Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Have Panorama had to pull their Ashcroft programme?

Money talks

Proof or innuendo?

[snowychap]

Have Panorama had to pull their Ashcroft programme?

Money talks

Seems that way. Have his lawyers intervened or have they pulled it for some other reason?

I googled Panorama and Ashcroft and the Heil article (first page retrieved) also appeared to have been pulled.

[Gringo]

Panorama haven't done a decent investigation for a couple of decades anyway.

Ashcroft doesn't pay tax shock. Maybe they've got around to reading 2004 private eye at last.

[Gringo]

Have Panorama had to pull their Ashcroft programme?

Money talks

Proof or innuendo?

Obviously any suggestion of bribery would be a bit silly, but obviously legal or political pressure has been responsible for this. Given your post on another thread I thought you'd be pushing for the beeb to speak out and not suppress a political story / conference.

[TrentVilla]

Panorama haven't done a decent investigation for a couple of decades anyway.

Ashcroft doesn't pay tax shock. Maybe they've got around to reading 2004 private eye at last.

Ouch, cutting but accurate.

[Awol]

Looks like Dr Fox is heading for the exit pretty soon. He's by far the best man for the Defence portfolio but it seems he won't accept the shafting the Treasury is intending to dish out. If it happens then I think he'd be the first Cabinet Minister to resign over a point of principle since Robin Cook in 2003 and he'll be the darling of the Tory Right.

[Ads]

I'm glad Fox has given them a round of ****. Labour and their defence policies have virtually destroryed our armed forces, the fact the Government is apparently going to continue them is a disgrace.

[Demitri_C]

fox has a point though

[drat01]

I'm glad Fox has given them a round of ****. Labour and their defence policies have virtually destroryed our armed forces, the fact the Government is apparently going to continue them is a disgrace.

:-) - have to laugh at your attempt to somehow deflect the blame for this onto Labour.

As for Fox, the H word reared its head again with the whole "Oh my god there has been a leak of a document" - now remind me again which party were saying only a few months ago it was OK?

The issue is simple, the military will be hit with OTT cuts. Despite all the BS in pre election promises from the Cons and Dems. Fox will just disappear under a lot of media BS fed from Conservative central office. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence according to the BBC, I wonder if they will commit to that or try and spin a line about increasing it?

It seems that Hague is the one who is battling Fox

[Ads]

Deflect how? I am dealing in fact, not inane party loyalty. Go take a look at the Royal Navy, it's not a blue water force anymore. The ship building programme is a farce. If the Government decide to continue in similar vein then I am going to call foul at the loonacy.

[drat01]

Deflect how? I am dealing in fact, not inane party loyalty. Go take a look at the Royal Navy, it's not a blue water force anymore. The ship building programme is a farce. If the Government decide to continue in similar vein then I am going to call foul at the loonacy.

Maybe you should look at the whole investment in defence that ALL gvmts have made.

2010 43.9 Billion

2009 42.1

2008 38.3

2007 36.5

2006 35.2

2005 33.4

2004 32.4

2003 30.0

2002 29.1

2001 28.9

2000 27.8

1999 26.7

1998 24.5

1997 25.2

1996 24.9

1995 25.6

1994 26.3

link

Now I may be misreading those figures wrongly but it seems that spending under Labour was year on year significant growth while under the last Tory gvmt at times it went down.

[Ads]

They may well have spent more but it has left us with less. As I said earlier go look at the Royal Navy and the ship building programme then you will appreciate why Labour have gutted and blunted our armed forces.

[Awol]

I'm glad Fox has given them a round of ****. Labour and their defence policies have virtually destroryed our armed forces, the fact the Government is apparently going to continue them is a disgrace.

:-) - have to laugh at your attempt to somehow deflect the blame for this onto Labour.

He's right in so far as the 1998 SDSR was never properly funded by the Treasury - read Brown - and the real terms increases that did happen were more than sucked up by the wars we were (and are still) fighting. Munitions, global logistics, destroyed/worn out equipment, improved medical facilities are a very, very expensive business. Add in political interference in key procurement decisions (as well as the stunningly poor performance of MOD civil serpants) and they are starting from a very difficult position.

Cuts have to happen as with all departments, but spending is already pared down so far that serious reductions at this point will lead to wholescale loss of capabilities that as a nation we need to maintain, if we are to fulfill our overseas commitments to dependent territories and the long term protection of our economic interests.

