99 replies to this topic

[Methven Hornet]

Cameron has proposed to do one every 5 years.

The last one was in 1997 and a new one was well overdue.

1998 I think I heard on the radio. My concern is that this SDR has been carried out with the need to make drastic budget cuts rather than starting from the basis of what is needed. That said, you can only have the defence capability that you can afford and if the political and military establishment are happy with it then they'll have to be trusted.

The point I was making about the length of the review (ie the duration, not the gap between SDRs) was has it been rushed as a result of the need to make cuts.

[Millman]

My concern is that this SDR has been carried out with the need to make drastic budget cuts rather than starting from the basis of what is needed.

Yes, much better put than I managed.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

How many were career military men though?

all of them
conscription ended almost 50 years ago

[l'angelo mysterioso]

What are all these army men gonna do now? Sign on the dole probably, they aint exactly got the skills to work in the real world at the moment. More unemployment on the way.....

same with the army women
the navy men and women
and the airforce men and women

[Bedford Roughyed]

The point I was making about the length of the review (ie the duration, not the gap between SDRs) was has it been rushed as a result of the need to make cuts.

Both really. £38 billion of spending outside of the actually budget needed to be found or cancelled. The carrier are cheaper to buy than cancel! Madness.

The army, navy and airforce are as much to blame as they all have their big projects that they want (and will sacrifice other assets for).

Nimrod was 9 years late, 200% over budget, etc.
FRES for the army is a massive blackhole of money.
The carriers now £5billion etc.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

1998 I think I heard on the radio. My concern is that this SDR has been carried out with the need to make drastic budget cuts rather than starting from the basis of what is needed. That said, you can only have the defence capability that you can afford and if the political and military establishment are happy with it then they'll have to be trusted.

The point I was making about the length of the review (ie the duration, not the gap between SDRs) was has it been rushed as a result of the need to make cuts.

exactly. One would have thought that a SDR would be devoted to working out the diretion of defensive policy and how to aschieve it.
UK strategic thinking seems to be completely directionless

[Millman]

UK strategic thinking seems to be completely directionless

I think you're right Frank. However in the case this shameful lot that are in power seem intent in slashing and burning absolutely everything they possibly can in their first year of government in order that when the time comes they can say they a¬ Had to do it because of the previous government's poor management. b¬ The LibDems were in agreement with us (to be used when this coalition falls). c¬ Look after the cuts we made in the first year we acted responsibly.

In essence they're lining us up for their perceived nirvana of a radically slashed public sector and an almost un-regulated private sector, and they're using the current global economic background as an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. Should we be surprised that capitalists are acting as opportunists?

I dread to think what will be announced tomorrow in the spending review, and in the coming months.

Edited by Millman, 19 October 2010 - 08:55 PM.

[Bedford Roughyed]

exactly. One would have thought that a SDR would be devoted to working out the diretion of defensive policy and how to aschieve it.
UK strategic thinking seems to be completely directionless

The stragtegic part was released yesterday. The main dangers to the UK will not be stopped by carriers, tanks and harriers.

[ckn]

How many were career military men though?

The longer people are in the armed forces, the more "institutionalised" they can become making it harder to function in civvy life. It is an issue the army knows about and some units are very good at de-programming those leaving, the problem is that it's often not consistent or effective and too many soldiers are punted out the door with nowhere to go. Then they get the local authorities who treat them as untouchables, often telling them they don't "qualify" for housing within an area because of no ties despite them either growing up in the area or having lived there on posting for years.

A friend of mine left the army and the council (Colchester) refused to consider him for a house because he was making himself "voluntarily homeless" despite him reaching his 22 years of service and the army giving him no choice to stay on in service.

An example of how "institutionalised" people can get: When I went to university after leaving the army, I became a student accommodation warden to help pay the bills; the premises manager (my boss) was an ex Sergeant Major and he simply could not take "no" for an answer, he understood he couldn't shout at the civvies so he often took himself out the back of the building and marched himself up and down for 10-15 minutes to "de-stress". He was one of those who could cope, many simply cannot.

Ex-servicemen make up a disproportionately high number of prisoners and homeless people for many reasons but there is far more that the armed forces can do to help them. Pity that once you take your uniform off the state couldn't care less.

[Trojan]

What are all these army men gonna do now? Sign on the dole probably, they aint exactly got the skills to work in the real world at the moment. More unemployment on the way.....

My son in law is an ex "army man" inf fact he's an ex WO1. He has quite a good business as a plumber, plasterer and tiler. He's built it up over the past three years and I can vouch for the fact that he does an excellent job. He's done two for us. He learned the trade whilst he was still an "army man" And far from being "institutionalised" he'd been in since he was 16 and came out at 42 and he's glad to be out too.

Edited by Trojan, 19 October 2010 - 09:21 PM.

[ckn]

I think you're right Frank. However in the case this shameful lot that are in power seem intent in slashing and burning absolutely everything they possibly can in their first year of government in order that when the time comes they can say they a¬ Had to do it because of the previous government's poor management. b¬ The LibDems were in agreement with us (to be used when this coalition falls). c¬ Look after the cuts we made in the first year we acted responsibly.

In essence they're lining us up for their perceived nirvana of a radically slashed public sector and an almost un-regulated private sector, and they're using the current global economic background as an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. Should we be surprised that capitalists are acting as opportunists?

I dread to think what will be announced tomorrow in the spending review, and in the coming months.

The Lib Dem President sent out an email tonight essentially saying "we stopped trident":

Today, within the Strategic Defence Review, the Coalition Government announced that there will be no final decision on the like-for-like replacement of Trident during this parliament. So Trident will not be renewed this parliament - not on a Liberal Democrat watch. Let us be clear, this is a significant victory for Liberal Democrat campaigners, and a fantastic example of what our Ministers can and do achieve in government.

But the Coalition Government is not just saying no to replacing Trident this parliament. It is going further. It is also taking important steps towards the goal of multilateral nuclear disarmament. The announcement today sees a 25% cut in warheads.

Today is yet another day that we can all feel hugely proud to be a party of government, delivering key Liberal Democrat priorities.

Best wishes,

Ros Scott
Party President

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The stragtegic part was released yesterday. The main dangers to the UK will not be stopped by carriers, tanks and harriers.

what they said was true. But it doesn't replace all the other defence demands that the uk has on its plate, it's just a new(ish) one
what a duplicitous statemenmt that was.

[JohnM]

I dread to think what will be announced tomorrow in the spending review, and in the coming months.

The thing I dread in the coming months is the fact that hundreds of thousands of decent, honest people will lose their jobs because they were suckered into believing in the promises of Brown and Blair, whilst that pair frolic naked in the piles of cash they have taken from us. Talking about laughing all the way to the bank.

Of course, there is another way to cut costs apart from the obvious one of cutting jobs from the TOP not the bottom - each one on £150,000 that goes saves 5 jobs at £30,000. Bring public sector employment terms and conditions back in line with the private sector –holidays, redundancy terms, pension age and levels, employers pension contributions, management-to- staff ratios and above all, pay. A progressive reduction in pay starting with a modest reduction for those on say £25 k an above right up to a 25% cut for those on £150,000 and above would be a good start. Then and only then should redundancies be considered.

There are over 25,000 on over £100,000. Get rid of half and you’d save £1.25 billion in direct salaries, £1.25 billion or more in overheads and probably £1.25 billion in employer contributions to pensions .

Oh, and if you think the private sector is unregulated you are mistaken. It is subject to the greatest regulator of all.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I wonder whether the government have considered leasing a couiple of Essex class intermediate carriers. These would have been the ideal replecement for the invincible class. Buying a couple of follow on updated units of the class would have been far cheaper and woiuld have met the uk's needs imho

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The thing I dread in the coming months is the fact that hundreds of thousands of decent, honest people will lose their jobs because they were suckered into believing in the promises of Brown and Blair, whilst that pair frolic naked in the piles of cash they have taken from us. Talking about laughing all the way to the bank.

Of course, there is another way to cut costs apart from the obvious one of cutting jobs from the TOP not the bottom - each one on £150,000 that goes saves 5 jobs at £30,000. Bring public sector employment terms and conditions back in line with the private sector –holidays, redundancy terms, pension age and levels, employers pension contributions, management-to- staff ratios and above all, pay. A progressive reduction in pay starting with a modest reduction for those on say £25 k an above right up to a 25% cut for those on £150,000 and above would be a good start. Then and only then should redundancies be considered.

There are over 25,000 on over £100,000. Get rid of half and you'd save £1.25 billion in direct salaries, £1.25 billion or more in overheads and probably £1.25 billion in employer contributions to pensions .

Oh, and if you think the private sector is unregulated you are mistaken. It is subject to the greatest regulator of all.

irrelevant

[Bedford Roughyed]

I wonder whether the government have considered leasing a couiple of Essex class intermediate carriers. These would have been the ideal replecement for the invincible class. Buying a couple of follow on updated units of the class would have been far cheaper and woiuld have met the uk's needs imho

Essex class? That was a WW2 class of carrier, scrapped years ago wasn't it?

They can't afford to build the new carriers and operate Invincibles (or equivalents) anyway. The money spent on carriers should of gone on other ships, Ocean needs replacing anyway. Four proper Assault carriers, Helicopter assault ship, few more frigates, more patrol ships (for West indies, Gib, etc) could of been bought for cheaper and offer more strategic use. However the carriers were the navies golden project and they will get them years late and years over budget.

The ex government and the Navy wanted the big carriers and they have got them. Well done to the shipyards and their lobbyists.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Essex class? That was a WW2 class of carrier, scrapped years ago wasn't it?

They can't afford to build the new carriers and operate Invincibles (or equivalents) anyway. The money spent on carriers should of gone on other ships, Ocean needs replacing anyway. Four proper Assault carriers, Helicopter assault ship, few more frigates, more patrol ships (for West indies, Gib, etc) could of been bought for cheaper and offer more strategic use. However the carriers were the navies golden project and they will get them years late and years over budget.

The ex government and the Navy wanted the big carriers and they have got them. Well done to the shipyards and their lobbyists.

no it is a current class of multi role carrier, maybr also called the wasp class: ie the assault carriers you mention: ideal for the uk imho

[Bedford Roughyed]

no it is a current class of multi role carrier, maybr also called the wasp class: ie the assault carriers you mention: ideal for the uk imho

Yes its the Wasp Class or the new America class.

Perfect for humanitarian operations, power projection, anti-piracy, etc.

Oh well to late now!

[PC]

The Lib Dem President sent out an email tonight essentially saying "we stopped trident":

I must have missed that bit.

[Steve May]

It is an issue the army knows about and some units are very good at de-programming those leaving

They're about to get a lot more practice.