Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

I find it rich that the Tory supporters, and especially those who seemingly have a military background, will not admit that this Gvmt are clueless in what they are doing and are hitting far too deeply and far too quickly.

The defence policy announced today, and I am in Portsmouth at the moment listening to locals absolutely ripping into the Tory part of the Gvmt, is wrong on so many counts its unreal. The spending review is far too heavy and will knock back any sort of recovery this country was going through.

[C4rvillan]

I'm not saying that they are automatically right Trent, I just think it is too early to call people incompetent when they are trying to right the wrongs of a previous incompetent government.

The wrongs of the previous government (and there were plenty) have nothing to do with ability of those trying to put things right or their suitability to do so.

You clearly don't understand. What I am saying is that it is too early to call them incompetent as they haven't been in office for a sufficient amount of time to be labelled as 'incompetent'. If in a couple of years time there has been no improvement then fine.

Believe me, as a Tory supporter, I will criticise this government if they come across as incompetent.

[Ads]

I find it rich that the Tory supporters, and especially those who seemingly have a military background, will not admit that this Gvmt are clueless in what they are doing and are hitting far too deeply and far too quickly.

The defence policy announced today, and I am in Portsmouth at the moment listening to locals absolutely ripping into the Tory part of the Gvmt, is wrong on so many counts its unreal. The spending review is far too heavy and will knock back any sort of recovery this country was going through.

See my above post. While some of the specifics might be new, such as dropping the MRA4, the generally policy is consistent with what has occurred with Defence since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Governments and the Treasury Departments of any colour have been systematically downgrading and in other places, destroying the capability of our armed forces.

[C4rvillan]

I find it rich that the Tory supporters, and especially those who seemingly have a military background, will not admit that this Gvmt are clueless in what they are doing and are hitting far too deeply and far too quickly.

The defence policy announced today, and I am in Portsmouth at the moment listening to locals absolutely ripping into the Tory part of the Gvmt, is wrong on so many counts its unreal. The spending review is far too heavy and will knock back any sort of recovery this country was going through.

So if you are running out of money, you would find another loan at a ridiculous amount of interest and for a longer period to consolidate or do you cut short what you are spending to pay of the original loan amount ion the time given?

I think most people would choose the latter because you would get seriously **** choosing the former!

[TrentVilla]

Everyone knows cuts were needed but what is happening at the moment appears to many to be counter productive, excessive, ill thought through, in some cases ideologically based and harmful to the economic recovery of the country not to mention as of today our military capability.

I find it rich for you as a Labour supporter to be de-crying what the Government has done with regards to Defence considering the previous thirteen years of administration. What has happened today is the inevitable result of nearly twenty years of poor management and poor spending by successive Governments and largely due to the Treasury and it not having the first clue about Defence.

Its really not about party politics I just don't agree with the decisions being made just the same as I didn't agree with some of the decisions made on this subject by the previous government.

[drat01]

You clearly don't understand. What I am saying is that it is too early to call them incompetent as they haven't been in office for a sufficient amount of time to be labelled as 'incompetent'. If in a couple of years time there has been no improvement then fine.

So if you are saying they have not been in charge for enough time, how can they then say that the massive cuts that they are inflicting are correct? Surely its about understanding the problems and treating them over a period of time. You don't remove a leg because you have snapped your Achilles, you take the time and allow it to heal.

No doubt we will see deflection and blame for the public sector and benefit claimants coming next.

Why wont this Gvmt realise that the economy needs to be looked after and not kicked?

[TrentVilla]

You clearly don't understand. What I am saying is that it is too early to call them incompetent as they haven't been in office for a sufficient amount of time to be labelled as 'incompetent'. If in a couple of years time there has been no improvement then fine.

Believe me, as a Tory supporter, I will criticise this government if they come across as incompetent.

I totally understand what you are saying and what you previously have said which is why I posted what I posted. You raised the previous government in relation to the judgements being cast on the current one so you shouldn't be surprised when that is challenged.

