I didn't say it doesn't. Of course, overpopulation would result in extremely depressed wages, as would mass immigration. But for the UK, that would have to be an influx of millions and millions of people.
3 million in 10 years plus 1 million illegals. That's "millions and millions", isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Thanks.
This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.
I think it has been exagerated, but not distorted. The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "social objectives", that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?
It essentially says, "the locals aren't what we want, so we'll get new people in".
02-12-2010, 02:48
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "[Government's economic and] social objectives"[sic], that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
02-12-2010, 02:51
Louis VI the Fat
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "social objectives", that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?
No, I'm afraid that is not what the report says.
Take the much reviled sentence below, for example.
The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.
The report does not say that migration ought to be maximised on behalf of governmental objectives. Nor that the objective is to maximise immigration. Nor does it speak of migration for governmental objectives.
The sentence is 'read backwards' in the alarmist press, as it were: 'the government has social objectives, these consist of maximising migration contibution'. Ergo - 'mass immigration on behalf of social engineering!'.
Quod non! The sentence does not even mention an increase in immigration - it is completely neutral about that. The report goes on, from what I gather, to expand on what is meant with the new analytical framework: more emphasis on skilled workers, more emphasis on migration that benefis Britain instead of the immigrants. This is the 'new analytical framework' the reviled sentence speaks about, and which is needed to, and I'll paraphrase the last bit of the sentence, 'improve the contribution migration has on Britain's economy and social fabric'.
The same holds true for the rest of the report. The report is completely misread, turned into an alarmist, sensationalist parody of itself, that has no ground whatsoever in reality.
I would say that the reporters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are severly lacking in reading skills, but it is of course much worse than that. It is a clear and deliberate distortion of the truth. A distortion that is swallowed hook, line and sinker because of deep-seated frustration about mass immigration.
I shall happily join the ranks of those who think mass imigration has meant very little for the quality of life in the UK, join those who wish Labour had decreased instead of increased immigration, but I'm not going to misread plain English because of it.
02-12-2010, 02:53
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
No, I'm afraid that is not what the report says.
Take the much reviled sentence below, for example.
The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.
The report does not say that migration ought to be maximised on behalf of governmental objectives. Nor that the objective is to maximise immigration. Nor does it speak of migration for governmental objectives.
The sentence is 'read backwards' in the alarmist press, as it were: 'the government has social objectives, these consist of maximising migration contibution'. Ergo - 'mass immigration on behalf of social engineering!'.
Quod non! The sentence does not even mention an increase in immigration - it is completely neutral about that. The report goes on, from what I gather, to expand on what is meant with the new analytical framework: more emphasis on skilled workers, more emphasis on migration that benefis Britain instead of the immigrants. This is the new analytical framework the reviled sentence speaks about, and which is needed to improve the contribution migration has on Britain's economy and social fabric.
The same holds true for the rest of the report. The report is completely misread, turned into an alarmist, sensationalist parody of itself, that has no ground whatsoever in reality.
I would say that the reporters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are severly lacking in reading skills, but is is of course much worse than that. It is a clear and deliberate distortion of the truth. A distortion that is swallowed hook, line and sinker because of deep-seated frustration about mass immigration.
I shall happily join the ranks of those who think mass imigration has meant very little for the quality of life in the UK, those who wish Labour had decreased instead of increased immigration, but I'm not going to misread plain English because of it.
The long version of my post.
02-12-2010, 02:55
Louis VI the Fat
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Conciseness is a form of art.
02-12-2010, 03:00
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Conciseness is a form of art.
I liked your reply better as an actual informative reply. Though I prefer my sentence inspired from 'Princess Bribe' because I like that movie and the sentence was straight to the point (though the flaw of not explaining the point, tends to cause trouble for me).
Very interesting article and I think it sums up a basic problem in politics that has been building over the years: the parties concentrate on trying to win voters from each other rather than on just trying to win voters. They seem to be making the assumption that as fewer people vote now than in the past, each vote they win from other parties is important. This leads to them targeting their policies at the people who statistically do still vote most, causing everyone else to become disaffected with the political parties, which then just reinforces the downward trend in voting.
Can anyone explain what the Conservative Party stands for?
Lacking clarity and direction, the Tories risk a haemorrhage of support to fringe parties, says Simon Heffer.
By Simon Heffer
Published: 8:14PM GMT 16 Feb 2010
To judge from the Prime Minister's performance on television the other evening, which reminded us that the best thing to do with private grief is to see it stays private, the coming election will have little to do with policy. Labour's priority is not to spell out what it stands for, or, more to the point, how it would extricate Britain from the mess it is in (and which Mr Brown, in large part, has made). It is to "humanise" the Prime Minister. I pine for the days when prime ministers did not need to verify their membership of the species, but got on with the difficult business of governing. Everything else is a distraction.
