Bolitics The New Condem Government

[thetrees]

The other concern I have is that there is an ideology in the Tory party to "buy off the shelf" from the US. This is perhaps OK for smaller, simpler kit - body armour, guns, and the like, but once you move up the scale to more complex equipment, you start to be restricted by what the US will allow you have, will allow you to do with it.

Yes, although I think a greater element of competition might force UK industry to do better and at a keener price. A prime example would be Super Lynx vs Blackhawk, the cost vs capability just doesn't add up from our point of view, but could we (for example) insist on them being built under licence at Wastelands?

The first Blackhawks are rolling of the new production line in Poland, so I think the US government would point towards an already established EU production base.

(I think the first ones are for a Middle East customer-can't remember)

[blandy]

Maybe you should look at the whole investment in defence that ALL gvmts have made.... spending under Labour was year on year significant growth while under the last Tory gvmt at times it went down.

And it will do this time, too.

The general trend has been for about 2%-2.5% annual growth in the budget (as per AWOL's post on NATO). This Gov't is going to stop that, and then make cuts of 10-15% over 10 years, on the current budget - so much more in real terms. They are going to target the Navy and RAF in the first 5 yrs, because the army is so involved in Afghanistan, and then in the second 5 of the ten years will focus on the army (mind you they may be kicked out by then). That's the basis for the SDSR. They'll then fit the various changes to numbers of service(wo)men, battalions, squadrons, fleets, to procurement etc. around that aim.

[drat01]

I wonder what kind of priority a strategic defence review would put on using 30 MoD police to 'investigate' the source of a leak.

It seems that the Torygraph are even questioning the Tory party now

Tories accused of 'chaos' as police hunt for source of leak

Dozens of Ministry of Defence Police were drafted in yesterday to investigate the leak of a letter from Dr Liam Fox to the Prime Minister, seen by The Daily Telegraph.

The Defence Secretary said he was “appalled” that his private communication to David Cameron had been disclosed and added that it was right to bring in the police.

The cabinet minister, who described himself as “extremely angry”, said he would “stop at nothing” to find whoever was responsible.

However, opposition MPs took the opportunity to accuse the Government of being in “chaos” and criticised the decision to call in the police when there was no risk to national security.

Police officers arrived at the MoD’s premises in central London yesterday as the search intensified.

It is understood that the fifth floor of the building where the most senior officials and the Secretary of State's office are based has been sealed off while officers carry out their searches.

Yesterday, Dr Fox said: “It's appalling that a secretary of state can't write to the Prime Minister in confidence and we will be looking into that this morning.

"The Prime Minister has set up the mechanics by which we can have a proper, collegiate and collective debate about this, and that's where we will be.

"I've had tremendous support from the Prime Minister and he fully understands the problems that Labour left behind.”

Bob Ainsworth, the shadow defence secretary, said the concerns raised by Dr Fox in his letter to Mr Cameron echoed Labour’s fears about forthcoming cuts.

“It is clear the Government is in chaos.

“This is an incredible letter which reflects many of our concerns about their approach to this review.

"The question now for David Cameron is what he is going to do about it.

"Listen to his Defence Secretary or sit back and let George Osborne continue to call the shots? He needs to finally show some leadership and take control.”

Jacqui Smith, a former Labour Home Secretary, said the police investigation was unnecessary.

“I am gobsmacked at the hypocrisy of Tory ministers willing to use scarce police resources to investigate a leak which is politically embarrassing, but contains no information that could constitute any sort of national security risk.”

“This letter shows major fault lines between Tory ministers, but the only real risk is to Liam Fox's career and Tory claims that they would protect defence spending.”

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, said it was vital the defence review was not rushed.

“These tensions are the direct consequence of the undue haste with which the defence review is being carried out.

"Irreversible decisions taken in the next few weeks could define Britain's defence capabilities for a very long time to come.

"The defence and security of the nation requires a much more measured approach.”

[Ads]

Wind your neck in Ainsworth you clown, this is not a problem that has begun in 2010. It’s a problem that’s been on going since the Wall fell and nobody since has given a damn about defence. That’s why we have 6 hulls marked up for escorts.

