The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.

---

I have seen some of the new tanks in relevant information and even though I am into the military hardware, some of them really do look sexy.

Not "looking sexy" in a sexual/looks manner, but they look very attractive to having them deployed in the armed forces as they can basically serve a lot of functions. One tank (I believe it is one of the latest german ones) has an inbuilt super computer, very advanced radar, anti-rockets, hard-plated, automatic guns, etc. Basically, it looked like it could probably serve as a one-man army.

By this, tanks can be so functional now-a-days and so versaille, that you could see normal infantry corps having small armoured detached to assist in co-ordinating and give support.


I don't know how much these sorts of tanks are in service, from what you read and see, I could imagine British armed forces using re-conditioned panzers and sherman tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Probably to justify replacing them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

As a side note. My Scottish friends are of the opinion that if the Tories come to power Scotland will push harder for independence. Which in all honesty would be a bit of a disaster.

---

If the Scots really are that wedded that to their anti-tory politics that they would vote yes in a referendum on independence, then bring cameron on, the one thing that makes my teeth grate more than anything else is the continual whining and indecision from north of the border. if they are that undependable, and lack any clear commitment to the 'family' then we are better off without them.


---------------------------------------------------------------


in other news, a mainstream political party finally does something to wrest the immigration debate away from the BNP and its million plus disillusioned voters:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/be...n-immigration/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1. UK defence spending is already low, 2.4% in 2005 according to Wiki, and I believe still falling. There is a strong arguement that it should rise, as it is already well below the Cold War peak. Now, if you would allow me to respond to your points.

2. Financially, this may make sense. However, the RAF was created because Army Commanders are usually not pilots, and therefore do not understand pilots and aircraft. I don't believe this has changed much, and the need for the RAF remains so that there is an Air Marshall to stand up to the General.

3. True, we need more Eurofighters, or a cheaper interceptor designed to launch missiles from long range.

4. Ships are useful for so many things, including patrols, anti-piracy, hummanitarian efforts, etc. Also, they are built in Civillian dockyards, which are major local employers when successful.

5. The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.

6. Special forces are drawn from the rank and file, less rank and file means either less Special Forces or a drop in quality.

7. What you describe is what we currently have, "a small force". Only two British Divisions can be deployed at short notice, and the total stength of the regular army, trained, is around 98,000. Consider that as a proportion of the total population of the UK.

---

1. UK Defence spending was down as low as 2.2% of GDP in 2008/09, whilst we had been fighting two far off wars for most of the preceding decade.
As a result of Broons decision to use core funding for operations it is almost certainly going to slip to at least 2.1% of GDP.

2. The RAF was created way before WW2, and it was durng the build up to WW2 that we finally cottoned on to joint forces and unified command which is one of the reasons we were so successful, and ever since that point we have had a rotating unified command structure. We do not need a separate RAF anymore, which is not to say that it would not be desirable to have such an entity.

3. We don't, 230 eurofighters was a cold war requirement which for contract reasons we were stuck with as the withdrawal penalties would cost nearly as much as buying the aircraft in the first place. ironically, it was britain that demanded these penalties be put in place because our european partners, notably germany, had an irritating tendency to go wobbly on the program every thirty seconds demanding capability cuts and number reductions, a poor way to run a multinational acquisition program costing hundreds of billions! a very wise american officer once said; "there is nothing more expensive than having the second best airforce in the world!" and he is right. the eurofighter is a good aircraft, as is the F35 and we need both, just not in cold war numbers.

4. The Navy has been the key to Britain becoming, being, and continuing to be a Great Power. It has always been, and always will be the most important military arm that Britain has.

5. Tanks are useful, this was demonstrated in iraq in 2003, long after they had (once again) be written off as irrelevant to the modern battlefield. And you are correct, we do maintain enormous air conditioned warehouses discretely around the country where huge numbers of Challenger 1 tanks and various other AFV's are kept actively maintained as a reserve. Given that we currently operate only 320 Challenger 2 tanks currently, with that likely to be cut in half in the next five years, we might consider it a capability we don't need to make ourself in future, sad as it might be given that we invented the first useful tank.

6. Agreed, we have probably expanded the special forces as much as they can be given that the Army itself numbers less than 100,000.

7. What we are is a Great Power, one of only three (including the yanks and france) in the world that can fight a high intensity land war at the opposite ends of the earth, and one of only two (including the yanks) who can do so as independent in-theatre command.
We also have the ability to launch opposed landings via amphibious and expeditionary warfare anywhere we please, and sustain and support it in theatre.
Along with the nuclear deterrent this defines the three core capabilities of 98 Strategic Defence Review (Labours greatest success), though we sadly never provided the funding to maintain it (Labours greatest failure), which is the reason why the Royal United Services Institute wrote the report listed in my sig asking the question; how can we maintain Britain as a Great Power in the 21st century given the funding constraints. Read it.

Kick pensions all the way back to 70, and maybe beyond. They're the single biggest cost for the government. The pensions sytem itself was designed when men's life expectancy didn't even reach up to 65, and was never intended to provide a golden twilight of twenty odd years. It will also increase the size of the labour force :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Kick pensions all the way back to 70, and maybe beyond. They're the single biggest cost for the government. The pensions system itself was designed when men's life expectancy didn't even reach up to 65, and was never intended to provide a golden twilight of twenty odd years. It will also increase the size of the labour force :yes:

---

When the age of retirement was first started it was 70. As the life expectancy increased, the age to retire decreased :inquisitive:

Both labour and the conservatives are very slowly increasing the age of retirement. There are a lot of baby boomers who with throw toys out of the pram if they're made to work for their own retirement. Yes, the country can't afford it in the long term - but the next 30 years is OK, yeah?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When the age of retirement was first started it was 70. As the life expectancy increased, the age to retire decreased :inquisitive:

---

Haha, what terrible policy making!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Both labour and the conservatives are very slowly increasing the age of retirement. There are a lot of baby boomers who with throw toys out of the pram if they're made to work for their own retirement. Yes, the country can't afford it in the long term - but the next 30 years is OK, yeah?

~:smoking:

---

What's annoying is although it's totally out of the question for Ebeneezer to be working when he's 70, it's perfectly okay and even necessary for me to. I will be working to subsidise a way of life which I will not be able to enjoy, and just because neither party has the balls to make sensible fiscal decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Leaving aside the sanity of our Prime Mentalist for a moment, there is no choice. The moneys run out. The well is dry. We've lost the paddle and the canoe is leaking. Expect deep cuts and tax increases, especially for the poor.

The thing that amazes me is that some people are actually considering voting for the great snot gobbler and his dysfunctional credo. Must be all those diversity outreach officers one reads about in the Gruniad job vacancy adverts.

:juggle2:

---

I'm late to the game on this post but have questions: How do you raise taxes on poor people? Do your poor people have money?

