UIK defence cuts

[dandelion]

yes, see what you mean. Nice that he points out the symmetry of Cameron cancelling nimrod which was initiated by the previous conservative regime and that they were also responsible for some very expensive aircraft which still havnt arrived. The article demonstrates that the carrier debate continues. Do we want a capability to mount an invasion of someone elses country or not? Is there any conceivable place we might choose to do this by ourselves? If only in association with america, then any force we might bring is there purely for moral support. Is there any realistic likelihood of the EU creating a united army and carrying out offensive actions which we might form part of? I presume Cameron has cancelled half the armies new support helicopters on the assumption the army will no longer be needing them by the time they might arrive. Further shrinkage of the army might suggest he wants an end to this foreign adventurism all together.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

Is there any realistic likelihood of the EU creating a united army and carrying out offensive actions which we might form part of?

But would it be a truly united army?

Would individual nations, now used to a NATO-styled framework (do we commit our troops to the endeavor or not?) be willing to cede that decision to (mostly) non-accountable transnational bureaucrats pulling the trigger on an engagement, so to speak?? Individual military senarios can make a huge diff in how you'd plot that, I realize, but as a general principle is how I'm coming at it.

Also, would an EU-oriented army/navy necessitate the ending of NATO as an organization? Should NATO even still exist?

Questions are a good thing, imo, and there are a lot of them when contemplating multi-national "get-togethers". Given that former British First Sea Lord Boyce recently said (about Britain and France deciding to not share aircraft carriers) that nations cannot co-own military assets...it's totally impracticable and simply won't work, one has to wonder that if similiar sentiment reigns across the continent, how does a true meshing of forces ever get off the ground (or onto the beach)?

 

[Drifterwood]

Also, would an EU-oriented army/navy necessitate the ending of NATO as an organization? Should NATO even still exist?

Yes, as a strong treaty based organisation. This is different from a European standing army. The latter can not really operate until such time as we have a federal government. This is my personal preference, but I am not holding my breath.

Back to Jason, there are several ways to balance a budget deficit. Tax those who can pay more, cut costs, hope and pray for growth, inflation at home and currency depreciation.

Labour is wedded to universal benefits, this is why the widow of a multi millionaire will still get a widow's pension, but let's not loose sight of the fact that removing a benefit from better off people is a tax rise by another route. Furthermore it is selective, in this case those who have a family income of more than £40Kish trying to bring up a family. Now you might think that people on £4oK are well off, but throw in a £200K mortgage, and I think you might be surprised how little some "well off" people have. Hey ho, more debt for them.

Bottom line is that just about everyone is going to be poorer, or as Big Merv said the other day, sober.

 

[dandelion]

Exactly. The skewing factor is the 200K mortgage which would not exist if there was a free market in housing. People spend every penny they can on housing, for the good reasons that everyone firstly needs a house and secondly wants a better one. Because they cannot afford one large enough. All 'spare' money has gone into mortgage payments. This makes for a highly inflexible system. How do you encourage people to spend when they are locked into passing on most of their income to the bank? A house is regarded as an investment, yet is one impossible to realise in bad times. Instead of deciding to 'invest' less in their house they may be forced to 'invest' more. They can't take a saving holiday, or just 'invest' half for a while. Rising house prices are a trap sucking up all the free capital in the country.

There has to be a guaranteed state pension. The pension top-up means-tested system is a disaster. In the short term it saves money because rich people do not get it, but in the long term it is a huge incentive not to save anything for your old age. If having even modest savings means your pension will be cut, then there is no point having savings. There is no point starting to save unless you believe you can amass way more than the break even point, so people do not even try. It makes good sense not to save for old age unless you are sure you can save a lot. The one exception being....a house, because it is not counted against your state benefits. Thus more pressure to lock up your money in a house where the state cannot get it, but nor can you.

Nato is a necessary invention. I am sure if it did not exist then we would have an eu armed force now. Nato has removed part of the need. However its aims are different to those of the EU, not least because the US is a member, which is the most obvious rival to europe. Witness the US decision to invade Iraq and the european decision to leave well alone. What happens when the reverse comes true? As it stands nato tends to prevent war amongst its members, which is at least theoretically a good thing. Stops the US invading us!

 

[798686]

But would it be a truly united army?

