The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

“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?

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..................?

[Boohugh]

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.

[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?

[Furunculus]

“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]

[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.

[Subotan]

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

[Boohugh]

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!

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

[Furunculus]

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.

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!

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.

YESSSSSSSS

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?

[Subotan]

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

[Beskar]

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.

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

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:

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 ) a Dutchman. I'd even settle for a Walloon.

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

[Furunculus]

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 ) 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!"

[Furunculus]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Beskar]

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.