As for Fox, the H word reared its head again with the whole "Oh my god there has been a leak of a document" - now remind me again which party were saying only a few months ago it was OK?

Two possibilities here imo:

1) Fox making it clear that any strategically stupid decisions taken were warned about in advance and he was prepared to walk away rather than be associated with them.

2) The Coalition have been warned by the military and the US administration that the impact of the proposed cuts on our core defence capability are dangerous for national security and unacceptable. Cameron can then climb down, put Osborne back in his box and show that the reduced cuts are a result of him listening to professional advice, while placating other departments who would then squeal "why can't we be protected too?"

I guess we'll see over the coming weeks but it's beyond doubt that this SDSR is nothing of the sort and is purely a cost cutting exercise. That is a major pre-election promise broken imo.

We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence according to the BBC, I wonder if they will commit to that or try and spin a line about increasing it?

Spending 2% or more is a commitment that comes with NATO membership - although many of the Euro countries already spend less.

It seems that Hague is the one who is battling Fox

Osborne I think, he has no more idea about defence than the previous two chancellors. If they go ahead and we then get a serious kick in the bollox overseas somewhere as a result, the loss of national face will weigh far heavier on this Gov than the financial crisis did on the last.

Our defence spending as a proportion of GDP has been so low since the end of the cold war because we rely on the USA as the ultimate guarantor of our security. Part of that arrangement means us maintaining a minimum capability that enables us to be the greatest allied contributor to any US operations. As a minimum that essentially means being able to put a Division of troops with all arms support into the field, maintaining first rate combat aviation and naval forces (including carrier aviation, escorts, amphibious landing capability and nuclear subs) in addition to the nuclear deterrent.

The danger of dropping one or more of these capabilities is the down grading of our alliance status with the US and in future having to pay far more to ensure the security of our interests. In other words it's a false economy. Fox knows this, Osborne apparently does not.

[drat01]

Ads you really are clutching at some very small straws. The figures show that under the last Gvmt the spend for Defence increased significantly. As for the ship building programme you are going on about maybe you can show where the last Gvmt, who you are seemingly blaming, were at fault, and that reconciles against the previous record of the last Tory gvmt and the noises we are hearing again from the ConDem's about cutbacks all across.

It's Cameron who is talking about cancelling orders. Lets be honest here even such massive supporters as the Dail Mail are questioning the ConDem approach.

Basically the ConDem's are being shown up (again) for BS on their approach to defence and now by this document we can see that even their own people are questioning the approach. Interesting to see how long Fox remains in place as Cameron cannot now sack him

[drat01]

The danger of dropping one or more of these capabilities is the down grading of our alliance status with the US and in future having to pay far more to ensure the security of our interests. In other words it's a false economy. Fox knows this, Osborne apparently does not.

Jon - that being the case - and for a bit of Wednesday "fun" (and using your knowledge of the military) what would be a fair level of increased or decreased spending to achieve the goals of the defence departments?

Also if Cameron is playing a game as such and positioning all of this for a future PR exercise and appearing to look good, that is very poor but not unexpected

[blandy]

I agree with a fair part of that AWOL.

I definitely don't believe that the SDSR is anything other than an exrcise in cost cutting that they will try and then fit an argument around, rather than determining what the COuntry's defence objectives and needs are, and then assessing what they need to meet this needs, and then costing that objective. It's utterly back to front.

I also don't like that Trident is excluded. It is there as a nucler deterrent, and something to give the UK a seat at the big table. If we can't afford it from the defence budget, then they either need to accept the loss of nuclear deterrent capability, and loss of "world influence" and then set out needs for a different role in the world, or fund it from "national interest" funds (treasury), but to try and move the costs onto defence, thus depriving other areas of kit and resources is idiocy.

Personally, I'd bin it, reduce our role worldwide and act more like many other European nations. Set out our own genuine defensive needs, plus any operations abroad in the national interest and pay for the forces and equipment needed to meet this smaller role.

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. There's also a huge hidden cost in maintenace, as they won't release the information needed to service and support complex kit. There are ITAR and TAA requirements which just block that off. So you end up paying less "off the peg" costs, but then pay through the nose for support, repair and maintenance.