I've argued for raising taxes on our poor people but everyone here says they don't have any money. :shrug:

Is this some sort of poverty game whereby we can eliminate poverty by simply eliminating the metric we use to assess poverty? Because I'm all for eliminating poverty too. :yes:

The UK still has a middle class. I recommend taking money from them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I'm late to the game on this post but have questions: How do you raise taxes on poor people? Do your poor people have money?

I've argued for raising taxes on our poor people but everyone here says they don't have any money. :shrug:

---

I guess our poor people are better off than poor people elsewhere, they are only poor by a relative standard in the UK. In terms of taxing the poor, the implication is to tax working people on the lowest income or raise indirect taxes.

Raising income tax directly is always very unpopular and it looks terrible if you do it to those on the lowest incomes so is unlikely, but raising the level of national insurance slightly (which is basically another form of income tax by a different name) is a possibility as that is more likely to slip under the radar.

The alternative is to raise indirect taxes such as VAT, alcohol, fuel, tobacco, etc. These will of course hit everyone but they affect the poorest most because they have the lowest disposable income. Statistically, poorer people are generally heavier smokers/drinkers than better off people and so would share a disproportionate burden of any increase in those sorts of duties too. These taxes would hit those on benefits, not only those who work, and so arguably affect the poorest people of all: those that require state help just to survive as they don't/can't provide for themselves (assuming a benefit system that actually does what it's designed for!).


In terms of why we are likely to tax the poor - it's basically because it's the least politically dangerous (as anywhere else, our politicians rarely have the stones to take the morally upstanding route and rather take the path of least resistance). Richer people don't mind so much about increases to the indirect taxes (which is the most likely option for raising taxes) because they have the disposable income to absorb it without being put out too much. There is likely to be tax increases for the richest people too, and they are more likely to come in the form of raising income tax on the highest incomes but currently that would actually be seen as a popular move by many people due to the (media-induced) image that the world recession was caused by a small minority of very rich people and nobody else. It will be the middle classes that will escape from large tax increases most (initially at least) because that is where the election is likely to be won or lost.

Thank you. I was having a little fun with his post. :bow:

Yea, I can see your government, any government, raising regressive tax rates. Many in the U.S. want to implement a national sales or value-added tax. Most people who support these don't know what a regressive tax is and that we tried that before. Sales/sin aka regressive taxes is how the early federal government tried to support itself. Sales taxes are also largely the purview of the states.

Good luck guys.

Banquo:

I think Brown's survival reminds me of the GOP nominations of Dole in 1996 and McCain just passed. With no clear "voice of leadership" or clear-cut goals ASIDE from retaining power, he's just a place holder for the inevitable.


To the last few posters on UK defense spending etc.

2% is either a) drastically too little OR b) at least twice what it needs to be. The UK needs to decide the role it wishes to have and to pay accordingly.

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

---

Mhmm...sure they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

---

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

---

Why would I willingly write nonsense? What's that all about?



As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

Labour took over in 1997: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Labour is as aware as I am of the discrepancy between words and actions when it comes to Tories and defense spending, and is already using it in the elections.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

Quote:

---

Defence may avoid fall of spending axe if Labour wins election, says Mandelson

Defence would be exempt from Whitehall spending cuts if Labour won the next election, Lord Mandelson suggested yesterday in a surprise bid to outflank the Tories in the ongoing row about the funding of the military operation in Afghanistan.

The business secretary said that Labour would seek to protect defence spending if it won the general election and that this contrasted with the stance of the Tories, who have made it clear that the Ministry of Defence is not one of the two departments that would be exempt from spending cuts under a David Cameron regime.


The claim is surprising, because Whitehall is braced for deep cuts in most departments after the poll, and Mandelson's main purpose may have been to intensify divisions among the Conservatives, some of whom believe Cameron should be doing more to protect the defence budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...meron-military

---

"Also, benefit payments should be restricted to UK nationals only - not commonwealth + EU nationals":
So, I stop to pay taxes in UK?
Because actually I am pure benefit for UK.
UK paid nothing for my shool, training and skills.
I came here free of charge, all trained and ready, work in UK, pay for YOUR pregnant teenage, pay for YOUR school and YOUR army.

If I've got trouble in a foreign land, who will rescue me? UK or French Embassy/army? Guess...:idea2:

The cost of social benefit is due to the english Natives, not on the Polish, Indians and others who just work hard...
You don't find much Indian/Pakistaneese girls pregnant do you?:inquisitive:
Who benefit the most of the Social housing? The young white and English girls...:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

2% is either a) drastically too little OR b) at least twice what it needs to be. The UK needs to decide the role it wishes to have and to pay accordingly.

---

quite right Saemus, which is precisely why the Royal United Services Institute (created by Wellington nearly 200 years ago) created its discussion paper titled; A Force For Honour, asking two questions:

1) Is it desirable that Britain should wish to remain a Great Power?
2) If yes to the above, how can this be achieved?

That discussion paper is the first link in my sig and is an interesting read, in fact it should be mandatory reading for any Brit before they are allowed to spout bovine-excreta about peace and love.

In the same vein, you say it is robbery to increase spending... :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

In the same vein, you say it is robbery to increase spending... :beam:

---

.............. and i get the same tired response every time i suggest it, even though:

1) it is well known that i consider Defence of the Realm to be the first duty of the sovereign nation-state.
2) Defence spending in Britain has fallen continuously since 1985 to 2010, from nearly 5% of GDP to nearly 2.0%.
3) i am happy to have Defence exist as a larger proportion of an overall smaller annual government expenditure.
4) because Defence occupies such a small part of annual government expenditure, the above is entirely achievable.
5) it would be achievable with little reduction in capability from other departments, precisely because their budgets have grown like a cancer since 1997, far in advance of the improvements that increase has brought. they are in short grossly inefficient, at a time when Defence spending can only be considered lean.

and somehow the obvious escapes even the sharpest of orgah tools.................






it's a honest-to-god mystery.

Louis, it may be true that defence spending has increased under Labour in real terms since they took power, but you have to look at it against the political background.

The Conservatives presided over defence cuts at the end of the Cold War because we had large amounts of obsolete equipment, the armed forces just didn't need all the equipment and manpower it had, so cuts made some sense (although there is an argument to be made they went too deep, especially considering what happened next).

Labour, on the other hand, has presided over at least one and eventually two concurrent high tempo military operations in theatres the other side of the world - of course it's logical defence spending has increased. The problem is it hasn't increased enough! From the website you listed, you can see that defence spending is still below 1992 levels (i.e. after the first Gulf war) in real terms and constantly falling in GDP terms, despite the armed forces having been far more operationally committed over a far longer period of time than they have been since probably the Korean war! There can be no question - the armed forces of the UK are underfunded for the role they have been assigned and the blame falls squarely at the feet of the Labour government (both for it's role and the underfunding!).