Yet it is a distraction in which the Conservative Party seems determined to share. Think of what we have learnt about the government-in-waiting in recent days. Its health spokesman has had secret talks (so secret, apparently, that even Mr Cameron did not know, according to reliable sources) about how to fund care for the elderly. This, as this newspaper argued yesterday, is a vital subject. As we also argued, infantilism, such as shown by all parties to the discussion, will advance it nowhere.
The shadow chancellor, now plumbing new depths of desperation, claims that a statement by leading economists about the need for urgent big spending cuts and the avoidance of tax rises endorses his own party's policy. Since the latest version of that policy supported a delay in big (or "swingeing") cuts and said nothing about reversing damagingly high tax rates that are driving big-earning companies abroad, it is hard to see how Mr Osborne could think that. Perhaps he has had secret talks with himself, and forgot to inform Mr Cameron, who announced the aforementioned policy.
We hear of constituency activists' anger that safe seats are given shortlists comprising ethnic minorities, women and homosexual men, as happened in a Surrey constituency last weekend. We hear of candidates angry that their ancient right to put what they like in their election addresses is now being trammelled by Central Office. (These last two points reflect interestingly on a party that claims to be about the devolution of powers to the lowest level.) We hear that the BBC is making a programme (it is presumed disobliging) about Lord Ashcroft, who more or less owns the party but refuses to say where he pays his taxes.
Best of all, for those of us for whom politics must be treated as light entertainment if we are not to risk our sanity, we hear much of a catfight in the North Kensington constituency. The chairman (a woman) fell out with the candidate (ditto) and the fight had to be refereed by Mr Cameron himself, who happened to have been at school with the candidate's husband. This is like a cocktail party, not a political one.
This spasm of irrelevant behaviour, conducted apparently oblivious of the fact that Britain is struggling to avoid going back into recession, our soldiers are dying in an offensive in Afghanistan, and our European partners are facing economic meltdown, is not confined to the Conservatives. Labour's main concern is that middle-aged people are too fat. It is also spending (or rather wasting) oodles of our money on an expensive advertising campaign suggesting that anyone ordering a third pint of beer had better book an undertaker to go with it. Some people still ask: why is the public so disengaged from politics? Well, if you seek politics' monument, look around you.
I start to wonder whether we are destined to see an eruption here such as manifested by the Tea Party movement in America. For those unfamiliar with this phenomenon, allow me to explain. The Tea Party movement has become a loose federation of local gatherings of people fed up with the American political class. They hate Democrats and they feel little better about Republicans. Their slogan is that they want to "take America back" from such people. Mr Obama they regard as a socialist. Some subscribe to the conspiracy theory that he was not in fact born in Hawaii, or indeed in America at all, and therefore holds his office illegally. Some of their other views are closer to sanity. They believe the American political class has sanctioned indecently high spending, indecently high taxes and insanely high debt. They want all this to stop.
Their movement has snowballed: it held its first national rally last month, and Sarah Palin gave the keynote speech. She is playing a cunning game. If she runs for the presidency in 2012 (as she is now hinting she will) she will need the support of a vast caucus of Republicans, many of whom are attracted by the Tea Party and minded not to support the Republican Party as they currently know it. This would be fatal to the ambitions of any candidate who could not get those people back in the tent: hence Mrs Palin's appearance at their rally. It will not be the last.
We have no Tea Party here, but we do have a number of respectable (and, in the shape of the BNP, non-respectable) fringe parties who will hoover up votes from the main ones. The BNP believes it can win a Labour seat or two, and it may be right. The Tories are also finding it desperately hard to gain footholds in big urban areas outside London, with their potential working-class supporters now in some cases edging towards the BNP.
Yet the greatest threat to the Tories is Ukip, which has been busy capitalising on Mr Cameron's embarrassing emasculation over the Lisbon Treaty. Leaving aside what Nigel Farage may do to Speaker Bercow in Buckingham, Ukip is less likely to win a seat than the BNP is, but the damage it can do to Tory interests, notably in the West Country, where the agricultural and fishing interests have had enough of Brussels, is potentially huge.
The problem for the Tories is this, succinctly put to me by a close observer of the party the other day: if you boarded a bus anywhere in these islands, sat down next to a passenger at random and asked what it stood for, he or she could not tell you. The Tories' propagandists like to foster the belief that there is a secret agenda of radicalism waiting to be unleashed when and if the party seizes power by pretending to be like Labour. However, there simply isn't. Oppositions cannot afford to behave like this.
Mr Cameron's ruthless centralisation apes Tony Blair's party management from the era just before the 1997 election. In that, there are two further difficulties. First, his MPs and candidates tend to have minds of their own, which was less the case for Mr Blair then. Second, those tactics are, well, very Nineties. People are wise to PR spivvery, feel patronised by it and don't like it. As someone once said, it is not enough.