I’m glad the leak has happened, hopefully it will embarrass one or two and aid Fox, but ultimately at least this has brought defence to the forefront of discussion. What good will come of it remains to be seen.

[Ads]

Blandy, after listening to Fox give his speech to Chatham House I got the impression that the Navy would be spared the cuts. Its incredibly difficult to imagine just what they could cut, but I think the elephant in the room really is The Prince of Wales. That is what I think they’re gunning for, because it would allow them to (in their eyes) get away with 6 new AAD’s, and shrink the Type 23 forces and put off a replacement. Then they have the option of either cutting the F35 order or cutting the Tornados from the Crabs and allowing more F35’s to be used by them from the joint pool.

And what an utter nonsense that would be. But I can see them doing it.

[Awol]

I think the elephant in the room really is The Prince of Wales. That is what I think they’re gunning for,

IMO it has to be two or none at all because one just leaves an expensive asset that you can't afford to lose.

Then they have the option of either cutting the F35 order or cutting the Tornados from the Crabs and allowing more F35’s to be used by them from the joint pool.

From what I've heard Tornado is definitely getting the chop along with Harrier. I've also read that we may go for F-18/F for the naval air wing to save cash leaving the RAF with just Typhoon. Ideally I think F-35A for the crabs and F-35C for the matelots is the way to go, but we'll hopefully settle on at least F-35C across the board and go cat and trap on the carriers.

Nimrod MR4 will almost certainly get binned though which is very bad news.

[Risso]

Er, what?

[Awol]

Er, what?

HMS Prince of Wales, one of the two new carriers:

F-35 - next generation fighter to be flown from carriers:

F-18F Super Hornet, cheaper but still decent alternative to the above:

Nimrod MR4 will give the RAF maritime patrol capability if it goes ahead. For example it will make sure no Russians are hanging around when the Trident subs put to sea.

[Risso]

Ah ok, planes and boats, why didn't you say!

[Ads]

IMO it has to be two or none at all because one just leaves an expensive asset that you can't afford to lose.

You’re absolutely right on the carriers. I think you’re still pushing your luck with two. Having just one is a farce as we’ve seen with our buddies across the Channel. All that said, I won’t believe we’re going though with the second carrier until I see it floating down the Clyde.

From what I've heard Tornado is definitely getting the chop along with Harrier. I've also read that we may go for F-18/F for the naval air wing to save cash leaving the RAF with just Typhoon. Ideally I think F-35A for the crabs and F-35C for the matelots is the way to go, but we'll hopefully settle on at least F-35C across the board and go cat and trap on the carriers.

I can’t see them going with the F35/C variant because of the extra ware and tear on the airframes caused by having a cat. Although I have read that the ski jump can be taken off the carriers at a later date? I’d also read about the F-18 option, but if cost is the big issue (and it always is) why bin the FA2 and leave the Navy without any air-superiority for ten years only to buy the F-18?

Nimrod MR4 will almost certainly get binned though which is very bad news.

Bad news indeed.

Ah ok, planes and boats, why didn't you say!

Those are ships. This a boat

[blandy]

Nimrod MR4 will almost certainly get binned though which is very bad news.

I don't think it will - there's nothing else that can do that role, and the need for the role has not and will not go away. Also it's just gone into service, and having already cut the numbers twice, there's little to save by getting rid, now, relatively.

I'd be stunned if they bin it.

Also they can't completely bin both Tornado and Harrier from the RAF. Tornado with Raptor is doing something that neither the US not other UK or NATO forces can do in Afghanistan.

They could move forward out of service dates, reduce order numbers, stuff like that - but the problem with that is that it is so clearly about cost saving and nothing to do with matching capability to equipment.

[snowychap]

I see that Osborne is not only looking to confirm his status as a word removed but also a cock and a turkey: from here I'd like to point you in the direction of his speech...

cock

turkey

word removed

cock

[Awol]

I see that Osborne is not only looking to confirm his status as a word removed but also a cock and a turkey: from here I'd like to point you in the direction of his speech...

cock

turkey

word removed

cock

What has he said that has pissed you off because I can't see a specific underlying complaint in your post? Is it the single unified benefit thing, because I thought that looked like a pretty good idea so far (although I'm hazy on the detail)?