I'd also take anything Lord Mandelson says with a pinch of salt, he's not exactly the most trustworthy politician around. He even says at the end of that article that the decision on where spending cuts fall ultimately lies with the Treasury and they haven't said anything about protecting defence spending. Not to mention the MoD has already been told by Labour they need to start cutting spending and so this is already happening rather haphazardly without any long term plan because they aren't waiting to carry out a new Defence Review before doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

---

It was called the post cold war peace dividend, and it was inevitable that since the evil empire had been defeated once and for all that people would want to spend public money on the finer things in (public) life rather than tanks. funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

As to the Dark Lord himself, has it escaped your attention that Labour is promising jam tomorrow while you blithely ignore the fact that Labour just announced a massive cut, i.e. that Afghanistan would be funded from the core defence budget in contravention of all previous policy that active operations are funded by treasury appropriation. And this after a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

---

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

---

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

---

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

---

Never take my word for anything.

Instead, rely on facts.


UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.


Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

Louis, it may be true that defence spending has increased under Labour in real terms since they took power, but you have to look at it against the political background.

The Conservatives presided over defence cuts at the end of the Cold War because we had large amounts of obsolete equipment, the armed forces just didn't need all the equipment and manpower it had, so cuts made some sense (although there is an argument to be made they went too deep, especially considering what happened next).

Labour, on the other hand, has presided over at least one and eventually two concurrent high tempo military operations in theatres the other side of the world - of course it's logical defence spending has increased.

---

Naturally, one needs to take political background into consideration.

However, there is no Cold War at the moment either. Both the Tories and Labour in the past two decades made their defense policies in a post-1989 world. And in this new geo-political constallation, in the post-Cold War world, Labour increased the defense budget by a quarter, and the Conservatives decreased it by the same amount.

It is not a given that the UK should pursue a very active military foreign policy. It is a political choice, and this active defense policy has been Labour's choice, not the Tories'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

The problem is it hasn't increased enough!

---

A well-Italicised statement, for therein lies the rub indeed. Labour indeed has not accepted the full consequences of its very active foreign military policy. It is all fine and dandy to have 8500 troops in Afghanistan, plus Iraq, but it does come with a price tag one needs to be prepared to pay. These operations must be properly funded by a huge increase in spending. Or else either the success of the operations will be compromised and troops will suffer needless casualty, or the general defense budget will suffer.

This underfunding of British' military operations have given the Tories the chance to create the misconception that Labour decreases UK's military expenditure. That Labour is the party of defense budget cuts.

This is not true. The very reverse is true. Labour in the past decades has been the party that increases defense spending, and the Tories the one that drastically reduces it. And they will do so again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

---

I am afraid this is incorrect.

British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

Times like this, I want to marry Louis.

Strike may have a problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.

UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.

Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

---

i have never said that tories increase defence spending, i wish they would, but the reality is i trust no politician with defence spending. all parties have a proven track record of decreased military spending in the last 80 years.

i have already credited labour with creating the most far-sighted Strategic Defence Review ever, and i am fully aware that the Cons chopped defence budgets far more than they should. The post cold war dividend is a fact, all i did was enter it into the blithely ignorant equations you are churning out for general consumption.

the britain is now, arguably, still a Great Power much as the definition is amorphous, the fact that we are not a world power has everything to do with decline of empire and the debt of two world wars.

the tories have never got away with defence cuts, at least not from me. labour has got the majority of my ire because they are the party in government during the period of my internet ranting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

---

no it hasn't louis. it has risen in line with inflation. it has not risen in line with defence inflation. and it certainly has not risen in line with government spending, you know the one i am always banging on about, 2.2% of GDP etc, less than 3.5% of GDP etc. it has not been treated as the primary duty of the state, instead it has been treated like the red-headed step-child of government spending, evidenced by its continual decline as a proportion of government spending, by all parties.

the treasury reserve has never coverered all operational costs, worse it has in some cases been clawed back. to top it off, there has been a massive defence cut announced only last month when the gov't announced that afghanistan operational funding would be taken from the core defence budget. that is a CUT, as i have said before.
------------------------------------------------------
edit -

for the record, i have no expectation that cameron will increase defence spending either, regardless of having to clear up labour finances or otherwise.

labour spends high, but actively dislikes the military = x ammount
conservatives spend low, but like to court the defence vote = y amount

amount x and amount y are usually pretty similar.

my sympathy naturally lies with the tories, because i actively dislike any brit who actively dislikes britains military institutions, but i'm under no illusions that neither does anything but chop defence budgets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Times like this, I want to marry Louis.

---

your cheer-leading is already clearly visible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

your cheer-leading is already clearly visible.

---

You know that Louis makes a lot of sense.

You even agreed to it yourself that he was correct, however, you further comment that they should have spent more. Which goes in opposition to your earlier comments that it is basically all new labours fault for keep on clawing it back when it was the Tories which did the most damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You know that Louis makes a lot of sense.

You even agreed to it yourself that he was correct, however, you further comment that they should have spent more. Which goes in opposition to your earlier comments that it is basically all new labours fault for keep on clawing it back when it was the Tories which did the most damage.

---

they haven't done 'most' of the damage.

events dear boy, events - to quote a british prime minister

the end of the cold war, (where we spent 40 years deterring the might of the red army along with our allies), was always going to require a peace dividend. Keeping BAOR in germany and holding the G-I-UK gap was no mean feat, especially as it didn't give us a free pass from all our other global commitments.

i have never advocated a return to defence spending at a level of ~5%, or even 3.5% of GDP, what i have actually advocated is:
> a legislated peacetime minimum of 2.5% of GDP (which is what labour said they would attempt to maintain in the SDR 98)
> an annual review to see if we are in fact at peace, and if not to recommend the appropriate increase (currently at ~2,1% during wartime)
> a temporary hike above 2.5% to recognise to recover from decades of under investment (and the fact that we were fighting two foreign wars at once on a 2.2% budget)
> absolute recognition that ALL operational costs including attrition are paid for by the treasury (not the situation now)

and i will apologise to nobody for criticising labour for taking a further bite out of the core defence budget last month to fund afghanistan, especially when the defence budget itself has fallen 0.3% below the level labour said they would maintain.

Btw what happened to our navy

“It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power.”
It is so true that if the Argentineans would have attack the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines few months after they did, the UK would have no Aircraft Carriers as Maggie had sold them to India.
The same Maggie, in cutting defence expenses obliged the destroyers Type 45 to be reduce in size with the consequence they couldn’t have all the AA defence needed. It cost UK the Sheffield.

So, who did the damage?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Btw what happened to our navy

---

Prior to SDR98 it consisted of 35 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 12 attack submarines.

SDR98 mandated a need for 32 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 10 attack submarines.

After SDR98 it quickly slipped to 28 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 9 attack submarines. (spot the baddy?)

In 911 they changed their mind and abandoned they best policy doc they ever made (SDR98) and created the "new2 chapter" where we needed only 25 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 8 attack submarines.

This has since dropped below their policy documents to about 22 frigates and destroyers, with a planned number of 7 attack submarines. (again, spot the baddy?)

And given the rate at which perfectly serviceable frigates are being sold off or put into "extended readiness" that could go as low as 17 escorts.

that is what has happened to the navy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power.”
It is so true that if the Argentineans would have attack the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines few months after they did, the UK would have no Aircraft Carriers as Maggie had sold them to India.

The same Maggie, in cutting defence expenses obliged the destroyers Type 45 to be reduce in size with the consequence they couldn’t have all the AA defence needed. It cost UK the Sheffield.

So, who did the damage?:inquisitive:

---

The FCO have the greatest blame for the falklands, for demonstrating little interest in keeping them to the Argentinians whilst showing every willingness to talk about the issue forever. no gumption, and talks won't lead anywhere, why not invade. The same maggie who did have the balls to actually take the falklands back.

Are those the same T45 ADD destroyers of which we were supposed to receive at least 12, and we now find 6? i wasn't aware that anyone had complained that 48 aster missiles with the option to retrofit another 16 wasn't enough..................?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Are those the same T45 ADD destroyers of which we were supposed to receive at least 12, and we now find 6? i wasn't aware that anyone had complained that 48 aster missiles with the option to retrofit another 16 wasn't enough..................?

---

Think he was probably getting confused and meant the T42's as he was talking about Maggie and HMS Sheffield. Although I'm not sure you can blame the fact Sheffield sank on it having fewer AA defences than originally planned Brenus, when the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles because the main threat (the Soviet Union) wasn't expected to employ that sort of attack (note it was due to be upgraded however, so it's not like the problem had been ignored). All the AA defences in the world wouldn't have helped in that situation.

Regarding the Navy nowadays, as Furunculus has stated, they have been steadily shrinking despite there being no shortage of tasks set for them. The smaller ships haven't got off either, there are currently only 16 Mine Counter-Measures Vessels despite there being a minimum requirement of 22 as set out in the SDR (reduced from an initial number of 25) and the Navy has just been told to get rid of another one so will soon be down to just 15. That's 7 short of the minimum this government itself set out for their assigned tasks (and they have only got busier since invading Iraq in 2003).

Considering that 92% of UK trade (by volume) travels by sea and sea transport is the UK's third largest service sector, it seems absurd that any government should ignore the needs of the Royal Navy. They aren't asking for a massive blue water fleet that will take on another nation in a big old-fashioned naval battle because that just isn't likely - they are trying to create a navy that can 1) protect maritime trade routes, particularly the 9 strategic choke-points through which the vast majority of international trade passes and 2) can support littoral (coastal) combat operations, which are the most likely (e.g. Iraq invasion) but they aren't being given the resources to do that. Afghanistan is the exception in being a landlocked country far away from the sea and doesn't represent the most likely area of operation in the future (although that hasn't stopped the Navy from providing up to 40% of all UK service personnel operating there).

So to say that Labour supports the armed forces adequately when they have presided over this sort of mess beggars belief. I'm not saying the Conservatives have a better track record, but the Labour one isn't exactly glowing either - as always they have just managed to hide it fairly well with spin.

“the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles”.
Er, it is exactly what I said.
The info we’ve got at the time was due to a lack of space thanks to the reduction of budget thanks to Maggie (and the Berlin Wall was still solid), the Navy could install a tracking radar for this kind of attack (and the Exocet being a French Missile was not exactly ignored by UK. I think that USSR had the Kelt at that moment, not really a low missile, but still…) so it cost the Navy the Sheffield (yeap, Destroyer type 42) (and others). Knowing that the Argentineans had just a few of these missiles, imagine the result if they had waited the delivery of all the order…

And there is still the selling of the aircrafts carrier to India even before the new one to be ready?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles”.
Er, it is exactly what I said.
The info we’ve got at the time was due to a lack of space thanks to the reduction of budget thanks to Maggie (and the Berlin Wall was still solid), the Navy could install a tracking radar for this kind of attack (and the Exocet being a French Missile was not exactly ignored by UK. I think that USSR had the Kelt at that moment, not really a low missile, but still…) so it cost the Navy the Sheffield (yeap, Destroyer type 42) (and others). Knowing that the Argentineans had just a few of these missiles, imagine the result if they had waited the delivery of all the order…

And there is still the selling of the aircrafts carrier to India even before the new one to be ready?

---

defence procurement is always a mess, everywhere, to think otherwise is lunacy. Air Defence was never a priority for the Royal Navy in the Cold War, as its principle task was maintaining a huge Anti Submarine fleet to hold Soviet hunter-killer submarines behind the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, and thus ensure Operation Reforger could reach mainland europe to reinforce american troops in the event that 15,000 soviet main-battle-tanks rumble across the Fulda Gap.

you are talking about the T42's, not the T45's.

if you want another cracking example of a cock-up have a look at the italian/french horizon program; each country gets a grand total of two units. how's that for a return on 30 years of investment, the unit cost must be princely don't you think?

now that is an ADD disaster in waiting!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit]

defence cut of 15%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalis...q-inquiry.html

[/edit]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

---

YESSSSSSSS:yes::yes::yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

---

In theory the idea is interesting, it would just be the next big stage of a process in defence procurement and cooperation that is already happening to some degree. The only problem is there would be no political agreement on when to use it so it would be pointless having in the first place! :laugh4:

Edit: Although like to add, pretty sure all the EU defence budgets combined still wouldn't rival the US one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

---

as i have said many times before; it doesn't matter how many shiny war toys the EU could collect together, europe is post-war, they don't have the balls to use those toys, so it would have very little influence in bolstering europes foreign policy.

it would just look very pretty on the parade ground, and be treated as such.

-------------------------------------------------

you also need to be able to create a common foriegn policy........... which doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

In theory the idea is interesting, it would just be the next big stage of a process in defence procurement and cooperation that is already happening to some degree.

The only problem is there would be no political agreement on when to use it so it would be pointless having in the first place! :laugh4:

Edit: Although like to add, pretty sure all the EU defence budgets combined still wouldn't rival the US one.

---

even that doesn't work very well, A400 anyone, or Horizon, etc.

agreed, as i said above.

indeed not, because europe is post-war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

YESSSSSSSS:yes::yes::yes:

---

given your enthusiasm for a euro-army is expressed in a thread dedicated to the most euroskeptic british electorate in a long time, i have to question your judgement. do you honestly see the next parliament having a mandate for foriegn policy integration with the EU sufficient to create a euro-army?

No, but a man can dream. A man can dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

as i have said many times before; it doesn't matter how many shiny war toys the EU could collect together, europe is post-war, they don't have the balls to use those toys, so it would have very little influence in bolstering europes foreign policy.

it would just look very pretty on the parade ground, and be treated as such.

---

You would make a great American.

Quote:

---

you also need to be able to create a common foriegn policy........... which doesn't exist.

---

Other than NATO which can be argued as one, there is the brand new office which could cover this... so yes, there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You would make a great American.

Other than NATO which can be argued as one, there is the brand new office which could cover this... so yes, there is.

---

am i wrong.

NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party, and having a high representative does mean we have anything even remotely like common foreign policy objectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

---

:laugh4: There already is one except the initials are U.S. and not E.U.

Laughable. Europe, and Europeans, would never support such a force. They're as addicted to U.S. military support as we are to middle-east oil.

It does have some appeal though. Many have commented on the fact that we only kill brown people nowdays. Real men fight in Europe.

Oh, and this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You would make a great American.

Other than NATO which can be argued as one, there is the brand new office which could cover this... so yes, there is.

---

I suspect that is a compliment. That's how I would take it if someone claimed I would make a great German, Brit, or (the sadly unattainable goal :shame: ) a Dutchman. I'd even settle for a Walloon.

NATO as a common foreign policy? You must be joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I suspect that is a compliment. That's how I would take it if someone claimed I would make a great German, Brit, or (the sadly unattainable goal :shame: ) a Dutchman. I'd even settle for a Walloon.

NATO as a common foreign policy? You must be joking.

---

given he's a brit, i suspect it's not.

sadly that is about the limit of 'muscular' european foreign policy; "don't attack me, i have a big brother who'll duff you up!"

the spending cuts would start right away under osborne (important given the election is likely to be just after the start of the 10/11 financial year:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/be...uts-start-now/

Like many Tories, George Osborne loves a Swedish model and this evening was with Sweden’s finance minister who like him is young and articulate but has the added advantage of being in power and fresh from his role in his country’s EU presidency (not that much of a triumph some say). The Shadow Chancellor used their get together to issue a message that should by rights make waves, namely that the Tories will cut spending as soon as they get in (if the voters allow, natch).

I repeat: spending for FY 10/11 will be cut under a Conservative government.

Mr Osborne has provided no further details beyond repeating the hit list he set out in Manchester, namely tax credits for those on £50k+, no more Child Trust Fund for the well off, slashing ‘propaganda spending’, etc. What he hasn’t said either is whether spending will be cut relative to FY 09/10, or whether spending will grow less than planned by Gordon Brown: spending in 10/11 is due to rise by £31bn. Is Mr Osborne lopping that off and more or what? This is the kind of statement many have been pressing him for, and Brown Central have been hoping he’ll make.

Full details are in Andrew Porter’s story for tonight’s Telegraph, and the key quote from Mr Osborne is: “The message could not be clearer – if you find yourself on the wrong road, you take the first available exit instead of carrying on. With the date of the general election increasingly likely to be after the beginning of the next financial year, that means we will need to make early in-year reductions in existing plans. Programmes that represent poor value for money, excessive spending on things like advertising and consultants, spending on tax credits for people earning over £50,000, and spending on Child Trust Funds for better off families will all have to be cut during the financial year.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

---

that common army/foreign-policy appears to be coming along a treat:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...n-afghanistan/

One of the major consequences of the ongoing war in Afghanistan is a very changed understanding of NATO and the dynamics of the alliance. The response of the European nations to NATO’s call for additional forces for the IFOR mission shows this.

The heaviest burden in Afghanistan has been borne by the US, UK and Canada. Of the older NATO nations Denmark has played a major role, contributing more troops and taking more casualties as a part of its population than any other continental European nation. However, other Western nations have not pulled their weight at all, with Germany now acting as the problem child of the Western Alliance.

Germany, with the fourth largest economy in the world and a much larger population than the UK, had less than half of the force strength in Afghanistan as the UK. While British forces are committed to the toughest part of the country, the south, and are there to fight, the Germans have stationed their force in the safest part of Afghanistan, the north, and have and surrounded their commitment with numerous caveats restricting when and how their forces might engage in combat.

In short, while the US, UK, Denmark, and the Eastern Europeans are in Afghanistan to fight a war, the German government has generally avoided calling their deployment a “war” and has generally framed it as ‘peace” operation. Confronted with a huge leftist peace movement at home, Angela Merkel’s government will not expand its force in Afghanistan. German troops are stationed in Afghanistan as a symbolic act of NATO solidarity than as a true military ally. NATO officers in Afghanistan complain that the German army will not actively patrol and tends to hole up in their heavily fortified camps. In short, they will not do the kind of active counterinsurgency operations among the population that the operation requires. This is not because the Bundeswehr is an incompetent force, but because the German commanders sent to Afghanistan are under strict orders to avoid casualties.

The extreme sensitivity of the Germans to any kind of fighting was demonstrated by the German political crisis that ensued after a German commander called in an airstrike on a gasoline tanker truck that had been seized by the Taliban. The strike was successful and the truck destroyed, although there were civilian casualties. The fact that German actions had caused civilian casualties set off the German media and the politicians of both Right and Left and pushed Merkel to fire both her defence minister and the military chief of the Bundeswehr.

In fact, there was no scandal and what the German commander had done was exactly right. Given their use of suicide bombers, the Taliban would have used the truck as a huge bomb against other Afghans or NATO forces. A bomb of that size might have killed hundreds of Western forces — so the NATO air strike that caused such agonies in German domestic politics actually saved hundreds of lives. Yet, such is the force of the pacifist Left in Germany today that no senior person in the government would stand up and tell that simple fact to the public.

While Germany is proving to be a major weakness in the NATO alliance, the new Eastern European members of NATO have stepped up to the mission and proven their committment to Western defence. While Germany rejected the recent call for reinforcements to Afghanistan, the Poles are increasing their force to over 3,000 men. Poland, with half of Germany’s population, will soon have troop strength equal to Germany’s. The Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have a combined population of about 10 per cent of Germany’s. But in late 2009 these three countries had a military and civilian deployment to Afghanistan of over 700 military and civilian personnel – a much larger committment in terms of their populations and economies than Germany’s.

Unlike the Germans, the Poles and Baltic forces deploy their troops to combat without restrictions or conditions. They are currently serving and taking casualties under US and UK command in the tough parts of Afghanistan. Friends of mine serving in Afghanistan now refer to Germans and to “real allies” – meaning the Eastern Europeans. The strong commitment of these countries to the Western system is revitalising the alliance.

Mythbusters: Britain's finances are in a poor state because of the financial crisis that began in America

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...it-crunch.html

No minister, this disaster began years before the credit crunch
Britain is in a financial mess because of a spending binge that stretches back to 2002, says Jeff Randall

By Jeff Randall
Published: 8:20PM GMT 14 Jan 2010

'Of all the ways to dig out what's really going on," said my friend, the world-weary newshound, "there's nothing better than a DFE."

I nodded sagely, pretending to catch his drift, while trying to work out what or who a DFE could be. A quick trawl through Google provided little help. Neither Double Faced Eels (a Latvian rock band) nor Dragon Fli Empire (a Canadian hip-hop group) seemed likely sources of red-hot stories. Decision-Feedback Equalizers (a routine for reducing errors in storing computer data) were a possibility, except that my chum could barely work the hairdryer, much less hack into an information system.

After a couple of feeble bluffs, I came clean. "Er, what exactly is a DFE? Anything to do with the Department for Education?" Dismayed, the Fleet Street veteran explained, very slowly: "Disaffected… Former… Employees. They know where the skeletons are."