There is a group of Right-of-centre MPs who, like Mr Blair's Leftists before 1997, are struggling to keep the lid on their discontent. Mr Blair kept control because he was always going to win. However, the word on the back benches is that if the lead were to shrink, say to 7 per cent or below, factionalism and possibly even panic would break out. Even if Mr Cameron doesn't see how disenchanted the public is by its lack of choice and his lack of definition, many of his MPs do. The ride is about to get rocky.
The Cons are in danger of making the Lib Dem mistake, being seen to stand on no coherent ideology and instead being hypocritically opportunistic as it randomly picks populist themes from either extreme.
In the Lib Dems this is understandable, because they are awaiting their 'Labour' moment when an old power loses its public relevance, and a new power swoops in to take its place, but in the Cons it does nothing but make them look like the 'old' power that is tottering in obsolescence.
Most governments responded to the credit crunch by borrowing more, taxing more, regulating more and owning more. Not that of Georgia. The aristocrats of the Caucasus recently adopted something called the Liberty Act, which limits their deficit to 3 per cent of GDP and their public debt to 60 per cent. The proportion of economic activity generated by the state is capped by law at 30 per cent, and the number of government licences and permits is likewise restricted. At the same time, control of public services, including healthcare and education, is shifted from state to citizen.
Result? Georgia’s GDP is flourishing despite the Russian embargo and the recent war, and the country has continued to grow through the downturn. Mikheil Saakashvili, was in London yesterday at a seminar hosted by a truly brilliant think-tank called the Legatum Institute. He spoke with infectious enthusiasm about the way in which the application of market doctrines had transformed a failed state into a free society – despite the constant, brooding menace of Putinite revanchism.
One of President Saakashvili’s former prime ministers pointed out that Georgia had shot up all the league tables on competitiveness, property rights and lack of corruption. The only countries doing better, he observed, were former British colonies. Spotting the pattern, he had hoped to join the Commonwealth, and had raised the issue with the Foreign Office. That application, sadly, came to nothing. Perhaps we should revive the issue. I mean, if Rwanda can join, why not Georgia?
02-17-2010, 14:26
al Roumi
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
a heart warming story, if only the tories would be near so bold
Pff, what and outsource more UK government responsabilities to the EU? LOL I don't think you've thought that one through.
02-17-2010, 15:07
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
hmmm, limits on the proportion of GDP that can be consumed by public spending, sounds awesome to me.
33% would be the ceiling i would choose.
02-17-2010, 17:49
al Roumi
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
hmmm, limits on the proportion of GDP that can be consumed by public spending, sounds awesome to me.
33% would be the ceiling i would choose.
Yeah, well I think good national health care and education would be nice. And you want 1st rate shiny new toys for the army. Try maintaining either (or both) on 33% of whatever the UK's GDP is now.
It is one thing for Georgia to say: "we don't need to perform these checks or have this capability to protect our citizens or further their interests" as someone else who they feel they can trust is doing them. Whose capability would the UK rely on to ensure its citizens were adequately serviced? Would your cherished British people be happy to relinquish such oversight of their own welfare?
Isn't that the ultimate surrender of sovereignty? How can you be in favor of that as a Euro-sceptic?
02-17-2010, 17:57
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
33% is an ideal, i don't expect it too happen. reducing it back to 40% would certainly pay for itself as economic growth sped up however.
and i get bored of constantly correcting the fallacious argument that increased defence spending must = more government spending. defence takes up ~5% of annual government spending whereas health, education and welfare, not to mention international aid have had money hosed at them for the past decade (collectively 47% of expenditure).
you could repair the deficiences in defence by boosting its spending by a third, i.e. to about 7% of annual spending and have zero impact on the above mentioned services, purely because such a tiny dent could be easily covered by efficiency measures.
02-17-2010, 18:36
al Roumi
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
and i get bored of constantly correcting the fallacious argument that increased defence spending must = more government spending. defence takes up ~5% of annual government spending whereas health, education and welfare, not to mention international aid have had money hosed at them for the past decade (collectively 47% of expenditure).
Interesting that you mention overseas development aid though, that has at most hit about 0.6% of GNI since 1997. Defence gets 10 times that much at what is closer to 6%.
My point was not to say that there was fat to cut from defence, rather to try to inject some realism into the desire for a 33% cap to UK government spending.
I have to admit, it is only mildly better than Call me Dave "The Face" Cameron. Filling posters with just your face because you have no policies is a pretty poor to go as well.
Edit: The ITV had a news article about all the spoofs. Saying the spoofs are promoting politic discussion on the twitterweb.
The Strategic Defence and Security Review: A Conservative View of Defence and Future Challenges
10:00, 8 Feb 2010
RUSI, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2ET
In his lecture, Dr Fox addressed the challenges the next government is likely to confront while attempting to carry out a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). He discussed the strategic thinking on which the foundation of a future Conservative government review will be based, the structure of the review and specifically how the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will carry out its role in the SDSR process to best prepare the MoD for the challenges of the Twenty-first Century.
