I’d really appreciate it if somebody could reconcile information like this with data doing the rounds (I’m sure commentators here have linked to it before) showing that real government spending is budgeted to hardly fall at all over the coming years.

Something doesn’t add up and I’d like to know what it is.

(ah – found it – here is an example of what I am talking about.

The 2% inflation assumption might be thought generous…though as public sector inflation will I assume mostly be wage inflation perhaps that’s not so unreasonable given the (semi) freeze?

I see that with respect to the “strategic” defence review, it is anything but strategic! It follows the usual pattern of bodged defence reviews ever since 1945 of setting out unsustainable commitments, then initially refusing to fund them adequately, followed by cheese-paring when it actually comes to spending.

The result (hardly surprisingly) is a total shambles, underfunded and ill-thought out force structures which haven’t got a hope of sustaining the much vaunted strategic objectives.

If you want to have 2 carriers with fast jet capability, for pity’s sake do it properly. as it stands we have the worst of both worlds. If it weren’t so predictable it would be almost funny.

Unless military force is your preferred means of conducting foreign policy I’m not sure cuts to the military budget are a bad thing.

Blair did much to reposition Labour as the Last Bastion of Empire but there’s no reason the real left should follow him.

3 – Galen

We can’t afford to equip and maintain two carrier battle groups.

Neither can we afford to cancel one of the carriers, as those nice people in the MoD have made it more expensive to cancel one, than build two.

You’re right about defence procurement. A national disgrace. I doubt there is a single government department more consistently wasteful of taxpayers money than the MoD.

Luis -

“I’d really appreciate it if somebody could reconcile information like this with data doing the rounds (I’m sure commentators here have linked to it before) showing that real government spending is budgeted to hardly fall at all over the coming years.

Something doesn’t add up and I’d like to know what it is.”

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/10/five-reasons-why-redwood-is-wrong/

I still share some of your confusion though; I’d be curious to hear just what figures people are using when they talk about 20% cuts to this, or £83bn cuts to that.

4

I didn’t say they are my preferred means, but they are often necessary, even if only as a last resort. I’m not even saying defence expenditure shouldn’t be reduced if it’s done sensibly.

What I am saying is that the amount you spend should be based on a realistic assessment of the goals and objectives you expect your forces to have to attain. The problem in many past defence reviews, and it would appear to me in this one, is that we don’t do that.

The coalition has identified the strategic threats to our national interests, and then cravenly refused to allocate the funds necessary to support them. they won’t be the first to do it, and probably not the last.

I’m not sure I agree with your analysis of what Blair did; it may have been many things but I doubt it had anything to do with trying to reposition Labour (or the UK) as the last bastion of Empire.

5

Yeah, we really can afford it; it’s just a matter of how you slice the salami, and what relative importance you attach to the various different roles you expect our armed forces to play, the cost of the armaments systems and support / infrastructure which needs to be put in place to allow the systems to work, and to carry out the strategic objectives.

It would make much more sense to concentrate efforts on providing 2 effective carrier battle groups, properly funded, than to spend money on things like Trident, bases in Germany, main battle tanks for a Cold War in Northern Europe nobody thinks will happen etc., etc.

Our armed forces need to be smaller, more agile, better organised, have more efficient procurement processes, and be a lot more teeth and a lot less tail. There are ways this can be done….sadly this “strategic” defence review won’t achieve it.

Have I read the title of this article wrongly – Tory cuts ? Oh well that’s one way of excusing the last 13 years of Labour administration I suppose !!

To date, I’ve never met a politician that has wanted to make cuts. Not good for votes etc..etc…

Poor article, looks like ‘political double speak’ to the public and we’re all aware of what the public think of politicians !

@ 9

Are you seriously suggesting that calling cuts made by Tories “Tory cuts” is doublespeak?

9

Why is it a poor article simply by virtue of the strap line?

The cuts ARE being carried out by the Tories and their LD’s partners, because they are the government. I think you can credit most people with enough intelligence to know that Labour or New Labour, would have been doing much the same if with slightly different arrangement of the deck chairs.

Attributing all of the blame for the current situation to New Labour (much as I hated them) simply makes you as guilty of double-speak as you claimed the OP to be doesn’t it?

There is a legitimate case to be made for analysing the Tory cuts on their merits and discussing whether the decisions they have taken are better or worse than those Labour would have imposed, or indeed if there are better alternatives altogether pace the posts above about defence spending.

thanks G.O.