Would individual nations, now used to a NATO-styled framework (do we commit our troops to the endeavor or not?) be willing to cede that decision to (mostly) non-accountable transnational bureaucrats pulling the trigger on an engagement, so to speak?? Individual military senarios can make a huge diff in how you'd plot that, I realize, but as a general principle is how I'm coming at it.

Also, would an EU-oriented army/navy necessitate the ending of NATO as an organization? Should NATO even still exist?

Yes, as a strong treaty based organisation. This is different from a European standing army. The latter can not really operate until such time as we have a federal government. This is my personal preference, but I am not holding my breath.

I think the aim is to have a bona fide standing European Army (as Prodi, and others have called for. Well, maybe only Prodi, actually...). I think the hope is it will either help to necessitate a federal government, or at the least become a reality following political union. There definitely seems to be an appetite within the EU to have the force now to back up the EU's ambitions to become a genuine major player on the world scene.

As regards NATO, the EU seems to be stating now that there will be no threat to it, or duplication of its role - although there obviously will. As usual with EU developments, the aim seems to be to get in in place, then gradual supercede, or at least gain parity with NATO over European military affairs.

 

[Jason]

Back to Jason, there are several ways to balance a budget deficit. Tax those who can pay more, cut costs, hope and pray for growth, inflation at home and currency depreciation.

Agreed.

Tax freedom day in the UK indicates that we pay (before the cuts just announced) 41% of income in tax (and specifically for people in work this will be closer to 50%). In the USA the figure is 27%, in Australia 31%. Many in the EU are higher, eg France 54%.

Undoubtedly tax is going up in the UK and will go up more. But if we are to remain competitive it mustn't go up too much more. Right now there are people in the USA demonstrating for cuts to get their 27% down. Anglo-Saxon economics suggests the tax level should be around 30% - we are already well over.

We've got a bit of UK inflation. We have a currency which can depreciate. We've made the cuts. And yes we are praying hard. It seems to me that the government has made the right decision - and the markets seem to be of this view. It is the best decision that can be made.

 

[StrictlyAvg]

yes, see what you mean. Nice that he points out the symmetry of Cameron cancelling nimrod which was initiated by the previous conservative regime and that they were also responsible for some very expensive aircraft which still havnt arrived. The article demonstrates that the carrier debate continues. Do we want a capability to mount an invasion of someone elses country or not? Is there any conceivable place we might choose to do this by ourselves? If only in association with america, then any force we might bring is there purely for moral support. Is there any realistic likelihood of the EU creating a united army and carrying out offensive actions which we might form part of? I presume Cameron has cancelled half the armies new support helicopters on the assumption the army will no longer be needing them by the time they might arrive. Further shrinkage of the army might suggest he wants an end to this foreign adventurism all together.

Well if the end game is "end to this foreign adventurism" I see chopping completely the maritime patrol/intelligence gathering aircraft at this stage of its development (first production aircraft was about to go to Kinloss, in service due 2012) as one of the less fathomable decisions of SDSR. It would probably have served a couple of useful years in Afghan too, prior to us pulling out in a few years. BAES is continuing to build MRA4 (they're already paid up for another two years contractually) and will probably complete them before scrapping them...

Consensus on the Cameron reforms seems to be retain some of the big money contracts if they can be shifted on to export customers (e.g Typhoon) and clearly they aren't going to be building any more Nimrods so in the light of that way of thinking perhaps that led the decision?

Cutting littoral forces capability in both sea and aircraft forms is also one of the decisions whose reasons are not apparent to many. Just because our main efforts are focused on hot sandy places for a handful more years doesn't mean we have no need for the other capabilities over the coming few years. It will be very hard to re-start if we find we need it.

 

[dandelion]

I think it arguable Cameron's carrier cuts could go either way in 5 years time. If finances have improved, the carriers will arrive and new aircraft were planned anyway. We just skipped out a few years in between now and then. But the fundamental question is the same one which I recall had been faced before the Falklands invasion: what sort of force do you want? As I also recall, there was considerable doubt in the military that a recapture of the Falklands was then possible with the forces available. An even bigger question was did we want them back since british foreign policy was then directed towards getting rid of them. It was only the principle of their being seized which was at stake. So we have gone in a circle arguing back and forth in the last 30 years about what force capabilities we need. The forces have done damn all useful in that time. Michael Portillo, who used to be a defence minister in Thatcher's time was asked about the carriers and said in his opinion big ships were just targets waiting to be sunk. The british empire is still clawing at the lid of its coffin.

