Conservative Defence Policy - contd

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Goatman, Apr 13, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Since my last post seems to have inadvertently locked the thread which is a shame, what I said was:

    AWOL gave it;

    Officer of the watch re-instated to the conn, with an unblemished record......just re-read the piece by Soames...is he feck as like defending MoD.

    If you work in Defence voting Tory wheezy fat boy party is like ..er...Lindt Choccy bunnies voting for Easter. ( I hate Turkey) :lol:

    On the basis of their manifesto and the consistent message from Michael Howard ( who sadly I'm beginning to warm to) if the Conservatives get back in they will do precisely what they've always done......
    cut and cut and cut again.

    Thirty billion is a lot of potatoes - don't think the MoD budget will be exempt.

    If you believe any election promise ( from ANY party) stand by to be disillusioned....


    Le Chevre
     
  2. Hmm, would have to disagree. Although he lists MOD equipment and manning failures, he places the blame squarely at the door of the government. The MOD can only work with the resources Tony gives it, and Fatboy knows that well. Pointing out the failures of the MOD isn't blaming them, in the same way nobody blames the army for only issuing half a dozen rounds per man.

    As for cut, cut and cutting again, you seem to have missed the list of commitments to the armed forces which was the whole point of the article. If cuts are to be made it looks as if the tories are looking elsewhere to make them, which can only be of benefit of the Services.
     
  3. I can only speak from my own experience that the US military establishment fares much better under Republican administrations [conservative] than under Democrat Presidents [liberal] since the end of the Vietnam War anyway.
     
  4. Whoa there horsey! TB gives them a TLB of x billion. He gives them a broad policy framework, roger so far? Then small groups of determined men go out and proceed to mismanage and squander the big pot, through a series of badly thought out or badly executed initiatives. TB's cross is that he, through the agency of ministers and officials of considerably higher pay than yow or oi, fails to stop them or sets the budget at the wrong level for continual war-fighting.

    The procurement side is a joke. Very professional engineers and contracts people are working to some Kafkaesque script. Military personnel parachute in, get a good report then flee before stage four of any project, i.e.punishment of the innocent...I am at a loss to see how the Conservative party expect to turn the handle and come out with better returns on investment - unless they ride the four horseman hard through the Ministry - and put them away wet...
     
  5. Well, the official Conservative line is that the armed forces are going to get £2.7bn more per year. Of this, £1.1bn is from "efficiency savings" elsewhere in government, and £1.7bn is from "efficiency savings" inside the Defence budget. While they do seem to be planning for at least some of this to come from the civil service side (from what little I've seen of it this would be no bad thing), I can't help but suspect that a large part of their plan is to cut the low profile support servies and use the cash saved to "rescue" the high profile front line units. This would leave me somewhat nervous about some of the higher profile future projects that haven't yet been ordered- CVF chief among them. CVF was conspiciously absent from Soames' RUSI speech...

    Tomahawk - oddly enough, there is a slight bias towards Labour administrations spending more on defence (procurement anyway) than Conservative ones. Basically, most of the dockyards/armaments factories are in Labour held seats. Neither party is prepared to pay for everything it wants to get out of the armed forces however.
     
  6. Say that in in a few years time when the VA has been well and truly flushed down the toilet and the F-22 is sucking $100 bills into its intakes.

    By the way, it was pretty much Clinton's military that Monkey Boy took to Afghanistan and Iraq.
     
  7. and Neu Arbiet's manifesto...
     
  8. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    I've sat through 7 new administrations in Government and too many Defence reviews to remember.


    The one thing they have all had in common is a willingness to allow the Treasury to dictate the size,shape and equipment state of the Armed Forces.

    In 25 years I've seen three ministers resign in protest over what they were being asked to swallow - Heseltine, Keith Speed and Peter Kilfoyle

    It was a Conservative SofS whose decision to cut the South Atlantic patrol sent the signal to Argentina to invade the Falklands. If Conservative Minister John Knott had had his way , within a few months the RN would have had nothing capable left to project or sustain a force that distance.

    Conservative administrations gave us first Options for Change and then SDR.

    Whilst there is a perception that they are the Party which boosts Defence spending, once in power there is very little appetite for standing up to Number 11 Downing Street......

    I'm sorry if this reality pisses in someone's chips...may I be proved wrong and Prime Minister Howard brings UK defence spending up to 5% of GDP...my job might be a little more secure.....perhaps they'll reduce the NHS headcount below that of the Chinese Army. :wink:

    BTW, the only reason I append the Denis Healey quote is because it tells it like it is......grotesque over-charging by industry, DPA incompetence and disinterest on the part of Joe Public aside, the truth is you get what you pay for....and Defence does not come cheap. Not in the past, not in the future.



    Le Chevre
     
  9. A couple of people have mentioned Options for Change, but surely that has to be one of the few times when cuts were justified. After all, if hundreds of millions of Ivans were no longer deemed to be a threat, (and history has shown that judgement to be correct), then that did massively reduce the workload of an army that had grown enormously to specifically deal with that threat.
     
  10. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    ah the Peace dividend......yes.....that'll be why we still have 20,000 members of the British Army ( and their dependents) in Germany then[1]?

    A recent dit I saw on either CNN or USA Today quoted SACEUR prettty unequivocally stating that by 2009 US Army 1 Armored will have rtnd to CONUS.

    the US army's Base rationalisation programme will start to kick in big style over the next five years.

    Part of the rationale for keeping British troops in Germany - half a century after Adolf ate his Mauser- was the theory of locking the US into Europe ?

    Last man out put out the cat - Tschuss Gerhard ! - and vielen dank for all the frikkadelles.....

    ( Actually, that's more to protect Moist Velvet and Ostfelder from having to seek gainful employment in the German workforce and continuing to enjoy unfettered access to Krombacher in abundance.....don't get me started.... )

    Le Chevre
     
  11. Clinton's military ? Under Clinton the Army went from 14 divisions to 10. Had the dem's had their way they would have cut another 2 divisions. Clinton was as despised by the military as your PM appear's to be by your's.
     
  12. Might deserve it's own thread, but since it is in series with the other RUSI speeches I thought I'd put it here.

    Source is: http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E423E94861851A/showpast:true/

    Got some reasonable points in there - if only I believed it!
     
  13. You seem to forget that it was budget cuts mandated by a Republican Congress that led to downsizing of the regular military and the reforms he inherited from Bush 41. Check the PBRs and then look at what appeared. No bucks- no Buck Rogers.

    Explain to me how much institutional change can take place between January 2001 and October 2001. Operation Enduring Boredom was waged by the military that Clinton left Bush. End of story. But maybe this argument is for another forum- I'll come by your cardboard palace in ten years time to continue the argument about to what extent the GOP has kept faith with the people being sent into battle. I'll bring the malt liquor.

    "I support meaningless jingoistic cliches"
     
  14. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Yeah - well written speech ( Top marks Sir Kevin Tebbit)....shame it was delivered by such an out and out arrsehole......
     
  15. Like providing the sort of kit that the guys have to buy themselves, radios that work properly (that might have saved the red caps), enough ammo for everybody in threatre so that they don't have to withdraw any from the blokes, body armour, correct software for helicopter operation in adverse weather, blood vessel repair kits...

    We're not talking about a bl00dy fortune here, but very basic and essential kit that the dim-wits can't get right! :evil: