been negotiating a deal so we got something for cutting Trident, now of course every one knows we really can't afford it because our wonderful government has squandered all the money on other things, no one will give us any concessions.
As a result we will continue to pour needless cash in a bottomless pit so that Gordon and his successors who ever they may be can pretend to be one of the big boys.
If they don't buck their ideas up it wont be too long before all we have is the deterent.
Well, arguably, we already do that. A Defence Budget that's reduced to around 2.5% GDP over 10 years from around 5% is simply too small. Defence of its interests (and that includes its people) is the 1st priority of any Nation.
Just a few thoughts
1) Disband the RAF and let the navy and army have the released cash and fill in the manpower shortfall with crabs.
2) Give the power of rule back to the royalty!
3) Get out of europe!!
Just a thought like I said.
Not playing devil's advocate at all, but perhaps if we didn't have our fingers in so many pies and didn't still think we were a major player, then our present level of resources would seem more adequate and could be taken better care of. Just a thought.
In a backward sort of way you make a valid point, the government does not fund the military capability and service it requires.
At present much of the argument is that we should then cut what is required till that matches the funding rather than the more sensible what do we need and haviung determined that then sort out how it is funded,
Cutting to match the present budget will only lead to further cuts till all we ahve left are an few brown jobs for ceremonial duties, some contracted out crabs to fly the B of B flight on special days and a few jolly jack tars (provided by Flagship) to provide tour guide on the Victory.
yep, that is my point, we throw all our money at bae
No you throw what money you have at BAESystems because you can't afford top quality gear, simple really.
Equally if you had the cash to pay for top quality, and managed the procurement sensibly unlike for example CVF where 1Bn has just been added to the tag to save a few bob this year and next, you could actually get it from BAESystems.
Perhaps the Queen should hold an annual subscription dinner in each of her dwellings. Charge Â£100K a year, per person, for membership of the Royal Dining Club, and throw in the dining free.
The Royal Household could keep half the fee and the Treasury could keep the other half. The money could then be ring-fenced to pay for MPs jollies and the money save spent on Pusser. :twisted:
Oooooo, I must go, I've got the PM on the phone....
I may be dumb, so forgive me - but where does it say Social Services got Â£228 Billion?
And even if SS did get that much, considering the Defence Budget is Â£33 Billion (i.e. approx one seventh of the SS figure you claim), how would buying "top quality goods off the shelf" equate to the Social Services budget?
And what are these fabled "top quality systems off the shelf", care to name a few?
Force most British defence contractors to merge with BAES and, suddenly, BAES is guilty of holding the entire MoD to ransom. I've been on training courses with these lads and they are as committed as we are. Do you not think that buggering around with specs and "re-profiling" payments might just push up the contract price?
With all the constraints on "smart procurement", most sod ups are now political. I shan't bother mentioning the sod ups resulting from Contractors being invited to provide (as per Smart) innovative in service support solutions. It takes a brave (and affluent) desk wallah to kiss off a Bonus payment point by saying the political directive is bollox.
Separate names with a comma.