The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Louis VI the Fat]

This seems like a fine summary of the IPPR report:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Context

There is no doubt that a defence review is well overdue and the recent announcement by the MoD that one will take place is welcome news. Whether it reports before the next general election is of course another point, any incoming Conservative government will have their own ideas. The IPPR report is not to be scoffed at because of the breadth and depth of it’s analysis. Many commentators have chosen to characterise it as left wing rubbish produced by a pet New Labour think tank. This is to do the report a disservice; it deserves some consideration even if one might not agree with its conclusions.
The report summary is split into 4 parts, a set of observations on the current security environment, a statement of principles that should underpin the UK’s response to this environment, a summary of conclusions and finally a list of its 109 recommendations.
Observations

Without seeking to repeat verbatim what the report states (go and read it yourself) they are summarise here;

• The process of globalisation and power diffusion continues
• Unstable and fragile states are growing in number and outnumber stables ones by 2 to 1
• Climate change, poverty and inequality are exacerbating the problem of instability
• Transnational criminal networks continue to expand
• A globalised neo-jihadist ideology has emerged
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons continues
• Rapid advances in information and biotechnologies have created new dependencies and vulnerabilities
• Humanity is exposed to a greater risk of pandemic
• Critical infrastructure is increasingly fragile and in private hands
• The position of the US is changing
• Individual EU nations continue to decline
• Spending constraints on security will continue and worsen

These all paint a fairly bleak picture but the report is at pains to offer some optimism and steers away from the ‘we’re all doomed’ position. It is hard to disagree with any of these observations; they apply equally to the UK and many other nations.
Principles

Underpinning the IPPR’s recommendations are 9 key principles, these being;

• The objective of national security is to protect the UK population from the full spectrum of risks
• These risks must have a wide definition including man-made and natural
• British sovereignty must be exercised responsibly
• Increases in multilateral cooperation is needed
• Extensive partnerships between the public and private sector must feature in security policy
• Demonstrating and establishing the legitimacy of state action is a strategic imperative
• A commitment to building national resilience is an integral element of national security
• A range of flexible national capabilities, both civil and military, should be forged into a cohesive whole

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...ur-response-1/

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Louis,if you don’t, go to Libé blog “Secret Défence”.
Make me crazy…

In fact it is the same than England. The Right pretends to be patriotic and to keep the Army in order when de facto destroying what the Left built previously…

Yes, it is clear where I get my inspiration from.

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.



Also: (Franglais alarm! 'Defence' or 'défense'. Franglais mixtures will spell the end of French. )
More importantly, I note that Jean-Dominique Merchet is almost 51 years old, franc-comtois, and blogs about military matters.

c toi!! It is you, isn't it, mon pote?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Also: (Franglais alarm! 'Defence' or 'défense'. Franglais mixtures will spell the end of French. )

I would prefer we went back to the original nomenclature -- war department. Defense is something you do just long enough to ready a knockout counter-punch.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would prefer we went back to the original nomenclature -- war department. Defense is something you do just long enough to ready a knockout counter-punch.

It is a weird euphemism, isn't it?

Then again, considering it is 2010, one wonders if it isn't a misleading euphemism nowadays to still speak of departments of 'education'.




Edit: ffs, try to avoid glaring spelling mistakes Louis, when lampooning declining educational standards.

[Furunculus]

This seems like a fine summary of the IPPR report:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...ur-response-1/

you quote some bullet points from their introduction, how about you try these on for size:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/0...ur-response-3/

13. The future defence investment programme should pursue greater UK defence capability specialisation within the context of a deepening of European defence integration and the wider NATO alliance of which we are apart. We need a focus on command and control assets, tactical ground-air support, heavy lift aircraft, cyber warfare capability, and special-forces. We also need to emphasise high quality Service personnel training and an increase in overall service numbers.

We absolutely refute the recommendation that the UK should deepen European defence integration. Given the recent farcical EU mission to Dharfur and ongoing ‘commitment issues’ in Afghanistan our EU partners are simply too unreliable and any further integration would be beset with the same old national priorities and self interest that are the current realities. Whilst one should be under no illusions about our position in the transatlantic ‘special relationship’ we must recognise that the US, NATO and even the Commonwealth represent the future of our security. The EU is simply unable to commit to any operation where there is any serious opposition and we need to be realistic. The selection of capabilities that we need to concentrate on also seem rather ill thought through and arbitrary, lacking any real insight or recognition of where our EU partners might take up the slack in the areas we neglect. The desire to concentrate on high quality training and an increase in overall numbers is sensible.

