The charity sector is having a proper whinge about it

There is a lot of common sense in the paper but funnily enough, much of it is already happening

No extra cash though, remember Private Efficiency-Savings and General Do-More-With-Less will need to get on parade

Originally Posted by meridian

The charity sector is having a proper whinge about it

There is a lot of common sense in the paper but funnily enough, much of it is already happening

No extra cash though, remember Private Efficiency-Savings and General Do-More-With-Less will need to get on parade

The charity sector has been on a roll since Liabour took over and its time they were got a grip of. When I was a demining consultant to the european comission (just after Liarbour took over) I recommended that the NGO's funded by the EC to do demining should be accountable in the same way as any commercial organisation is. I had death threats from those yoghurt knitting twats who were too full of their own bullshit to realise that the supply of govt money is not endless. But at the same time, DFID (that dog ugly woman - and I use the term loosely, minister) told me that my views were incompatible with new liarbour policy. Which meant that she, and Liarbour were not interested in accountability.

So…


Is CMD proposing that the Defence Budget be set every 5 years by Parliament in the light of what the Gov expects the Armed Forces to do and then become a fixed budget, or will it still be the same old balls were the treasury raid the budget each year to pay for the latest Government handout splurge?

Originally Posted by meridian

Not seen this done on ARRSE but it is potentially crucial to the UK armed forces.

The Conservative Party launched their national security policy yesterday with a speech at Chatham House and the release of a document.

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Ne...nt_Nation.aspx



In full, David Cameron's speech

‘………….We’ve also got to think through much more carefully whether Britain should get involved in a foreign conflict, and if so, how to cope with the consequences. And then if we do intervene and send troops to fight in a foreign country, there should be a proper reconstruction force ready and waiting to deliver a stabilisation strategy as soon as the fighting stops…………

There’s not much point saying that the military need to be more closely involved in emergency planning if the police and fire services don’t know exactly how many soldiers they can count on when the time comes……….

Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party
15 January 2010
www.chathamhouse.org.uk

If it was not unfair to pigs, I would say Cameron is pig-ignorant and has no idea of the purposes of armed forces.

He says there must be greater thought on whether Britain should be involved in a foreign conflict. Dear God, that is arse about face. We must first decide why, where and how we are prepared to become involved in foreign conflicts, and HM Forces must be configured accordingly.

“Should” sounds all very fine from the comfort of Chatham House and Whitehall but it is merely hand wringingly wet if we can’t.

As for the Services acting in support of the police and the fire service et al, that is merely a by-product of having military forces in the first place. If they are not involved in military activities then they may as well be available to help the civil authorities as and when required.

However, if Cameron is suggesting this should be a major role then the Services will end up as little more than a gendarmerie. It is interesting to speculate as to why he made this point. Does he expect HM Forces to be deployed to suppress mass revolt and riots in the UK?

Finally, if having a “a proper reconstruction force ready and waiting to deliver a stabilisation strategy as soon as the fighting stops” is a condition of our becoming involved in the first place, then hell will freeze before that occurs. No way will the UK, nor even the US, be able to afford to have such a group on permanent standby for eventualities.

Originally Posted by Balleh

Finally, if having a “a proper reconstruction force ready and waiting to deliver a stabilisation strategy as soon as the fighting stops” is a condition of our becoming involved in the first place, then hell will freeze before that occurs. No way will the UK, nor even the US, be able to afford to have such a group on permanent standby for eventualities.

Well, arguably, we already have most of the bits required, do we not? RE Infrastructure Gp, RE tradesmen, 81 Sig Sqn, Med Sp, RMP and specialist Provo bits....the armed forces are admittedly weak on the social/economic end, and that's the gap I assume the deployed FCO/DfID bods are supposed to slot into.

In fact, on a closer reading, I don't see that we really *need* anything new - what we need are an "after-the-war" plan ready to go before things kick off, and civil service sp that's actually willing to have anything at all to do with the military in place. And in a nod to the "Britain is too risk-averse" thing, an acknowledgement that even if absolute security were possible, your reconstruction package will have to begin long before that's achieved - in fact, without it, it's unlikely you'll even get close.

Again, there seems to be another niche role for the TA here - specialist Civil Admin pool under the AG, anyone? ISTR the US military had a whole Civil Affairs department in WWII - which amounted to a military government-in-waiting. How's that for post-invasion planning?

You dont have to look to the US for an example of post war planning, the UK contribution to Austria post war was a triumph of planning and execution and one which we all seem to have conveniently forgot. I like the idea of the TA being used for this role rather than as a glorified temping agency that it has turned into

A lot of very naive stuff in this document that shows a worrying lack of depth. Just a couple of examples, some of which have already been alluded to in the thread. The standing reconstruction force problem is one, and I share the view that this looks like the Conservatives are getting ready to de-tune the Armed Forces so we become a bit like the Dutch or Germans - only prepared to turn up when things don;t look too iffy and the main job is handing out ration boxes. (I might have been unfair to the Cloggies & Boxheads there, but you get my drift).

The Cyber warfare thing is just tosh, and nothing new. Google "CSOC".....

Originally Posted by jim30

Have already emailed Liam Fox pointing out that the proposal to establish a permanent HQ for UK Ops happened 8 years ago and is now called HQ SJC(UK)...

Yes, I noticed that too. His Staff Work needs improving

It's a curates egg. I like the emphasis on CNI, and especially Energy Security, with a more joined up Border/UK Security Strategy (HQ SJC(UK) not withstanding), something like the US Northern Command would be a good model to follow, IMHO.

However, it's what isn't said that worries me. The glib "we'll have an SDR" is a cop out. I'd be a bit happier, if it was "We'll fully fund any uplift identified from the SDR".

Like dergeneral, I'm also worried that HMF will become so detuned, that it'll become essentially the armed wing of Oxfam - and we'll be out of the warfighting game for good