DFEs exist in all walks of life – business, the media, sport – but nowhere more obviously and poisonously than in politics. Since he became Prime Minister in 2007, Gordon Brown's leadership has been polluted by a steady flow of ex-Cabinet colleagues who became toxic DFEs. Charles Clarke, Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt all turned sour after losing ministerial influence. They were joined this week by James Purnell, a rarity among Labour's leading lights in that one would not crawl across a busy motorway to avoid him.

Mr Purnell's piece this week in The Guardian did not savage Mr Brown in the way that Miss Flint had done after her inelegant exit, when she accused the PM of treating women as "window dressing". It was damaging, none the less, because it set out Mr Purnell's reasons for resigning seven months ago.

"I couldn't continue in Cabinet saying things I no longer believed to be true," he said. This, he knew, would prompt speculation about how many who are still there have no such qualms.

Mr Purnell went on: "There were major policy differences… It was clear that some cuts would be needed, because the economy was smaller than everyone had previously thought. GDP had been artificially inflated by the housing and financial bubble."

GDP artificially inflated? Well, who would have thunk it? There we were believing that the United Kingdom's remarkable "growth" was down to Mr Brown's managerial genius, his elimination of boom and bust. Not so, Mr Purnell admitted: "By being clear about that, early and fully, I thought we would be in a better position to convince the public that the debt was down to our response to the credit crunch, not to excess spending before it."

Oh dear. He was doing so well up to that point. Then he ruined his case with blind adherence to Ballsonomics. This is the dismal science's version of flat earth mythology, ie that all Labour spending is productive "investment".

Let us debunk this nonsense. For it is simply untrue to claim that the foundations of Britain's towering edifice of debt, the Burj Khalifa of state borrowing, were laid by the financial crisis, rather than Labour's fiscal incontinence.

The last time a British Chancellor delivered a balanced budget – or better, one in surplus – was 2001, the year of Tony Blair's second general election victory. Much has changed since then, especially for those with red rosettes. That year, Liverpool lifted the FA Cup and Red Marauder (an omen of things to come at Number 11?) won the Grand National. Confident of victory at the polls, Mr Brown labelled his Budget "Investing for the Long Term". His plans included annual spending of £394 billion and income of £398 billion.

It was his last dance with pretty Prudence. Thereafter she was ditched in favour of her ugly cousin, Profligacy. In each of Labour's eight subsequent Budgets, expenditure has exceeded revenue.

The slide began modestly. In 2002, the Budget deficit was £10 billion, just 2.4 per cent of the £418 billion that Mr Brown dished out. Then came the deluge. Long before collateralised debt obligations hit the headlines, years before anyone had heard of "Ninja" mortgages (No Income, No Job, No Assets), at a time when an expanding economy should have enabled the Government to build up its savings, Mr Brown cut loose.

In 2003, government spending rose by 9 per cent, in 2004 by 7 per cent, then by 6 per cent in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and 5 per cent in 2008. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, our ability to pay for this binge did not grow at anything like the same rate. From 2002-2008 (the year before the full impact of the credit crunch), government spending increased by 48 per cent, but taxes went up by only 41 per cent.

Contrary to Mr Purnell's assertion, Labour's debt pile-up preceded the credit crunch. As a state, we had become addicted to the never-never. In 2003, the Budget deficit was £28 billion, then £33 billion in 2004, £32 billion in 2005, £36 billion in 2006, £34 billion in 2007 and £43 billion in 2008.

From 2003-2008 inclusive, the Chancellor's overspend as a percentage of the Government's annual outlay ranged between
5.8 per cent and 7 per cent, with the average being 6.4 per cent. In his 2008 Budget, Alistair Darling predicted GDP growth of 1.75-2.25 per cent, yet still planned to borrow £43 billion.

This is a core structural deficit, which has nothing to do with the financial crisis "that began in America", as Mr Brown likes to incant. It was akin to a family with a weekly income of £500 spending £532 every week for six years. At first, the process is not ruinous, but trouble accumulates until something unexpectedly bad happens – then, the finances whizz out of control.

In 2009, with the state coffers already bare, tax revenues collapsed as unemployment shot up and welfare payments ballooned. The Government's response – an unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus – did not solve the problem: it merely blurred reality, while deferring discipline. The upshot was borrowing of £178 billion, 27 per cent of state spending.

In its research paper "Popular Delusions", Société Générale noted this week: "Removing the stimulus will involve pain; lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity. But policy-makers don't like lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity. They enacted the stimulus in the first place to avoid it! At what point will they decide they do want lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity?

"Given the choice, they won't, ever. So it will be imposed on them (and therefore us) by a suddenly less generous bond market via a government funding crisis."

Mr Brown is betting the bank that such an outcome will not occur before the general election. He is still hoping to buy votes. But as Mr Purnell reminded us, we have been here before. After Labour's election defeat in 1931, R H Tawney, the historian and economist, concluded that the party failed because it had courted the people with "hopes of cheaply won benefits". Then, as now, it "demanded too little and offered too much".

epic fail McBroon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that common army/foreign-policy appears to be coming along a treat:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...n-afghanistan/

One of the major consequences of the ongoing war in Afghanistan is a very changed understanding of NATO and the dynamics of the alliance. The response of the European nations to NATO’s call for additional forces for the IFOR mission shows this.

The heaviest burden in Afghanistan has been borne by the US, UK and Canada. Of the older NATO nations Denmark has played a major role, contributing more troops and taking more casualties as a part of its population than any other continental European nation. However, other Western nations have not pulled their weight at all, with Germany now acting as the problem child of the Western Alliance.

Germany, with the fourth largest economy in the world and a much larger population than the UK, had less than half of the force strength in Afghanistan as the UK. While British forces are committed to the toughest part of the country, the south, and are there to fight, the Germans have stationed their force in the safest part of Afghanistan, the north, and have and surrounded their commitment with numerous caveats restricting when and how their forces might engage in combat.

In short, while the US, UK, Denmark, and the Eastern Europeans are in Afghanistan to fight a war, the German government has generally avoided calling their deployment a “war” and has generally framed it as ‘peace” operation. Confronted with a huge leftist peace movement at home, Angela Merkel’s government will not expand its force in Afghanistan. German troops are stationed in Afghanistan as a symbolic act of NATO solidarity than as a true military ally. NATO officers in Afghanistan complain that the German army will not actively patrol and tends to hole up in their heavily fortified camps. In short, they will not do the kind of active counterinsurgency operations among the population that the operation requires. This is not because the Bundeswehr is an incompetent force, but because the German commanders sent to Afghanistan are under strict orders to avoid casualties.

The extreme sensitivity of the Germans to any kind of fighting was demonstrated by the German political crisis that ensued after a German commander called in an airstrike on a gasoline tanker truck that had been seized by the Taliban. The strike was successful and the truck destroyed, although there were civilian casualties. The fact that German actions had caused civilian casualties set off the German media and the politicians of both Right and Left and pushed Merkel to fire both her defence minister and the military chief of the Bundeswehr.

