Defence review 'hasty' and risks mistakes, MPs say

#2
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.
 
#3
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.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#4
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.
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.
 
#5
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.
You mean the John Howard approach ?
 
#6
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.
 
#7
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.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
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.
 
#9
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.
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
 
#10
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.
 
#13
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.
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.
 
#14
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.
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.
 
#16
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?!
I agree with you on this, these fcuking politicians are destroying the greatest army of all time. Dont worry Danny maybe me and you will be able to share 1 rifle as its too expensive for each soldier to have their own.
 
#17
I'm confident this review won't make any mistakes. It'll achieve exactly what it was supposed to.
 
#18
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.
I don't know what benefit a QDR would give to the Kingdom?

Of all the ways in which Americans "do" Defence, the one Dr Fox thinks can deliver benefit to a nation whose Defence shrinks in terms of people by more than a percentage point a year is a QDR. Not spending a greater proportion of (a shrinking) GDP on ensuring that we have the ability to defend ourselves and our allies against a range of threats, like the USA.

How would it have changed what happened in 2003, and 2008? What would the Labour Governments have done differently had we had a bureaucratic exercise? What would we expect the Tories/LibDems to do differently?

Would Labour have rolled back on their commitments of just 5 years ago when we rolled into Bsrah? At what point in the cycle does the confidence sap from a programme or Task? Why wait the extra time then?
 
#19
If we're going to hack back out military, at what point do we say, we're not a major power, and call time on Trident? And make our only nuclear option, cruise missiles?

If we can only put 10,000 boots on the ground, have we already reached that point? Is there anything left to cut?
 
#20
I don't know what benefit a QDR would give to the Kingdom?
...
Who could object to regular pre-election reviews of just whose snout gets the tax spend rather than the CS doing their own painstaking job at a glacial pace. Aping the quadrennial Pentagon porkfest is obviously more efficient for some folks. In a time of deficit concern it does seem dumber than dumb with a side order of dumb.

Perhaps it might in time offer "synergies" for cross market providers like Boeing, BAE etc. I suspect it has feck all to do with the defense of the nation but conforming to US providers procurement expectations, as such it might be a commercially useful bit of groveling.
 

Latest Threads

Top