15. The Government should thoroughly re-examine, as part of a Strategic Review of Security, its projected defence equipment requirements. This re-examination should explore all viable options for capability downgrading and quantity reductions, as well as for complete cancellation of some equipment programmes. For illustrative rather than comprehensive purposes, we suggest that programmes such as the Future Carrier, the Joint Strike Fighter, and purchases of Type 45 Destroyers and of Astute class submarines should be in the frame.

No programme or capability should be off limits in any review but the recommendation here is to trade off so called high end assets in favour of the unconventional capabilities discussed elsewhere, for example special-forces or close air support. Although only mentioned for illustrative purposes those in the frame would seem to centre on the maritime domain, these would not be easy choices. Without, for example, the Type 45 destroyers, any amphibious or maritime task group would be completely vulnerable to air and missile attack.

17. The future of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent should be considered as an integral part of the recommended Strategic Review of Security. This should consider:

Whether, as the Commission believes is the case, a minimum UK deterrent is still needed

* The best and most cost-effective way to provide it, including consideration of whether we should replace the Trident system, as is currently planned, seek to extend the life of the current system further or decide that some other system for providing Britain’s deterrent in a nuclear armed world would be better suited to the strategic circumstances in which we then find ourselves
* The opportunity costs of maintaining our deterrent, in all its possible forms, for other sectors of the UK defence and security budget. This must take into account the costs that would be involved in decommissioning Trident and its facilities.

We also believe the UK nuclear capability is intimately tied into our security and status as a nation and in these matters perception IS reality. We must not be perceived, in the growing uncertainty and proliferation in the next 50 years, as going weak on our ultimate means of security. There may be more economic means of wielding the system but whatever means chosen, it must be credible, effective, instantly deployable and survivable. These factors point to a submarine launched system, i.e. Trident or its replacement.

wrap your laughing tackle around that oh expert on UK strategic thought. try reading the RUSI report instead, written by a real strategic think tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_U...ices_Institute

[Boohugh]

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.

If this were really true, why has the Labour government dithered so much over our 2 new aircraft carriers, cancelled some of our new submarines and destroyers and made absolutely no progress over the Future Surface Combatant (replacement for our Type 22 and 23 frigates) and our nuclear deterrent?

All it has achieved is increase the long term costs of all these projects, created uncertainty in the defence industry and put British jobs at risk as companies don't know what expertise they need to keep, if any! Most of the current UK fleet was ordered under the Conservative government, so I don't quite understand how you come to the conclusion Labour has been the one propping up our defence industry.

Just because Labour has increased spending, does not mean they have put that money to good use! As seems to be the case with all the other departments, much of the increase in government spending appears to have just been lost in bureaucracy rather than usefully spent. If you believe Labour, then the defence budget wasn't used for operations (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) but rather they were paid wholly from the contingency fund, as is normal - if this is the case then what has all this extra money you claim has been spent on defence gone? You can't really count the extra money provided from the contingency fund as extra defence spending as it is only designed to pay for the extra costs incurred due to operations, i.e. it provides no additional investment. If you don't believe Labour, then they have been skimming the defence budget to pay for operations (and lied about it), in which case they have been shortchanging the armed forces and forcing them to survive on an smaller budget than before whilst being more operationally committed. Neither scenario can really be described as caring for the armed forces.

[Beskar]

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

you mean always having an answer? yes, on defence, that about sums it up.

[al Roumi]

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus...

[Furunculus]

Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus...

i willing to accept the good with the bad?

[Brenus]

What really puzzle me is why the English still accept to have a Chamber of the LORDS and a Chamber of Common…

[rvg]

Gotta have somebody to look after the interests of the aristocracy.

[Boohugh]

Ironically I recently bought all the Yes, Minister series on DVD and have been watching them over the last few days. It's amazing how much still seems to hold true! The latest episode I watched (the first with Hacker as PM) even has the head of the army slagging off the navy and RAF...I guess politics really doesn't change all that much

[InsaneApache]

I reckon the BNP would increase war defence spending.

It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?

Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility. You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.

New Labour. New Britain.

[al Roumi]

It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?

It's what you might call a global recession. Thought you might have heard of that, even in the dales.

Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility.

Show me the stats please.

You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.

So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.

Quite, to assume your country is in terminal decline is, basically, to give up.

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.

"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.

So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.

The fact is, we spend less than half the percentage of our national wealth on defence than we did 20 years ago, so we can almost certainly afford to spend more (as a percentage of GDP) over the next 20 years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.