In fact, there was no scandal and what the German commander had done was exactly right. Given their use of suicide bombers, the Taliban would have used the truck as a huge bomb against other Afghans or NATO forces. A bomb of that size might have killed hundreds of Western forces — so the NATO air strike that caused such agonies in German domestic politics actually saved hundreds of lives. Yet, such is the force of the pacifist Left in Germany today that no senior person in the government would stand up and tell that simple fact to the public.

While Germany is proving to be a major weakness in the NATO alliance, the new Eastern European members of NATO have stepped up to the mission and proven their committment to Western defence. While Germany rejected the recent call for reinforcements to Afghanistan, the Poles are increasing their force to over 3,000 men. Poland, with half of Germany’s population, will soon have troop strength equal to Germany’s. The Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have a combined population of about 10 per cent of Germany’s. But in late 2009 these three countries had a military and civilian deployment to Afghanistan of over 700 military and civilian personnel – a much larger committment in terms of their populations and economies than Germany’s.

Unlike the Germans, the Poles and Baltic forces deploy their troops to combat without restrictions or conditions. They are currently serving and taking casualties under US and UK command in the tough parts of Afghanistan. Friends of mine serving in Afghanistan now refer to Germans and to “real allies” – meaning the Eastern Europeans. The strong commitment of these countries to the Western system is revitalising the alliance.

---

They got the right idea, unlike us who stupidity fights America's imperialistic wars for them.

we responded to a treaty obligation, it is that simple.

and i agree that intervening in countries that allow foreign terrorist organisations is a good idea, and that intervention should include crushing the terror groups whilst building the domestic institutions that allow the failed state to own a monopoly on violence.

germany isn't doing its job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

we responded to a treaty obligation, it is that simple.

and i agree that intervening in countries that allow foreign terrorist organisations is a good idea, and that intervention should include crushing the terror groups whilst building the domestic institutions that allow the failed state to own a monopoly on violence.

germany isn't doing its job.

---

You do know Germany has severe hang-ups about even having a military for anything other than self defense -and i mean self defense in Germany. Right?

It also seems that that article/blog has wilfully ignored the horrific death toll of civilians resulting from the tanker strike. Had that been a UK fire mission, I should hope there would have been a scandall here too.

Killing civilians, especially in order to prevent deaths of NATO/western troops, is not going to be an acceptable balance to Afghans. Ever. Same as it isn't in Pakistan, won't be in Yemen or isn't in the west either.

Sure i do, i read most of the der-spiegel reports on the bombing.

That does not change the fact that a defensive alliance is only worth the confidence the participants hold that their allies will respond to a call to arms.

--------------------------------------------------

And none of this does anything but show a complete lack of common purpose, as well as a total lack of any common value they might attach to achieving that purpose, which makes a ludicrous basis for attempting to create institutions of common foreign policy.

you can have as many shiny euro-tanks as you wish, parading down Brussels boulevard with missile launchers in tow, but they will be treated as nothing more than toys by your enemies know that you have neither unity nor the resolve to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you can have as many shiny euro-tanks as you wish, parading down Brussels boulevard with missile launchers in tow, but they will be treated as nothing more than toys by your enemies know that you have neither unity nor the resolve to use them.

---

Kind of irrelevant since the point of them wouldn't be to enforce will of EU unto others but to ensure that others don't enforce their will on the EU. "Others" including US, Russia, China and a long list of developing countries with large territory, population, natural resources that are edging ever closer technologically.

It's still far away as a practical idea, I give you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Kind of irrelevant since the point of them wouldn't be to enforce will of EU unto others but to ensure that others don't enforce their will on the EU. "Others" including US, Russia, China and a long list of developing countries with large territory, population, natural resources that are edging ever closer technologically.

It's still far away as a practical idea, I give you that.

---

not when considered as an instrument of foriegn policy.

thanks, much appreciated.

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it. Once United Europe ended (amicably) the NATO alliance, we'd be able to get back to letting the marines guard the embassies and be done. We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it.

---

With extreme respect, and no offense intended, no, you could not. A European Army would be even less effective than separate British, Polish, German, and French militaries, simply because we would be able to reduce military spending even further. A unified European Army would be no better than the modern French armed forces, and certainly not even close to an allied Europe working together freely with multiple, national armies.

"We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts." Never.
And you came a little late during the 1st one...:book:
French saying: Vous volliez au secours de la victoire...
And we can discuss about the willingness of the 2nd...:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

With extreme respect, and no offense intended, no, you could not. A European Army would be even less effective than separate British, Polish, German, and French militaries, simply because we would be able to reduce military spending even further. A unified European Army would be no better than the modern French armed forces, and certainly not even close to an allied Europe working together freely with multiple, national armies.

---

with respect, the french armed forces are both professional and have a reasonable amount of political spine behind them to achieve political ends via military means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

with respect, the french armed forces are both professional and have a reasonable amount of political spine behind them to achieve political ends via military means.

---

Indeed. In fact, that was why I intended to showcase them as the cream of the crop in modern day Europe.

My point was essentially that a European military would have the cutbacks of the British, the willingness to fight of the Germans, and the rough size of the French. While the French military is of a very respectable size and capability for a single nation, one would effectively be replacing the militaries of over twenty nations acting in cooperation with a single one that is barely larger and no more effective, and one would be spending billions to do so. An impractical exercise.

Such as coups in Central Africa :yes:

I wonder why all 20 countries of Euro would magically go down to the size of France... :inquisitive: Where does that even come from?

Some-one is making up little porkies again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it. Once United Europe ended (amicably) the NATO alliance, we'd be able to get back to letting the marines guard the embassies and be done. We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts.

---

??


I get the impression that you base the above on the relentless drivel of the anti-EU press.

Many proponents of an EU army are quite pro-Atlantic. For example, the current political force behind further integration of European defense is Sarkozy, who is not anti-Atlanticist at heart.



Firstly, nothing in Europe is already as internationally harmonised as precisely the military. Ooow! If only the EU could harmonise European legal and economical aspects to the extent that NATO has harmonised European defense!

Defense has managed to become this integrated, because this integration is overwhelmingly outside the political control of the EU. It is NATO that has integrated European defense. Hence there is far less democratic control (pesky referenda!), political opposition, or even public knowledge of this harmonisation.

What applies for NATO applies for the EU: synchronisation and harmonisation work, it has all sorts of mutual benefits - what is the point of Denmark trying to sustain a defense policy of full military capacity? That is, an army, air force and navy, capable of performing a thousand different tasks? That wouldn't work. Better to have the Danes specialise in one aspect, and let the Germans, Belgians and Spanish do what they are good at in turn. That is, France and Germany build airplanes, and the Danes build ships to watch the North Atlantic.

The more integration like this, the better Europe can fulfill its share of the military preservation of the free world. NATO and a common EU defense are complimentary, sometimes supplementary. Not mutually exclusive competitors.