 

[798686]

I think it's still just as well to have one or two carriers, incase the need arises. Yes, focus most of our efforts on likely threats - terrorism, cyber threats etc, or maybe small scale land interventions, but imo it's impossible to tell what the future holds, and having the capability to send a carrier anywhere - alone or in support of US or EU, would be valuable.

I know Labour are getting a drubbing for having committed us to both carriers...but am I alone in thinking the idea behind it wasn't that bad? To ensure the continued viability of at least two (of the very few) UK shipyards, provide valuable custom and security for BAe and keep a few thousand jobs going, isn't all that bad an aim?

 

[dandelion]

well...If you are a died in the wood socialist then you may believe that subsidising industry to artificially create jobs which would otherwise be unviable is a good thing. The UK was riddled with that approach in the 70s and 80s as succesive governments of both stripe tried desperately to put traditional industries on life support. It did not work. Mostly it did not work because the employees of those firms refused to do their share, which was to improve productivity and accept wages realistic to the viability of their industry. They came to believe they were entitled to demand as much state aid as they wanted to maintain their standard of living.

An uncooperative workforce is equally possible in an entirely private firm, and plenty of them went the same way, but there is still a great difficulty about where you draw the line when giving any industry a subsidy. In the defence case, if the country needs the arms and the industry for strategic reasons, it justifies the subsidy. I think the military generally dont mind being 'ripped off', because they know that they ARE getting something for that money. The industry continues to exist, just in case.

The US navy has 11 carriers with 90 planes and 10 troop assault ships for 2,000 men. An army of 20,000 is pretty small (consider the numbers of troops in Iraq or afghanistan). The new UK carries are designed for 50 planes. One assault ship for 1000 men. So how big a war will that allow you to run? A small raid perhaps? The thing is, if you cannot raise the resources to do anything useful, why keep any?

 

[798686]

^ Hmmm, well I agree with you up to a point. I'm not generally in favour of propping up vastly bloated national industries (as in the 70s), or of nationalisation - but keeping our few shipyards alive and incorporating them into BAe (Europe's biggest defence contractor), would seem like a good idea strategically. Might have been a better idea to have signed a firm contract for just the one carrier - with an option for another should circumstances allow.

 

[dandelion]

i think the idea is one is no good. All ships have to have leave periods and with just one it is guaranteed there will be times it is not available. You have to have at least two so one is always available. If you reckon you could get away with only having one part of the time, that is halfway to admitting it isnt essential. Adding the shipyards to Bae might be a good way to bankrupt it. They survive on government contracts and have died one by one as these have dried up and the fleet shrunk. Thats probably an exaggeration because the commercial shipyard business has been slowly dying over the same period but the government is a guaranteed customer.

 

[BertGriffiths]

well...If you are a died in the wood socialist then you may believe that subsidising industry to artificially create jobs which would otherwise be unviable is a good thing. The UK was riddled with that approach in the 70s and 80s as succesive governments of both stripe tried desperately to put traditional industries on life support. It did not work. Mostly it did not work because the employees of those firms refused to do their share, which was to improve productivity and accept wages realistic to the viability of their industry. They came to believe they were entitled to demand as much state aid as they wanted to maintain their standard of living.

An uncooperative workforce is equally possible in an entirely private firm, and plenty of them went the same way, but there is still a great difficulty about where you draw the line when giving any industry a subsidy. In the defence case, if the country needs the arms and the industry for strategic reasons, it justifies the subsidy. I think the military generally dont mind being 'ripped off', because they know that they ARE getting something for that money. The industry continues to exist, just in case.

The US navy has 11 carriers with 90 planes and 10 troop assault ships for 2,000 men. An army of 20,000 is pretty small (consider the numbers of troops in Iraq or afghanistan). The new UK carries are designed for 50 planes. One assault ship for 1000 men. So how big a war will that allow you to run? A small raid perhaps? The thing is, if you cannot raise the resources to do anything useful, why keep any?

about the size of the falklands campaign?
If yes, does that mean we're still 20 years behind on our military planning?

 

[798686]

i think the idea is one is no good. All ships have to have leave periods and with just one it is guaranteed there will be times it is not available. You have to have at least two so one is always available.

What are ya moaning about then? :wink:

I wasn't actually suggesting only one anyway - I said we should've tied ourselves into a contract for just the one - with the other as a non-binding option.