Defence budgets shouldn't be aimed at supporting UK industry - the first priority has to be on the troops and their equiopment, but I feel there's an ideology to just go for the cheapest unit price, ignoring later support bills at the expense of soveriegn capability in design and operation of equipment. At best they will want to force collaboration on UK industry at worst they will just ruin our in-house infrastructure to meet the needs of the forces. Much of that comes from Osbourne and Fox. A pair of utter twunts.

[Ads]

Small is a good word. You like Brown, Darling and now Osbourne seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees. 6 is a small number. 6 is an even smaller number when it represents the number of hulls serving as escorts for BOTH carrier AND amphibious groups. 0 is a small number. It's even smaller when it represents the number of air superiority and early warning aircraft on board the future CVFs. But then the RN should be used to that when we consider the Sea Harrier was cut from the current air arm after Blue Vixen had been fitted. Genius use of funds and strategic planning. We could then talk about the ship building programme and how poorly that is managed as in a few years we will be left with a skills gap, as there won't be enough workers left in the yards at Barrow or the Clyde with the skills to build our SSNs or Destroyers. More of that false economy Awol spoke of. Although half a billion for a Type 45, which won't have Tomahawk is the polar opposite!

[Awol]

I definitely don't believe that the SDSR is anything other than an exrcise in cost cutting that they will try and then fit an argument around, rather than determining what the COuntry's defence objectives and needs are, and then assessing what they need to meet this needs, and then costing that objective. It's utterly back to front.

Precisely and the opposite of what was stated. I had the opportunity to ask Fox this very question prior to the election and he said categorically that it wouldn't be a Treasury led process. This will make Options for Change pale in comparison.

I also don't like that Trident is excluded. It is there as a nucler deterrent, and something to give the UK a seat at the big table. If we can't afford it from the defence budget, then they either need to accept the loss of nuclear deterrent capability, and loss of "world influence" and then set out needs for a different role in the world, or fund it from "national interest" funds (treasury), but to try and move the costs onto defence, thus depriving other areas of kit and resources is idiocy.

Again, bang on the money imo.

Personally, I'd bin it, reduce our role worldwide and act more like many other European nations. Set out our own genuine defensive needs, plus any operations abroad in the national interest and pay for the forces and equipment needed to meet this smaller role.

If it's a choice between keeping balanced forces or having a nuclear deterrent backed up by inadequate conventional capability then I'd have to agree. However given the growing proliferation of nuclear weapons (UAE, Saudi and no doubt others are quietly acquiring nuclear plants, undoubtedly in reaction to Iranian activity) it isn't a choice the country should need to make. I think we should maintain the deterrent, but as you say it should come from central government funds. It is a not a weapon system that can be deployed on the authority of military commanders and therefore they shouldn't be paying for it from their budget.

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?

Maintaining the domestic knowledge base and infrastructure required to produce fast air, armour, SSN's and escorts are in the strategic national interest, even where the unit cost is inevitably higher due to a smaller production run. That's why you never see me moaning about the sale of fast and shiny things to the Saudi's et al. BAE is vital to our self sufficiency, particularly when..

...they won't release the information needed to service and support complex kit.

*cough*JSF source codes? Christ, we can't even get the sodding paint!!

Much of that comes from Osbourne and Fox. A pair of utter twunts.

Agree on Osborne but I think Fox is just trying to get as much bang for his buck as possible given the limited resources available. Without a root and branch look at the defence infrastructure and it's strategic relationship with the MOD (which SHOULD be part of the SDSR) he just has to get on with it.

Ian,

I don't want to put a number on it because I'm not well informed enough to do so. I'd just say that we need to decide what our FP and alliance commitments are, work out what forces are required to resource those policies and then fund that programme in full. This is what the SDSR should be about, but patently is not.

The danger is that the inherited (and now undoubtedly failed) camapign in Afghan will suck up resources that would be better spent elsewhere. Ads is right about the Navy, they've been gutted since 1997 (not scoring political points btw it's just a fact) and they are the most important of the Armed Services to UK strategic security. Our energy supplies, food and trade is all moved overwhelmingly by sea. Politicians of all shades seem to have a problem remembering that we are an Island!

[snowychap]

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

[thetrees]

Now I may be misreading those figures wrongly but it seems that spending under Labour was year on year significant growth while under the last Tory gvmt at times it went down.

Errr, defence spending does have a tendency to significantly grow when a government takes the country to war.

You can't run a war several thousand miles away on a peacetime budget.