Full Text of Speech
Audio and video (together with Q&A) will be available shortly.
Thank RUSI for hosting this event this morning and the huge contribution they make to the 'defence debate'. It is a pleasure to speak to such a distinguished and knowledgeable audience.
In many ways there is no ideal time in which to conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). Twelve years have passed since the last review. The MoD notes in the recent Green Paper that 'the international context has changed radically'. It certainly has- and the review is scandalously overdue.
Of course, reviews of this nature always bring an element of instability which can be particularly unwelcome at periods where there is a high tempo of activity.
Today our Armed Forces are currently participating in sixteen operations around the globe and have a military presence in the form of 41,000 troops in thirty-three countries and overseas territories.
They are performing gallantly on remote battlefields in southern Afghanistan, on the high seas combating piracy, and in the Gulf capacity building and protecting Iraqi Oil Platforms.
With the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the threat of terrorism at home, nuclear proliferation, and our contingent maritime operations in the Gulf and the Horn of Africa, conducting the next SDSR will be like building a ship while out at sea.
But it will bring new opportunities.
The Conservative Party's National Security Green Paper made clear that the next review-a Strategic Defence and Security Review under a Conservative Government- will look beyond defence in the traditional sense.
It will be a cross- departmental review that brings together all the levers of national and domestic security policy with our overseas interests and our defence priorities.
It will be a chance to have a clean break from the legacy and mindset of the Cold War and should be viewed as an opportunity for fresh thinking and change. Make no mistake; we need a step change not tinkering.
The next Government will have a unique opportunity to provide a new direction and renewed leadership inside the Ministry of Defence.
It is worth noting that if the Conservative Party wins the next General Election neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign or Defence Secretaries nor the Chancellor will have been in the House of Commons at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It will be our first post- Cold War government, better attuned to the new realities of globalisation.
Today, I am here to talk about the specific aspects of the SDSR which will fall into the remit of defence so my focus will be on the Armed Forces and how the Ministry of Defence will support them.
Let me be clear about two essential points at the outset.
First, we know from bitter historical experience the difficulty of predicting future conflict- either its nature or its location. We cannot base our future security on the assumption that future wars will be like the current ones. That is why we must maintain generic capability able to adapt to any changing threats.
Second, we cannot accept the assumption in the Green Paper that Britain will always operate as part of an alliance. We have unique national interests and have to maintain the capability to act on our own if required.
It is of course imperative that we win in Afghanistan - and we wish our forces well in their forthcoming operation. There is no doubt that in Afghanistan the government have been too slow to give the army, in particular, the agility and flexibility it needs to maximise its effectiveness. The Army and the Marines have carried the greatest cost of that failure and we must learn from our mistakes.
But we must also remember that we are a maritime nation dependent on the sea lanes for 92 per cent of our trade. A time when the threat of disruption on the high seas is increasing is no time for Britain to become sea blind.
As for the review itself, it must have a logical sequence. It must begin with our foreign policy priorities, outlining our national interests. We must then consider the threats which may affect our interests so that we can determine the defence strategy needed to respond to them. Only then can we determine the military capabilities we need to protect those interests in this threat environment.
Only then can we come to the equipment programmes that will make these capabilities a reality.
Finally, we will have to confront the harsh facts of the economic climate in which we will have to operate given the catastrophic economic management of the current Labour Government.
Of course, we could carry out the process the other way round- begin with the budget and see what we can get for it. But we would end up with unintended consequences in foreign policy and we would have missed the opportunity to return some empiricism to policy making.
Foreign Policy Assumptions
So let us begin by setting out what a defence strategy would have to do to deliver the sort of foreign policy we will want to have.
First, and obviously, we must be able to defend the UK against the threats posed to our interests within reasonably predictable limits. These interests are broad and deep in a globalised world. There are an estimated 12m British citizens living overseas.
We are an international hub for financial activity, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the G8 and G20, the Commonwealth, the European Union and a leading member inside NATO.
These interests are also found closer to home. When required the Armed Forces must be able to augment and support civil emergency organisations during a time of crisis. Defending the UK also means maintaining key strategic tasks like a continuous at sea submarine based minimum credible nuclear deterrent.
Secondly we must be able to defend our fourteen overseas territories and, of course, the main focus is on the Falklands. The recent legislation passed in Argentina attempting to exert Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory is completely unacceptable. The Falkland Islands are and will remain British.
Thirdly, when required, we must be able to come to the aid of NATO allies in a significant way under our Article V obligations-like we did immediately after 9/11 with Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.
Fourthly, we will need to be able to project power on a strategic level alongside the United States and France. Without doubt the United States and France are our two most important defence and security partners. A future Conservative Government will continue to build on these relationships.
Fifthly, we will have to have the capacity to conduct extended stabilisation and nation building exercises in order to provide stability and security albeit as part of an international coalition. This will also include working closely with the FCO and DFID on conflict prevention.