 

[Drifterwood]

about the size of the falklands campaign?
If yes, does that mean we're still 20 years behind on our military planning?

I think that the UK military has a serious problem with procurement lead times. If you take more than a couple of years on any project, you will find that technology has moved on so far that what you had originally planned has been superceded.

In my business (not military), you need two concurrent projects, upgrades and new. However the budgets required to do this effectively are now clearly beyond the capabilities of a country the size of the UK, especially with other spending priorities.

A combined European programme is probably the only scale that can create and maintain a superpower status military capability.

 

[798686]

^The upgrades thing has been an issue during development of the Joint Strike Fighter with the US, apparently.

The US was refusing to share any upgrades with us after purchase (due to intelligence risks or something, because we're too close to our European partners, who they view as too close to China these days), so they'd quickly fall behind on the software that was necessary to keep them up-to-date.

 

[dandelion]

Once upon a time i went for a job interview at a defence company. I was quite surprised to find i knew all about the technology they were using because I had been playing with it myself. What they said was that the military doesnt like state of the art anything, preferring tried and tested. So new chips go into commercial use first and then the military picks them up if they seem to work, and after further vastly expensive destruction testing.

 

[798686]

Looks like Cameron's going to defend the rebate and oppose the EU budget increase. Rumour has it he may agree to Lisbon renegotiation (to include strict penalties for eurozone miscreants), in return for keeping the (justified) rebate, blocking the budget increase, and putting a stop to regulation of financial derivatives being moved to Frankfurt (which would make no sense anyway, since London is Europe's leading financial capital).

Interestingly, the new money being demanded for the EU budget, is mainly going to pay for new staff necessitated by the Lisbon treaty - with an extra £17million to allow the children of officials to be sent to fee-paying schools. WTF?

Apparently (according to the Times), the UK pays about £13.2bn per year total EU costs, from which a rebate of £3bn is deducted. Making our net contribution far higher than the enormous amounts we spend on Incapacity Benefit (£6bn).

On a slightly different note, I'm against the UK adopting the Euro (obviously - it makes no sense to restrict our freedom of financial movement, etc), but, if we were ever under renewed pressure to join, we should make it contingent on the ECB being moved to London. Solidifying London as the financial hub of Europe would make sense (since it's already a world-leading financial centre), and would also allow us to influence policy to avoid unpalatable policies ourselves. It's the only measure I can think of that would make it worth joining - but they'd never do it, of course. Therefore...no joining.

 

[dandelion]

The last time I checked a figure someone was quoting about EU costs it was grossly inflated. Im not minded to go off to the eu website and hunt out the latest numbers right now. Just say I have never seen one of these claims about the cost of the Eu stand up when investigated. The situation may have changed because of the recession but I doubt it.

Dont conservatives rather approve of fee paying schools?


As to Cameron standing up for UK demands in europe, I would jolly well hope so! The system is there to be used. Jason criticises the Eu as a steamroller imposing things on the UK against its will, but it has never worked like that since we have been members. We were screwed over somewhat when we joined because we joined so late, but Maggie did a good job putting that right. In negotiations everyone wants something so it is a matter of insisting on what you want too.

if we were ever under renewed pressure to join, we should make it contingent on the ECB being moved to London

Now that is exactly the sort of barganing I had in mind.

 

[Jason]

... but Maggie did a good job putting that right.

Well Dandelion, I didn't really have you down as a Maggie fan. Good on you mate. :smile:

Cameron will be the skilled politician he is and keep all the balls in the air. But I do think Cameron watchers need to be aware that this guy makes it up on the hoof. Cameron doesn't know what he will be doing on the EU.

I do think the UK rebate is safe however. And I do think he knows he is setting up a situation where a little nudge from him could bring about an EU referendum - and in this he is keeping his options open. I think key issues to be determined include:

- to what extent can Lib Dems be brought onside to support true blue Tory policies?
- how bad a bruising will Obama get in the mid terms?

The dream of the Cameronians must be a Con-LibDem merger. Yes I know the LibDem constitution doesn't even permit an electoral pact, but systems can be changed. Obama's handling of the BP issue has damaged the special relationship, but the defence debate with Clinton's intervention hints at a sub-text. Cameron would be in a stronger position with Republican control of the presidency and both houses.

If Cameron gets his dream on both of these then I think a referendum on the EU suddenly looks more possible. And Cameron would establish his position as the rightful heir of Maggie.