Four further considerations:

- Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are not NATO members, but are members of the EU. (Combined, that's the population and GDP of Canada). Their integration into a synchronised Western alliance could be aided by the EU.

- The EU has already taken over from NATO in the Balkans. This happened after the British and Americans left for Iraq. The EU filled the void.

- A European defense policy means Europe is less dependent on the US.
Strangely, both the pro-American and the anti-American, both the conservative American or the pinko-Eurogaymarxist, would support this. The first, because EU is no longer taken a free ride, the second, because Europe no longer needs to sit up and jump when Washington so requires.

- The world is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan. The EU has, and has had, many foreign military missions. For example, in Chad.*
Missions like these, incidentally, are where all those French troops that are not in Afghanistan are. Not a Briton or American in sight here - they are at home, gnashing their teeth over the French who refuse to send as many troops to Afghanistan as they do, kept blissfully oblivious by their Daily Outragograph of the fact that France has as many troops in international missions as Britain.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR_Tchad/RCA

Note, besides France suppying half the troops, how for example non-NATO member Ireland has a large force present, and to a lesser extent, Sweden and Austria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Where does that even come from?

---

Past experience of European willingness to fight, continual cutbacks in terms of equipment and spending, and opinion. The armies won't just merge into one big whole, they will be cut and trimmed down to size. I can't see them being much larger than Europe's current largest European power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Past experience of European willingness to fight, continual cutbacks in terms of equipment and spending, and opinion. The armies won't just merge into one big whole, they will be cut and trimmed down to size. I can't see them being much larger than Europe's current largest European power.

---

Synchronisation is a cost-cutting mechanism indeed. But, the idea is: more efficiency, so more bang for our bucks.

Must Europe have 27 airforce headquarters? 27 different military attachés in Brazil? Five, or three or one, are less expensive. Get rid of the pencil pushers, and use the money for actual defense. Either by maintaining current defense levels, in which case defense capability goes up, or by maintaining current capability, in which case expenditure goes down.


More defense for our money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro..._Forces_Europe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it. Once United Europe ended (amicably) the NATO alliance, we'd be able to get back to letting the marines guard the embassies and be done. We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts.

---

that is precisely why the US is so keen on a more federal europe with a common foreign policy and unified army command, so that they have a real partner in the 21st century as US hegemony declines.

and it's why they want the UK inside the federal entity so bad, so that it maintains a pro-us theme in its governing organs.

Britain becomes a 3.5 party system - the rise of none-of-the-above:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/no...t-to-vote-for/

Quote:

---

Beware of opinion polls. Millions of people can't find a party they want to vote for

It looks as though I rattled a few of the bars on several cages yesterday, so I ought to say a bit more about the BNP. (I’ll come to UKIP another day – and my own party and New Labour, too.)

John Denham, the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities (another bit of PC mumbo-jumbo) must have been reading what you have been writing here on this blog. The Government really is running scared of losing seats not so much to the BNP, but because of the BNP, to other parties.

They need not have have waited this long to wake up to the problem. When I condemned multiculturalism back in 1997, the modernisers tried to get me expelled from the Conservative Party. When Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said much the same sort of thing in 2006, Ken Livingstone advised him to join the BNP.

More recently still, when I interviewed Trevor Phillips for The House Magazine in January last year he told me that whilst he thought that discrimination against women, the elderly and disabled, not to mention “ethnic and sexual hate crime” were still serious issues, he was more worried about “the big and growing problem of people stuck at the bottom of society … and that is not to do with race”.

I do not think it did Trevor Phillips much good in the race relations industry to say such things, least of all to me, and he has had to put up with a lot of sniping from his “friends” since then.

However, whether it is because of me, Trevor Phillips, or the BNP, I am glad that even this Government is becoming aware of the plight of poor white kids denied decent schools, and of the fact some ethnic minorites (such as the Chinese and Ugandan Asians) seem not to be held back by “racism”. We should all cheer at the sight of a sinner stumbling towards repentance, even if not virtue.

I thought that, as we are going to have one before very long, I might offer a morsel or two of food for thought about elections.

Beware of the published polls telling us that the Conservatives are running at about 40 per cent, Labour at 30, Lib Dems at 18 and 12 for the rest. There is another big party out there called “None of the Above”.

So here are some figures. The electorate in 1979 was 41.1 million. In 2005 it was 44.1 million. On a very good day for Labour they made 13.9 million votes (in 1951, when the electorate was only 34.6 million). Well, it wasn’t altogether a good day – they lost.

On a very good day for the Tories they made 14.1 million in 1992. The Lib Dems managed 6.0 million in 1992 and in 2005. Margaret Thatcher won in 1979 with 13.7 million. After eight years she won a third time with 13.8 million.

Tony Blair won in 1997 with 13.5 million. After eight years he won again with 9.5 million. You have to go back to the 1920s to find a government being elected on less than that. Even when they lost in 1992, Labour polled 11.6 million. But it only took Tony Blair eight years to turn 4.0 million Labour supporters off voting.

So who on earth would want to be “the heir to Blair”? The Tories, by the way, polled 9.6 million in 1997, 8.4 million 2001 and 8.8 million in 2005.

So where did all those Tory and Labour votes go? Nowhere. They belong to people some of whom have died, but mostly to people who cannot find a party which represents their views, and people who don’t think it would make much difference who won the election.

I find that worrying, don’t you?

---

this is what happens when democracy ceases to be representative, as much is the word is derided as an irrelevance in european governance these days, it is mainstream politics that will be the victim of its own callous indifference to the voters!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and another £35m budget cut for Defence:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...efence-budget/

thanks McCavity!

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

Hint: The world is not a static place

So we could expect an invasion tomorrow?

Do you expect cancer tomorrow?

I don't take chemo today...

West has the threat of Russia and China, however, our Nuclear arsenal is basically the same as Chemo and Radiation therapy to kill a Cancer. Damage the body severely to get rid of the little problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

---

do eastern countries have a greater justification for possessing an army that i wasn't aware of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Why do Western Countries even have an army

---

Because eastern countries have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

---

You only say that because we have them, if we didn't we would be invaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

do eastern countries have a greater justification for possessing an army that i wasn't aware of?

---

Eastern countries tend to be a little more unstable and the situation in, for example, the Causasus and Iran isn't exactly the same as here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You only say that because we have them, if we didn't we would be invaded.

---

By who? Evil belgium? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Eastern countries tend to be a little more unstable and the situation in, for example, the Causasus and Iran isn't exactly the same as here...



By who? Evil belgium? :laugh4:

---

Russia would be my favoured pick, actually. I'm not saying it would happen tomorrow, it probably wouldn't, but it would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Russia would be my favoured pick, actually. I'm not saying it would happen tomorrow, it probably wouldn't, but it would happen.

---

Philipus, the cold war is over :juggle2:
Just in case you forgot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Philipus, the cold war is over :juggle2:
Just in case you forgot...

---

There was no Russia in the cold war, just in case you forgot.