Defence review 'hasty' and risks mistakes, MPs say

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by Boris3098, Sep 15, 2010.

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. I love it when the obvious is publicly stated as if it were rocket science. The whole thing is being managed backwards. In reality it should belike this:

    Step 1. Define what you wish to achieve.

    Step 2. Work out what is needed to achieve step 1.

    Step 3. Cost step 2

    Step 4. If you dont want to pay the cost identified at step 3, go back to step 1 and try to be more realistic!

    Repeat as required.

    Alternatively, to save time:

    Step 1. work out your budget.

    Step 2. work out what you can afford within that budget.

    Step 3. tailor your aspirations accordingly.

    In other words, when on enemployment benefit, dont try to live like a premier league football player.
  2. Confirms what we all know - Treasury IS the real enemy!

    Disappointing that Osbourne is too weak to confront the Brownite culture and agenda at the Treasury - about time he grew a pair and started implementing Conservative priorities.
  3. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    These have not always been pro-Armed Forces though, and it looks like this is yet another time when the Tories are going to maul the Armed Froces.
  4. You mean the John Howard approach ?
  5. Seems to me some have this Idea that conservatives are pro forces History teaches us that is untrue. you dont have to look too far back to see how much a tory goverment is bad news for The armed forces.
  6. I could have thrown something at the telly last night after listening to some Labour MP spouting on how rushing the review was going to have a damaging effect on industry. Not a mention of what effect the review might have on the defence of our country. Throwing cash at British (foreign owned) companies and going over budget and over time when there is cheaper and better on the shelf is one of the main causes of waste. Search any name on DII and see how many civvy defence industry agency punters come up. FORKING GRAVY TRAIN.
  7. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    I find the idea of a Strategic Review without a strategy strangely puzzling. The defence is being treated as some sort of optional nice-to-have extra instead of the main reason citizens agree to have a centralised government. Unless of course the strategy is to assume someone else will want to defend us instead.
  8. I'd have been more annoyed at the hypocrisy of a Labour MP's puking kant blaming a new Government for cuts to defence after 13 years of lying from the last regime and blank refusal to fund defence
  9. I saw Ed Balls going on about something yesterday. I'm amazed they have the nerve to speak out.
    As far as I'm concerned they should still be hiding in shame.
  10. When do the results go public? I thought I heard late Sep and I have also heard late Oct!
  11. 20th October is the date I have in my diary...
  12. Apart from gorgeous George dumping the Trident renewal onto the MOD budget he seems to following the goals laid out in the manifesto as faithfully as could be expected. The most salient part as I recall was public spending cuts averaging out at 25% across all departments, with a completely unrealistic goal of eliminating the deficit by 2015, something only achievable by a massive and for the Tories politically suicidal hike in taxes.

    Tucked away at the back behind all the Big Society guff, NHS/Pensioner coddling and Eco babble the defense section made a QDR a requirement, ominously only promised to protect the defense budget in the short term and emphasized great savings would be made in procurement, given the Tories historic record of pork fueled procurement boondoggles combined with stealthy force reductions you'd have to be a pretty slow critter to think the army was going to get off lightly.
  13. Very much agree.

    In the '60s/'70s it was generally recognised that the Tories would shaft HM Forces more than Labour.

    I believe the rationale was that the Tories thought the Services were Tory so would accept whatever they were given, whilst Labour also reckoned the Services were Tory so did a lot more to win them over.

    Having said that neither party covered itself in glory when in the '70s, some 35% of married soldiers qualified for what was then known as Supplementary Benefit.
  14. i'm worried about my career & i'v not even started yet, can someone please assure me i WILL get a rifle to do my job?!