Sixthly, we must be able to extend meaningful military co-operation within elevated bilateral relations. We will continue to work closely with countries with shared mutual interests and geo-strategic importance, like Norway and Turkey or Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States.
We will invite these key partners to make submissions to our defence review and will welcome contributions from those who see Britain as a key strategic partner.
And finally, we must be able to enhance UK influence by leveraging our natural national advantages - like intelligence and Special Forces. We must understand the diplomatic and economic value of maximising defence exports and the goodwill generated by joint training exercises or expanded training capacity for overseas officers.
For the foreseeable future the UK will primarily operate alongside our allies, most notably the US. It is therefore crucial that ongoing work within the MoD- to understand better the importance of influence on our coalition allies- is given the priority it deserves at both the tactical and strategic level.
Threats-maintaining a balance
It is impossible to predict the exact shape and nature of the threats we will face but we can make some educated guesses.
Since the last Strategic Defence Review in 1998 the world has become a more dangerous place. Trans-national terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the battle for cyberspace and the effects of climate change are all playing a part in destabilising the equilibrium of global security.
The terrorists attacks of 9/11 completely altered the Western view of global security. An attack that cost only $250,000 to stage ended up costing the U.S. economy $80bn.
International terrorism continues to pose a real threat-as most recently experienced by the attempted airline bombing during the Christmas holiday period.
Although largely defeated in Iraq, Al-Qa'ida is threatening the stability of Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula-notably Yemen and the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia.
While some countries like Libya have seemingly given up their WMD ambitions, North Korea has successfully tested two nuclear bombs.
Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon and continues to be a net exporter of terrorism. The nature and behaviour of the regime and the risk of triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East makes this a cause of growing anxiety.
Climate Change is forcing us to address new threats. For example, with Polar ice caps melting and piracy rife in some of the world's busiest and warmest shipping lanes; maritime transport in the High North is not only becoming a reality but is also looking attractive for commerce. It is also a potential source of political and military tension.
The possibility of state-on-state warfare, most recently demonstrated by the Russian invasion of Georgia and the subsequent occupation of 20 per cent of its territory, cannot be ruled out. Especially as the competition for scarce resources heats up in some of the world's most unstable regions.
* Other threats may seem remote but if they became a reality would have a devastating effect on our way of life:
* biological weapons proliferation and their use by terrorist organisations and other non-state actors;
* nuclear terrorism and dirty bombs;
* and the use of an electromagnetic pulse device which could destroy all electronic and communications infrastructure over a distance of hundreds of miles.
All of these need strategies to deal with them.
Like it or not, Cyber Warfare is a modern-day reality-not something that 'might' occur in the future as some commentators suggest. They are increasing in both frequency and seriousness- from the mass attack on Estonia to the targeted attacks on British companies and Institutions.
And these threats are occurring on top of our contingent overseas operations like Afghanistan, maritime security in the Gulf, or reacting to natural disasters like the recent earthquake in Haiti.
The multi polarity of the post Cold War era and the speed of globalisation mean that Britain's economic and security interests are increasingly interlinked to others with an unavoidable shared set of interests and the shared importation of strategic risk.
As recent events have shown with the economic crisis, instability in one corner of the globe can quickly affect everyone.
Britain's national interests no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover, Gibraltar or the Falklands.
This global interdependence has major implications on how we organise our national (and international) security structures and identify our threats. It goes without saying that the challenges this presents to our Armed Forces are numerous and complex.
The Twenty-first Century strategic environment demands that Western militaries are able to simultaneously conduct war fighting, peacekeeping, continuous deterrence-both conventional and nuclear, and humanitarian operations.
Furthermore, it requires Western Governments to supplement these military operations through an array of soft power tools, such as international aid, defence diplomacy, and the spread of information and ideas.
But if the nature of the Twenty-first century forces us- the West- to re-evaluate current war fighting we should assume that our enemies are forced to do the same. It is in this context that we can understand the types of threats we are likely to face in the future.
There is an on-going debate in the UK on what form the future of warfare will take and how this will impact upon the SDSR.
Usually there are two schools of thought. On one side we are told that future conflicts will be asymmetric and irregular in nature-similar to what we commonly experience in Afghanistan today.
On the other side we are told that state-on-state warfare in the traditional sense cannot be ruled out and if anything, however remote the possibility may seem, this form of warfare is likely to pose the biggest threat to UK sovereignty.
This has led many to believe that we have to choose between fighting 'the war' or 'a war'-but this is a false dichotomy.
The choice between the two schools of thought is not binary and mutually exclusive. It is no more true to say that we will face only asymmetric threats than it is to say we face only state on state threats. The truth lies somewhere in between-in a hybrid form of warfare-that will require Britain to maintain generic and flexible defence capabilities.
Insurgencies are not a new phenomenon-they have been fought in some form or another for hundreds of years.
The counterinsurgency operations currently being conducted in Afghanistan are not a guarantee of what warfare will look like in the future-but a continuation of past trends.
State-on-state warfare is viewed by many as an anachronism in the Twenty-first Century but until there is a radical change in the Westphalian nation-state system that has been around since 1648, state-on-state warfare remains a possibility-and one that we must be prepared for regardless of how unlikely it may seem today. There is always the possibility of the UK being dragged into state on state warfare between other nations.
But even state-on-state warfare would not necessarily take the same linear, symmetric, and conventional form as it did in the Twenty-first century.
The present superiority of Western conventional military might, coupled with the advantages offered by globalisation, have led our adversaries to look beyond the approach of choosing between conventional and asymmetrical types of warfare and adopt a hybrid warfare approach.
Potential adversaries may strive to face us with conventional military might that at best is equal to, or at a minimum competes with, Western technology.
But it is more likely that, knowing that they cannot match our technology, resources or conventional firepower our adversaries will resort to strategic and tactical asymmetric measures in an attempt to defeat us.
But with hybrid warfare we should assume that our adversaries will simultaneously employ a mix of conventional weapons and irregular tactics that may even include organised crime and acts of terrorism.
We must understand that the conflicts of the future will go beyond the conventional arena and threaten our social well-being, our domestic infrastructure and our economic capabilities.
Russia's invasion of Georgia, with heavy armour, air strikes and ground troops-all very conventional- was augmented by a surgical cyber attack on the Georgian Government and a sophisticated information operations campaign aimed at the Georgian people and the international community.
The changing scope and nature of these threats have implications for our procurement plans. We need to focus more on capability and less on specific equipment.
Saying that we can only focus on 'the war' at the expense of 'a war' is not good enough for the British people and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.
Equipment Programme
To accompany our SDSR, we will undertake a fundamental and far reaching review of the way we provide defence capability in this country.
From the way in which we procure defence equipment and support services, to the structure of UK R&D.
From our relationships with our NATO allies, to the promotion of defence exports.
And from reviewing the role of our world leading defence Primes, to maximising the contribution made by our SMEs - often the engine room of our defence industry.
Let me briefly explain why such procurement reform will be central to the successful implementation of our SDSR.
Shaping defence policy under the current financial situation will be a challenge not felt since the Nott Review of 1981.
In short, then as now, money is tight, and the demands are great.
As I have already stated, it is clear that the 1998 SDR has been persistently under funded by the Treasury.
The consequence of Gordon Brown's actions has been a 12 year increasing imbalance between resources and requirements with only the will, ability and loyalty of our Armed Forces and their families, making up the difference.
So what can be done about it? The Gray Review has shown us that there is up to £35bn in unfunded liabilities in the current equipment programme.
This year's Major Projects Report recorded an in-year cost increase of £1.2bn alone- and that's just the 15 largest programmes. It's easy to see that with a compound unfunded liability of over £3bn a year, the MoD finds it very hard to make ends meet.
But money, or the lack of it, is not the only reason why reform of procurement is so essential.
We need a procurement system that strikes a balance between developing long-term defence capability, to compete with the very best, through the application of in depth blue sky research, a considered through life maintenance plan and incremental upgrades.
We also need to cope with the rapid evolution of warfare through the use of UORs, the application of novel technologies and adaptable commercial relationships.
In order to ensure we are able to respond to rapidly to changing threats we must have a vibrant defence industrial base. Without it we would have no operational sovereignty-thereby threatening our national sovereignty.
The focus of DE&S must move away from obsessing over initial cost, process and volume to capability based contracts and commercial arrangements that can ebb and flow as operational requirements change.
So you can see that far from being an ancillary benefit, improving the way we provide defence capability will be central to the success of the wider reform agenda.
Although much needs to change, we do have a solid foundation on which to build. The UK Defence Industry is already amongst the best in the world but industry knows that it, too, must help us meet the challenges we face.
The UK's defence talent is not limited to the private sector. Within the MoD, we have a dedicated and talented workforce who work tirelessly to support our Armed Forces. The Staff of DE&S have demonstrated, through UORs, that it is possible to bring on line unprecedented changes in defence capability, on time, and on budget.
Where DE&S is not working properly it is not the problem but the symptom of a problem that originates in the MoD itself. It is a structural and management problem which requires radical treatment.
It is essential that we get this process back on track. To help provide clarity and direction defence procurement under a future Conservative Government will have four explicit objectives.
1) To provide the best possible equipment to our Armed Forces when they need it, where they need it and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
2) To use defence procurement to underpin Britain's strategic relationships. Closer cooperation with the United States-our key global ally, and France-our key European ally, and maximising our unique relationship with Commonwealth countries around the world.
3) To provide better stability to the Armed Forces and better predictability to the defence industry-regular SDSRs will play an important role in realising this objective, so to will a future review of our Defence Industrial Strategy and defence trade relations within the EU.