[peterms]

What has he said that has pissed you off because I can't see a specific underlying complaint in your post? Is it the single unified benefit thing, because I thought that looked like a pretty good idea so far (although I'm hazy on the detail)?

There is no detail yet. It will emerge over the autumn, partly on 20 October but no doubt with more detail to follow after that.

What we have so far is more a statement of general direction, and some kites being flown about removing universal benefits from the middle classes.

These have been trailed.

Middle class benefits

(defined as a household where every adult occupant earns more than £15,000 a year)

• Child benefit paid to mother replacing child tax allowance, worth £20.30 a week. Middle class cost: £4.2bn

• Winter Fuel Allowance paid to anyone aged over 60 worth £250 a year. Middle class cost: £500m

• Free bus passes for over 60s, estimated cost £1bn. Middle class cost: £500m

• Statutory maternity pay. Middle class cost: £1.4bn

Together with the proposed increase in student fees, with students leaving university with debts of £80k, it will be interesting to see how the core Tory vote responds, when they see the impact on them personally of bailing out the bankers.

[Awol]

Middle class benefits

(defined as a household where every adult occupant earns more than £15,000 a year)

£30,000 per couple now equals Middle Class?!?!!

That's news to me (and many others I suspect).

In terms of the benefits listed there for "Middle Class" folks I think it's right to drop them but the threshold for being M/C would be a combined income closer to £50k (at least) imo.

Together with the proposed increase in student fees, with students leaving university with debts of £80k, it will be interesting to see how the core Tory vote responds, when they see the impact on them personally of bailing out the bankers.

Spot on and that may well define the length of the Coalition Gov' imo.

[drat01]

In terms of the benefits listed there for "Middle Class" folks I think it's right to drop them but the threshold for being M/C would be a combined income closer to £50k (at least) imo.

Under the cock eyed scheme that Gideon is talking about you have the stupidity of one earner £44k, lose child benefit. Two earners @£43k each = £86k, keep child benefit.

Headline grabbing ideas again from the marketing team.

And still no blame being attached by these idiots to any of their "friends" in the financial world. They really are a disgusting pile of crap

[Gringo]

Well Gideon is setting the middle class barrier at the 40% tax rate, which equates to an income of roughly £44k.

So a family with two kids, earning £44k per annum sit on the 55th percentile according to the IFS

/edit/used/gross/instead/of/net/

[Awol]

In terms of the benefits listed there for "Middle Class" folks I think it's right to drop them but the threshold for being M/C would be a combined income closer to £50k (at least) imo.

Under the cock eyed scheme that Gideon is talking about you have the stupidity of one earner £44k, lose child benefit. Two earners @£43k each = £86k, keep child benefit.

Does seem cock-eyed to me too, but the principle of higher rate tax payers losing child benefit is fair enough imo. If you are lucky enough to be on a good wedge then why should you get free money for having kids?

Do you agree Ian?

And still no blame being attached by these idiots to any of their "friends" in the financial world.

The same people were Labour's "friends" too (like Murdoch), or have you forgotten that?

[drat01]

Ahhh the return of Thatcher - this time its worse

Borsi demands that strikes are not allowed to happen

Boris Johnson challenges David Cameron to tighten Britain’s labour laws to stop trade unions embarking on a wave of crippling strikes over cuts in public spending.

The Conservative mayor of London has called for ministers to raise the legal threshold for triggering a strike, threatening to undermine the Prime Minister’s attempts to avoid confrontation with the unions. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Johnson accuses the trade unions, with Labour support, of pursuing a “nightmarish return to the politics of the 1980s” with “wave after wave of debilitating strikes”. “The government should consider a law insisting on a minimum 50 per cent participation in a strike ballot,” he writes.

While addressing the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, Mr Johnson will tell ministers to pass new anti-strike laws.

The intervention from the mayor, seen as a potential Tory leadership challenger, may further strain his relationship with Downing Street.

Adding to pressure on the Prime Minister to confront the unions head on, British business leaders will also today demand new laws to “raise the bar” for industrial action.