@9

To date, I’ve never met a politician that has wanted to make cuts. Not good for votes etc..etc…

Really? Plenty of politicians [particularly on the right of the conservative party] have always wanted to make certain cuts – to welfare, to state education, to quangos, to public transport – and now they have a seemingly perfect excuse (go & read The Shock Doctrine for how this tactic is not unique to Britain by any means – Naomi Klein explains how governments and corporations the world over have been using natural or man-made disasters as cover to inforce extreme conservative policies since the ’70s at least). These cuts are ideological (otherwise why not cut Trident? Why not raise tax on the super-rich? Why have a tax-avoider (Philip Green) advising the government? Why does Murdoch still not pay any tax in the UK? Why talk constantly about benefit cheats and say barely a whisper about tax cheats (who lose us at least 30 X more billions per year)?) and to pretend otherwise is farcical.
What’s staggering is that the LDs are providing succour to this nastiest of Tory governments.

It would make much more sense to concentrate efforts on providing 2 effective carrier battle groups, properly funded, than to spend money on things like Trident, bases in Germany, main battle tanks for a Cold War in Northern Europe nobody thinks will happen etc., etc.

If reports on the Defence Review are correct, the Trident decision has been deferred, the bases in Germany have been dramatically cut back, to the point where any further cuts would be counter-productive (because troops would have to be trained in Canada), the Army’s main battle tank force is being reduced by more than half. All the ‘obvious’ cuts are being made.

There is a strong argument that the decision-making process behind the ordering of the carriers (punitive break clauses, no provision for carrier-borne fighters, designed to be incompatible with allied forces etc) shold be reviewed, as clearly bad mistakes were made by the forces and by Government. It is absurd that it was contractually more expensive to cancel one of the carriers than to build both.

14 Tim J

Whilst there are indeed encouraging signs that some of the right decisions are being made in some areas (tho arguably even these are kinda late in the day), I suppose my main point is the apparent “disconnect” between the setting of overall strategic priorities, and then financing the correct force levels to carry these out. It is in this area I see a worrying lack of progress.

Trident in particular needs to be abandoned: hopefully even the Tories ought to be able to figure that out given current economic conditions. Trying to retain a sub based ICBM deterrent will cripple future defence budgets.

You are right about the procurement processes, particularly vis a vis the carriers: the political will should have been found to ensure these were built to be compatible with the French as originally envisaged.

Again, my main point here is that if we are going to have these 2 carriers, let’s not do it at half cock; we might as well fund them properly, ensure they are in service together, fast jet capable, and that there is no “gap” between the Harrier force going out of service and the JSF coming in. The bodged solution dreamt up by the Tories on this is a disgrace; they might as well just bite the bullet and cancel the whole programme now – better to write off what has already been spent than carry on with a result which will be the worst of both worlds.

Trident in particular needs to be abandoned: hopefully even the Tories ought to be able to figure that out given current economic conditions. Trying to retain a sub based ICBM deterrent will cripple future defence budgets.

Trident has traditionally not come out of the defence budget – there were rumours that this was to change, but nothing confirmed yet.

The bodged solution dreamt up by the Tories on this is a disgrace; they might as well just bite the bullet and cancel the whole programme now – better to write off what has already been spent than carry on with a result which will be the worst of both worlds.

That would actually cost more than going ahead. Heads are going to have to roll over this – both the contract negotiations and the incompatibility of the carriers with any available aircraft.

16

“Trident has traditionally not come out of the defence budget – there were rumours that this was to change, but nothing confirmed yet.”

Irrespective of where the budget comes from, the money should be allocated elsewhere. I’m sure the armed services would much prefer the money (even if only part of it) to be spent on conventional forces, equipment, decent housing and pay for personnel etc.

“That would actually cost more than going ahead. Heads are going to have to roll over this – both the contract negotiations and the incompatibility of the carriers with any available aircraft.”

I agree it’s a disgrace, but contracts are capable of being re-written with the consent of the parties. I’d imagine that most of the defence contractors might be made to see reason if the government points out that future business might depend on their willingness to renegotiate; I hear that a similar “gun to head” scenario has been mooted by government WRT long term outsourcing contracts for major IT contracts.

Trident is the obvious cut. Hague’s suggestion that we need a nuclear capability in case there are nuclear-equipped baddies in the distant future is just daft when we are facing huge cuts in so many other areas today. He’s not honest enough to admit that Trident keeps us at the Top Table and that’s why they want to keep it.

Modern asymmetrical warfare renders nukes obsolete. Imagine Ahmadinajad had a nuke and gave it to a terrorist group who used it to attack us. Are we seriously going to retaliate against Iran with Trident? Wouldn’t we be better having aircraft carriers from which to locate and attack the responsible parties conventionally?

The housing proposals are horrific and should get more attention.