4) To preserve UK defence jobs by maximising exports. The Conservative Party will use defence exports as a foreign policy tool and we will seek to increase Britain's share of the world defence market.
To meet these objectives we will test any future equipment programme against five criteria:
1) Capability: The determination of defence capability should be the product of an objective analysis of our defence needs, and not driven by the parochial interests of pork-barrel politics. We also need to move away from talking about equipment programmes as if they exist in the abstract, and in isolation, when we should be talking about capability in the round, across all Defence Lines of Development.
2) Affordability: Clearly, we must be able to afford not only the initial procurement costs but also the through life costs. As recent delays to the Carrier programme have taught us, we also need to be able to afford a programme on schedule, in-year. The default position should be 'spend to save' not 'Delay to spend'. Speedy procurement saves money.
3) Adaptability: We need to get the greatest flexibility in the equipment we buy while ensuring that as many potential roles as possible can be fulfilled. Future capabilities may be with us for 50 yeas, but intentions can change overnight. This will require truly open systems, UK based IPR where possible and adaptive commercial support arrangements.
4) Interoperability: If we are to maximise the utility of our equipment platforms then they must be able to take part in Combined and Joint military operations with our NATO allies, most notably the US.
5) Exportability: We must seek out equipment that will have a high export demand which, in the long term, will create UK jobs, reduce the unit cost of equipment to our Armed Forces, support the wider British economy and reinforce out strategic relationship with our allies.
Reforming the procurement process will be no easy task. In fact, it may prove to be our greatest challenge in terms of increasing the efficiency of the MoD.
The thousands of hardworking civil servants and military personnel involved in procurement have been let down by a failed system which has still not shaken off the Cold War mentality. And the effects are being felt on the frontline today. Defence reform must become a national endeavour, and all options for reform, no matter how radical, are on the table.
The Economic Backdrop
The government in office after the election, whenever it comes, will find itself with a military that is overstretched, undermanned and in possession of worn out equipment.
We know that the equipment programme is underfunded-by exactly how much is anyone's guess but most estimates measure the total in billions of pounds.
Bernard Gray placed the figure at £16bn over the next ten years. This equates to unfunded liability of £4.4 million per day.
The plunging value of the pound alone has left an estimated £1.3bn black hole in Britain's defence budget.
Current operations in Afghanistan are placing a strain on the core budget.
The Defence Secretary's recent statement on cuts-to the tune of £900m- in December confirmed what many have thought all along: that operations in Afghanistan are NOT fully funded from the Treasury Reserve despite what we have continuously been told.
We have learned from the testimony of former Defence Secretaries at the Chilcot Inquiry that the last SDR was never fully funded.
As Geoff Hoon stated during the Chilcot Inquiry, within the MoD there was:
'quite a strong feeling that the 1998 Strategic Defence Review was not fully funded' and that 'in the subsequent CSR programmes, we asked for significantly more money than we eventually received'.
Sir Kevin Tebbit said that as Permanent Secretary he had to operate in a permanent crisis budget.
More significantly, whatever happens at the election, the SDSR will be conducted against the most adverse financial backdrop for decades. As I said in the House of Commons last week, Government debt is some £799 billion. That is the equivalent of borrowing £1.1 million pounds every day since the birth of Christ.
As a consequence, what is waiting for the next Government is grim.
Defence cannot be immune from the economic realities but we should use the difficult challenges to grasp the opportunity for long overdue radical thinking and reform.
Conclusion
It is a dangerous world-you don't need me to tell you that. This Government is tired. The MoD needs a new vision and new life that only a new Government has the energy to provide.
The next SDSR will have to be a step change and full overhaul of the status quo-not a minor tinkering to the system.
It will be carried out ruthlessly and without sentiment. Tough decisions will be made and there will be winners and losers at the end of the process but Britain will be safe and our interests secure.
We are at a tipping point in Britain. We need to decide if we want to stay in the First Division or slide into the Second Division. I choose the former.
The fact that the last SDR was in 1998 is completely unacceptable.
This is why, on top of immediately conducting an SDSR, the Conservative Party has pledged to hold regular defence reviews every 4-5 years. If necessary we will put this requirement into legislation.
This will allow our Armed Forces to respond to new threats as they emerge and will also give the defence industry the predictability they require. The longer you wait between defence reviews the more instability you can expect.
But this will not be enough.
We need to be able to drive the process from one review to the next. Furthermore, we need a mechanism to absorb strategic shock.
If another 9/11 style event takes place-an event that alters the way we view global security, how can the Armed Forces absorb the shock of change if we are in between reviews. This capability will have to be built into the system.
For the Ministry of Defence a successful SDSR should:
* Allow our Armed Forces to succeed in today's war in Afghanistan and other current operations.