So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.

I am afraid this is not correct. By all measures defense spending has increased since 1998, Labour's first full year in power.

Disregarding inflation, Labour has increased defense spending by fifty percent. This is not the most relevant figure. Better is a measure by constant 2009 pounds, that is, corrected for inflation. By this measure, Labour has increased defense spending by about 25%.

This enormous increase, incidentally, is almost singular within Europe. In stark contrast to the next three biggest European defense spenders, whose defense spending saw in this period a far smaller increase (France), or even a decrease (Germany, Italy).
In Western Europe, only Spain and Finland have seen a similarly large increase in defense spending. Spain, because of its long awakening from its dictatorship, and Finland because of the end of Finlandisation and the need to project neutrality.


Defense spending as a percentage of GDP has mostly been stabilised under Labour. Under Thatcher (especially after 1985) and Major, defense spending as percentage of GDP was severly slashed. Halved.
Labour put an end to these endless defense spending cuts.


Don't take my word for it! Use sources:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- Defence-total
1980 230.8 13.5
1981 253.154 14.6
1982 277.198 16.7
1983 302.973 16.2
1984 324.633 17.4
1985 355.269 19.1
1986 381.782 20.1
1987 421.559 20.4
1988 470.748 20.9
1989 517.075 21.5
1990 560.887 23.3
1991 589.739 24.4
1992 614.776 26.0
1993 645.5 26.3
1994 684.067 26.3
1995 723.08 25.6
1996 768.905 24.9
1997 815.881 25.2
1998 865.71 24.5
1999 911.945 26.7
2000 958.931 27.7
2001 1003.3 28.8
2002 1055.79 29.0
2003 1118.24 29.9
2004 1184.3 32.3
2005 1233.98 33.5
2006 1303.92 35.0
2007 1343.75 36.3
2008 1419.55 38.1
2009 1439 41.9
2010 1411 43.5

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- (2000) Defence-total
1980 630.963 36.9
1981 621.78 35.8
1982 633.662 38.2
1983 655.979 35.1
1984 672.787 36.1
1985 696.582 37.4
1986 724.263 38.1
1987 757.452 36.7
1988 795.317 35.3
1989 812.725 33.8
1990 819.007 34.0
1991 807.814 33.4
1992 809.54 34.2
1993 827.886 33.7
1994 863.623 33.2
1995 889.041 31.4
1996 913.8 29.6
1997 942.154 29.1
1998 973.748 27.5
1999 1003.37 29.4
2000 1041.52 30.0
2001 1066.22 30.6
2002 1088.11 29.9
2003 1118.24 29.9
2004 1154.68 31.4
2005 1175.92 31.9
2006 1210.29 32.5
2007 1247.28 33.7
2008 1256.64 33.7
2009 1212.66 35.3
2010 1227.82 37.8

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- Defence-total
1980 230.8 5.85
1981 253.154 5.76
1982 277.198 6.04
1983 302.973 5.35
1984 324.633 5.36
1985 355.269 5.38
1986 381.782 5.26
1987 421.559 4.84
1988 470.748 4.44
1989 517.075 4.16
1990 560.887 4.15
1991 589.739 4.14
1992 614.776 4.23
1993 645.5 4.07
1994 684.067 3.84
1995 723.08 3.54
1996 768.905 3.24
1997 815.881 3.09
1998 865.71 2.83
1999 911.945 2.93
2000 958.931 2.88
2001 1003.3 2.87
2002 1055.79 2.75
2003 1118.24 2.67
2004 1184.3 2.72
2005 1233.98 2.71
2006 1303.92 2.68
2007 1343.75 2.70
2008 1419.55 2.68
2009 1439 2.91
2010 1411 3.08

What do these numbers mean? The most acutely relevant measure is defense as percentage of GDP:

Thatcher came in power in 1979:
1980 230.8 5.85

Major came in power in 1990:
1991 589.739 4.14

Blair came in power in 1997:
1998 865.71 2.83

It is now 2010:
2010 1411 3.08

Two things are striking:
- The defense cuts happened under the Conservatives, whereas Labour stabilised defense spending.
- The last two Conservative PMs halved British defense spending. The vast majority of this outerworldly decrease happened before the fall of the wall, rubbishing the Tories' perennial excuse.



I think somebody in this thread said it earlier: Labour hates the military, but increases its funding. The Conservatives profes to love the military, but cut back its funding.


Don't blame me, blame the numbers.