Have they been in power long enough to be judged? No clearly not but it doesn't mean people can't have opinions and the opinion of many people seems to be that Osbourne isn't up to the job with which he is tasked.

You don't have to agree but you can't dismiss opinions that are different to yours simply on the grounds that he is trying to put things right that he inherited.

[Ads]

Everyone knows cuts were needed but what is happening at the moment appears to many to be counter productive, excessive, ill thought through, in some cases ideologically based and harmful to the economic recovery of the country not to mention as of today our military capability.

I find it rich for you as a Labour supporter to be de-crying what the Government has done with regards to Defence considering the previous thirteen years of administration. What has happened today is the inevitable result of nearly twenty years of poor management and poor spending by successive Governments and largely due to the Treasury and it not having the first clue about Defence.

Its really not about party politics I just don't agree with the decisions being made just the same as I didn't agree with some of the decisions made on this subject by the previous government.

Well fair enough, sometimes its hard to extrapolate opinions from party support. While I personally think the cuts are necessary and what the Government will end up doing will prove to be the correct decision, I am thoroughly depressed by what was cut from the Defence budget.

Some of the thinking and planning defies logic. It’s like a repeat of the 1960’s and still the Government cannot see beyond the end of their nose.

[blandy]

Whether someone is a Labour supporter or not has no bearing on the performance of the current lot.

Harrier, as said above is basically knackered, so cutting them makes sense from that perspective.

For me trident makes no sense to renew it. Postponing the decision is half a step on the right road.

The carriers, they were tied in to going ahead, because of the way the contract was set up, but the decision as it is doesn't add up - carriers with no aircraft other than Helicopters are of limited use, and are not cost effective, perhaps. The legacy the current gov't has inherited sort of left them with that problem - decisions delayed and delayed and costs increased because of MoD delaying the programme so it costs more over longer, but less per year.

The Nimrod decision must have been a late one, because it's caught the Nimrod team by surprise - Industry knew what was going to be in the outcome, apart from that. The RAF Nimrod people think they've been made a sacrificial lamb, because they're not as glamourous as fast jets.

The overall outcome is a big mess, though there's also some good in there - stuff about counter cyber terrorism getting resources, and plans for more UAVs, for example

[TrentVilla]

[You don't remove a leg because you have snapped your Achilles, you take the time and allow it to heal.

Did you have to bring that up?

[drat01]

So if you are running out of money, you would find another loan at a ridiculous amount of interest and for a longer period to consolidate or do you cut short what you are spending to pay of the original loan amount ion the time given?

I think most people would choose the latter because you would get seriously **** choosing the former!

You are contradicting your stance trying to support the Tory Gvmt. The defence cuts today are actually wasting money.

Also to use your stance, if after you have paid off this loan to do that you have no further way to get money where does that leave you? This Gvmt are praying for a lottery win and hoping that after they think, and that is still the point they think, they will have cleared any sort of deficit, what will that leave us for any sort of prosperity.

There are a lot of unhappy people tonight around the UK, tomorrow there will be a lot more. Maybe the realisation that what this Gvmt is doing is now becoming a reality

[drat01]

[You don't remove a leg because you have snapped your Achilles, you take the time and allow it to heal.

Did you have to bring that up?

As we had both "suffered" that injury I thought it was apt :-)

[Ads]

The lack of any fixed wing aircraft on the carriers is ridiculous, but that line of thinking goes back to retiring the FA2 after the Blue-Vixen upgrade. In fairness to both Labour and the current Government, the DoD is making a right pigs ear of the F-35 programme, but even so the state of the Navy is catastrophic. With no fixed wing aircraft and only 19 escorts it seems that we’re retiring from the world stage.

[peterms]

An interesting article here, and an alternative to the "there is no alternative" nonsense.