Unions have vowed to oppose the Coalition’s cuts in public spending, which will be set out later this month in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). Some Tories say that widespread unrest could jeopardise Britain’s fragile economic recovery.

At a protest at the Birmingham conference on Sunday, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services Union, the biggest public sector union, said strikes are now “inevitable”. A strike planned on Monday by London Underground workers could cause chaos for millions of commuters. BBC staff have also planned a strike that would hit the corporation’s coverage of the CSR.

Despite the growing signs of unrest, Cabinet ministers have publicly taken an emollient approach, insisting they want to work with unions, not confront them.

Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, said that some union leaders are “extremely reasonable” and emphasised the desire for dialogue. Government insiders said the low-key approach is part of a deliberate strategy. Ministers have been told to avoid public criticism of unions, so as not to be seen as instigating hostilities.

Mr Johnson will today break that truce with a blistering attack on union leaders that is likely to delight the Conservative grassroots.

“The tragedy is that there is a growing number of people in the Labour party — perhaps even Ed Miliband — who believe that they can manipulate industrial unrest to wreak revenge for their electoral defeats,” he writes in The Telegraph. “They have an apocalyptic vision of the next two or three years, in which the public sector unions respond to the cuts with wave after wave of debilitating strikes.

“They see angry, shouting pickets at every station, braziers at every street corner, and such general industrial unrest that there is a run on the pound and a broken and dejected Coalition government is obliged to sue for peace and throw its policies into reverse.

“And who suffers, as they pursue this nightmarish

return to the politics of the 1980s?

“Their victims are the ordinary workers of this country, who find they cannot get to work, who lose pay, and whose firms go under as a result of the disruption.”

Mr Cameron should amend laws to ensure strikes can only be called with the active support of a majority of all unionised workers, he says.

Currently, a strike can be triggered if backed by a simple majority of those members who actually cast a vote. Critics say action can be triggered by only a small fraction of the total workforce. Only 33 per cent of balloted members supported today’s Tube strike.

Downing Street has said ministers have “no plans” for new union laws.

The CBI, Britain’s biggest business lobby group, said the threshold for triggering a strike should be set at 40 per cent of the unionised workforce. John Cridland, the CBI’s deputy director general, said: “When a legitimate strike threatens to disrupt the services on which the public depends, it is only right that it should require a higher bar of support.”

The CBI also called for other changes, such as imposing a longer notice period for strike action and giving employers the right to use agency temps to cover for striking workers.

Union leaders have said Coalition moves to tighten labour laws would be seen as a “declaration of war”. Mr Cameron is keen to avoid being seen to provoke a clash. Privately, ministers say tougher strike laws are being considered. One Cabinet minister told The Daily Telegraph that the Coalition must be prepared to confront the unions with new laws.

“At the end of the day, we have to be able to rule this country,” the minister said.

The Coalition says cutting spending and the deficit is vital to maintaining confidence in the UK economy and avoiding a second recession.

Addressing the conference today, George Osborne will attack the unions as “vested interests” threatening the economy.

The Chancellor will warn that the recovery would be smothered by opposition to spending cuts from Ed Miliband, the Labour leader “and the trade union leaders who put him where he is”.

Charlie Whelan, the political director of the Unite union, threw the weight of two million members behind Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign. The GMB and Unison also backed him.

Some Tories are keen to toughen labour laws. Priti Patel, a Conservative MP, said the CBI had a “more than valid point” on strike laws.

“I do think any industrial action is counterproductive, so this has to be looked at,” she said.

Good to see that the bollox they spout about this being a "all in it together" gvmt is a load of BS and in fact there is just one section they want to support, not the workers

[drat01]

The same people were Labour's "friends" too (like Murdoch), or have you forgotten that?

Eh?

The fact that Gideon will attack only the Public Sector and the Labour party for the problems that this world faces. Why was his primary announcement today attacking benefits?

The hedge fund backers of the Tory party are pissing themselves laughing at the way they have got away with things. Add to that the tax dodgers and the rest of the banks, it must be a right old party. There are just the easy targets for Gideon and more and more they are being shown up for being Thatcher's mob. How Clegg can sit there on Dave's knee agreeing to this, against every principle his old party had is beyond me