* Give our Armed Forces the flexibility and agility to respond to future threats-especially Hybrid threats combining traditional and asymmetric capabilities.
* Provide the framework for our Armed Forces to augment and support civil emergency and domestic security organisations when and where required.
* Enable our Armed Forces deter and prevent future conflicts.
* And will maximise and improve the levels of readiness of the Armed Forces and the ability to sustain them on operations.
Above all, we must have a coordinated response across the whole continuum of national security. The threats are real and immanent. Time will be of the essence.
no figures to go with the facts, of course, but his priorities are in the right place.
two things that stand out particularly:
1. The reference to not being sea-blind give me hope for a more navy-centric strategic doctrine at long last
2. The explicit reference to france as a key ally, and not the EU, recognition of the worth of the sovereign nation state
02-19-2010, 16:58
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Hey Furunculus, have you seen "Yes Prime Minister" ? What did you think of 'the Grand Plan'?
02-20-2010, 01:47
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
I am surprised* I never saw this here.
*Not-surprised some people deliberately not mentioned it.
The Conservatives launched the attack document, called Labour's Two Nations, to try to show the rise in inequalities under the current government. It claimed – three times – that women under 18 are "three times more likely to fall pregnant in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived areas. In the most deprived areas 54% are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 19% in the least deprived areas."
Within hours, the Labour party had leapt on the accusation, showing that in the ten most deprived areas used by the Tories, the rate of conception is actually an average of 5.4%.
I am hoping they are not to set the VAT, or it will end up as 175%.
02-20-2010, 09:06
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Hey Furunculus, have you seen "Yes Prime Minister" ? What did you think of 'the Grand Plan'?
awesome program, don't remember it well enough to recognise the significance of the grand plan remark.....................? :)
02-20-2010, 09:54
Boohugh
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
awesome program, don't remember it well enough to recognise the significance of the grand plan remark.....................? :)
It's Hacker's plan to cancel the proposed replacement for Polaris and spend the money on conventional forces instead, reintroducing conscription to solve the nations education and unemployment problems at the same time as boost defence :laugh4:.
02-20-2010, 11:42
InsaneApache
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boohugh
It's Hacker's plan to cancel the proposed replacement for Polaris and spend the money on conventional forces instead, reintroducing conscription to solve the nations education and unemployment problems at the same time as boost defence :laugh4:.
awesome program, don't remember it well enough to recognise the significance of the grand plan remark.....................? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boohugh
It's Hacker's plan to cancel the proposed replacement for Polaris and spend the money on conventional forces instead, reintroducing conscription to solve the nations education and unemployment problems at the same time as boost defence :laugh4:.
Basically, it is this, but it is to cancel Trident, which frees up a large amount of money which could be put into the conventional armed forces, reintroduce national service to solve the massive school leavers unemployment problem by giving them experience, education and work ethic. This totals in helping solve problems in the undereducated, the unemployed and those not in training (NEETs) and same time, give a big boost to defence (your favourite subject)
02-21-2010, 11:29
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Basically, it is this, but it is to cancel Trident, which frees up a large amount of money which could be put into the conventional armed forces, reintroduce national service to solve the massive school leavers unemployment problem by giving them experience, education and work ethic. This totals in helping solve problems in the undereducated, the unemployed and those not in training (NEETs) and same time, give a big boost to defence (your favourite subject)
ah yes, i remember now. lol.
a funny episode. i would never advocate conscription tho, wonderful way to wreck the effectiveness of a professional military fighting force. :p
02-21-2010, 12:53
InsaneApache
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
A future fair for all. Good. Now when is it going to be and will there be toffee apples and candy floss? I can't wait.
02-21-2010, 13:17
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
ah yes, i remember now. lol.
a funny episode. i would never advocate conscription tho, wonderful way to wreck the effectiveness of a professional military fighting force. :p
I dissagree on conscription, so long as conscripts aren't exepcted to fight outsdie of the homeland or in extremis I'm all for it. Why not, after all? I spent six years as a Forces Cadet as a teenager, another year of that, but getting to use the big guns, sounds fine to me.
02-21-2010, 17:27
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
National Service would work best for those not going to university. They could get skills such as in construction, plumbing, and all sorts of various skills, medical and even administration work. It would mean there would be a lot of on-the-job training for those who are perhaps underqualified for anything other than stacking shelves.
Though as some one who went to university, got a degree, and completing a Masters, the whole concept if applied to me would be a pointless waste of time and effort, as I don't need it.
Though, you could perhaps argue that Nation Service could be the unemployment benefit for the young. Which would mean those who can get a job wouldn't be affected either.
02-21-2010, 18:54
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
we aren't a continental nation, w e don't need millions of ill-trained cannon fodder infantry to man the front line against the next clausvitzian total war.
we have always had (world wars excepted) small professional forces that when combined with a large professional navy have allowed us to apply crippling pain at critical foreign pressure points, conscription does not serve the UK's need.