Time to broaden the debate on spending cuts

Forget calendar targets for slashing the deficit. We need a long-term growth strategy and redefinition of the welfare state

Ha-Joon Chang

Ahead of the spending review, some people are praising George Osborne's political courage for sticking to his original plan. God help Britain. If you have a wrong plan, the best thing to do is to abandon or modify it. Misguided courage can only magnify a disaster. If you are in doubt, just think about the first world war.

The opposition is right to demand smaller and slower cuts. However, even their arguments do not go far enough.

The first problem with the current debate is the assumption that cuts should be made according to a clear timetable. Very different timetables are proposed – the government wanting to virtually eliminate the deficit by 2015 and Labour wanting it only to be halved by 2014 – but both the government and the opposition are the same in defining their plans in terms of calendar dates.

This is economically illiterate. The appropriate level of budget deficit can only be decided according to the state of the economy. Of course, we may disagree on what the appropriate level may be for each situation, but any economically literate plan for spending cuts should specify the amounts of cut with reference to economic indicators – economic growth rate, unemployment rate, house prices, level of private sector investment, and so on – and not in terms of calendar dates, which has no economic meaning.

Second, in the current debate, there is far too little discussion on long-term growth strategy. One fundamental misdiagnosis – or perhaps a willful misrepresentation – of the current budget situation by the coalition is to argue that the deficit is mainly due to excessive welfare spending for "lifestyle" welfare recipients and greedy middle-class families.

But the bulk of the deficit is due to the fall in tax revenue and the rise in automatic welfare payments, such as unemployment benefit, due to economic downturn, rather than structural over-spending. Given this, in the medium to long run, the most effective way to reduce the deficit is to revive growth, which will increase tax revenue and reduce welfare payments, rather than cutting welfare entitlements.

The government position is that spending cuts themselves will generate growth by reviving private sector investments, especially if combined with deregulation and a nudge on the banks to lend to small businesses. But that is more wishful thinking than a credible plan to regenerate growth. When weak private sector activities are the very cause, not the result, of the deficit, cutting the deficit is not going to revive those activities.

In the British case, discussion of longer-term growth strategy has a particular urgency, as its engine of growth in the past few decades – the City – is going to slow down, with the forthcoming global tightening of financial regulation. Especially for the parts of the UK that have relied on government jobs funded by City taxes – Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and certain northern English regions – alternative sources of growth and jobs are even more urgently needed, as many of those jobs are going to disappear soon.

Last, but not least, there needs to be a more intelligent debate on the reform of the welfare state. Using the alleged need to dramatically cut deficits as an excuse, the coalition is embarking on a radical restructuring of the welfare state on the sly.

One may believe the welfare state should be completely restructured, but that conclusion should be reached on the basis of a thorough deliberation on underlying principles, rather than as an element of macroeconomic adjustment. For example, there should be a debate, rather than a unilateral declaration, on whether universal benefit (such as child benefit or winter fuel allowance) is unfair. There should also be a more serious discussion on why the British welfare state is so much less effective in returning unemployed workers to the labour market than are those of Scandinavian countries.

The coalition's spending cut plan not only risks killing off short-term recovery but is likely to weaken the British economy in the long run. However, the opposition parties' call for smaller and slower cuts is not enough. The debate needs to be extended to issues such as the long-term growth strategy and the redefinition of the welfare state.

[TrentVilla]

Well fair enough, sometimes its hard to extrapolate opinions from party support.

Agreed mate. I don't though blindly follow party dogma I can hand on heart say I judge each decision or policy on its individual merits now obviously on some subjects my view is shaped by my ideology but defence and military spending isn't one its more things like education.

While I personally think the cuts are necessary and what the Government will end up doing will prove to be the correct decision, I am thoroughly depressed by what was cut from the Defence budget.

Some of the thinking and planning defies logic. It’s like a repeat of the 1960’s and still the Government cannot see beyond the end of their nose.

No question cuts are needed I just don't agree with nature and size of the cuts as it would seem you don't either.

[blandy]

...it seems that we’re retiring from the world stage.

In some ways the idea of retiring from the world satge is a good thing. It's a shame that there's been no discussion of what the role of the UK should be. For example if the SDSR said "we're going to retire from a lead position ...etc.. and therefore we need only a couple of ships, a few planes and a small number of troops...." then people could look at it in that light, and have a view. What they've done though is hack away at stuff, claim to want to keep the expanded role, but implemented changes which will leave us short in areas we'd need even with no world role, and with strange combinations like no carriers for a decade, then carriers with choppers, then bin that 3 years later, then go for a carier with fats jets after that. If we need them in 10 years time, we need them now.

It's mad

[TrentVilla]

I agree Blandy, I lack your in depth knowledge on this subject but to me it just seems its a plan that lacks any planning, its simply a budget inspired cut not a defense review. If it was part of a real review and a change in policy it would make sense even if I didn't agree with it but what has been announced today even with my lack knowledge on this subject compared to others in this thread simply makes no sense at all.

[Ads]

...it seems that we’re retiring from the world stage.

In some ways the idea of retiring from the world satge is a good thing. It's a shame that there's been no discussion of what the role of the UK should be. For example if the SDSR said "we're going to retire from a lead position ...etc.. and therefore we need only a couple of ships, a few planes and a small number of troops...." then people could look at it in that light, and have a view. What they've done though is hack away at stuff, claim to want to keep the expanded role, but implemented changes which will leave us short in areas we'd need even with no world role, and with strange combinations like no carriers for a decade, then carriers with choppers, then bin that 3 years later, then go for a carier with fats jets after that. If we need them in 10 years time, we need them now.

It's mad

After reading the report it seems to me that they have announced that with the exception of Afghanistan, we’re out of the game until 2020 and even then the structure of the Navy will make any operations extremely stretched given the lack of platforms. The references to ops like Sierra Leon or Lebanon were numerous.

The Navy needs growing. I cannot get over who advised them on the carrier situation. Even in 2020 with the potential for a full complement of F-35’s, there will only be one carrier. It emphasises the cack-handed approach and also shows we’ve learnt nothing from the countless problems the French have had operating the CDG on its own. What happens when the Queen Elizabeth is in re-fit?!

[Chindie]

Moving slightly away from the military side of things (which is both at times laughble and shocking...aircraft carriers with no aircraft... :| ), given the slash and burn cut style we've been served up today, tomorrow is going to be absolutely diabolical.

[blandy]

An interesting article here, and an alternative to the "there is no alternative" nonsense.

Time to broaden the debate on spending cuts

Forget calendar targets for slashing the deficit. We need a long-term growth strategy and redefinition of the welfare state

Ha-Joon Chang

... the bulk of the deficit is due to the fall in tax revenue and the rise in automatic welfare payments, such as unemployment benefit, due to economic downturn, rather than structural over-spending. Given this, in the medium to long run, the most effective way to reduce the deficit is to revive growth, which will increase tax revenue and reduce welfare payments, rather than cutting welfare entitlements....

This is illogical - the writer proposes increasing structural (over) spending to remedy defecit problems. In other words to add to the defecit by over spending. Or to put it another way, to make things worse. As much as I agree that cutting is being done to a false timetable as is argued, ramping up spending doesn't look like the solution to me. Interest on the debt is 43 billion each year, and that's clearly unsustainable and takes money away from where it's needed. To increase that level of debt repayment is counter productive.

If money spent on unproductive things can be cut, if money can be got from areas of tax avoidance and "fat cats" then that should be gone for with much more intensity, so cut spending on things we can do without, or on areas where it's wasted, get more in via closing huge tax loopholes and focus gov't spending on things that will bring benefit in the future - infrastucture, environment, green areas, some areas of defence, education etc...

Instead already the Coalition has abandoned pledges on green issues, reversed other pledges on education related areas. They're shambling around, concentrating as much on ideology as on practically sorting out the mess caused by a world recession and banking lunacy, plus local UK issues caused by Labour