Gordon Brown fails Forces

#1
Gordon Brown fails Forces, say experts Telegraph online 15 Feb 08

A report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) expresses particular concern over the plight of the Royal Navy, with ministers accused of "sea blindness" amid warnings the size of the fleet will rapidly "shrink in size".

The RUSI is the latest eminent organisation to sound a warning and its report follows last November's rare condemnation from five former chiefs of the defence staff over military funding.

Today's report says: "Security is not only a question for chiefs of the defence staff, it matters to every citizen of the United Kingdom. Security is the primary function of the state, for without it there can be no state, and no rule of law.

"The former chiefs of the defence staff have stepped outside their traditional reticence to speak on behalf of all. Anxiety about defence and security runs far and wide."


The Prime Minister is singled out for direct criticism. The report states: "Now we have the failure of the Brown administration to provide the significant increases of core funding for defence.

"The intervention of the chiefs of the defence staff suggests an atmosphere of chronic disrepair. Britain's defence forces have been reduced during a decade of over-use, underfunding and general under-provision relative to that use."

The damaging critique is in an RUSI report entitled Risk, Threat and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom, which is backed by senior military and diplomatic figures.

It also contains a damning assessment of Government domestic policies which may have contributed to the rise of home-grown terrorists.

It recommends that defence and security policy needs to be removed from the "arena of short-term party politics" and draws comparisons with the success of the independent Bank of England committee which sets interest rates.

The report recommends the establishment of two new committees to oversee defence and security policy. One, a high-level Cabinet committee comprised of ministers, service personnel and officials, would draw up the country's security strategy.

There would also be a powerful parliamentary committee which would oversee the Government's strategy and, if necessary, build a consensus around proposals. The Prime Minister would not chair either committee.

The report concludes: "We seek by re-engagement to stimulate the sinews, nerves and muscles of the whole parliamentary body politic that has grown flaccid from under-use.

"This new structure of committees would have an important symbolic function, as well as a practical one. It would demonstrate to the public that the widest view of defence and security was taken within government and within Parliament."

The RUSI recommendations come days before Mr Brown is expected to unveil his national security strategy. It is unlikely to recommend such sweeping reforms, but is likely to set out plans for a new national security council to lead the cross-government effort against terrorism.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
The actual RUSI Report:


http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Prinsand_SalisburyFeb08.pdf


"Our world has entered into a
dangerous phase of uncertainty. In the
United Kingdom, frustration with our
piecemeal and erratic response to new
threats has sapped the strengths we
know we have. In reaffirming a political
settlement that has served us well, by
accepting some considered institutional
innovation, we shall be better able to
meet what lies ahead, and extend to our
allies the support we owe them, helping
them in turn to support us."
 
#7
But didn't our great leader tell you 'no one admires and respects our armed forces more than I do' - so that's all right then. Apparently, the Navy have been told to expect cuts of 8000 over the next few years - should make manning the new carriers quite interesting.
 
#9
Its pretty damning stuff isn't it, describing Britain as;

"walking into an Ambush" (happened before)

Suffering from "Sea Blindness" (basically forget the Navy as we have forgotten we are an island)

We also are not adjusting our forces mix to reflect geopolitical changes emergece or China, Russian Re-emergence, future competition for resources etc.

The press being the usual numpty's they are have focussed on the wrong part of the report and are missing the meat of the issue.
 
#10
It's not just Broon who has the monopoly on letting HM Forces down and down badly!
However, IF / WHEN we are in the EU proper, we will be able to cut even more of all three services and rely more upon the EU!
Shot in Foot!
 
#11
Letting down the forces is only a problem if you think that national humiliation is a bad thing. I'm not sure that applies to New Lairbore apparatchiks.
 
#12
mnairb said:
But didn't our great leader tell you 'no one admires and respects our armed forces more than I do' - so that's all right then. Apparently, the Navy have been told to expect cuts of 8000 over the next few years - should make manning the new carriers quite interesting.
Sadly HISTORY is repeating. Prior to Ms Thatcher, the"Winter of Dicontent" and the dipatch (not permenant because of short memories) of the Labour Party in 1979. I was a fullscrew taxi driving at weekends just to pay our living bills generated by my family living in a seriously sub standard quarter. Carried out CPX in 432's on the main square (no track milage left). QM counting out slices of toilet paper 1 slice per day for pads and singlies 2 per day. 2 pens, 3 pencils and 4 notebooks per Coy and 1 pack of paper each week (moratorium on stationary). Saw lots of HMS decomissions. But there is no Ms Thatcher/Caped Crusader in any of the current opposition parties to look after the Forces that defend this Country. So same as same as. :? :cry:
 
#13
BUDGIE-MIA said:
But there is no Ms Thatcher/Caped Crusader in any of the current opposition parties to look after the Forces that defend this Country. So same as same as. :? :cry:
But did people look at Thatcher in 1979 and think, "Oh good, she's the one to fix everything?"

I can't really remember, but I think that Labour lost that election, rather than Thatcher being carried in on a wave of hope and expectation. After the Falklands it was a different story, of course, but then if they'd not been planning to scrap the Endurance, that war might not have happened.

To veer back on topic, I think Broon and his cronies will cut back the forces simply because every penny they spend is targetted towards people who might vote for them. Think Ken Livingstone, but with more subtlety. The forces are seen as a special interest group with no Labour votes, therefore uninteresting.
 
#14
OldSnowy said:
The actual RUSI Report:


http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Prinsand_SalisburyFeb08.pdf


"Our world has entered into a
dangerous phase of uncertainty. In the
United Kingdom, frustration with our
piecemeal and erratic response to new
threats has sapped the strengths we
know we have. In reaffirming a political
settlement that has served us well, by
accepting some considered institutional
innovation, we shall be better able to
meet what lies ahead, and extend to our
allies the support we owe them, helping
them in turn to support us."
That link should be a Sticky.

And a copy sent to every miserable snivelling cowardly MP who kowtows to the false Gods of Multiculturalism. I hope they rot.
 
#15
Not being a conspiracy theorist, but remember Burgess, Philby and Mclane? Hopefully future leaders and politicians bought by the Russians.

I would not be surprised to hear ,in years to come that Blair and Brown were the 2 most successful Soviet moles in espionage history. Those 2 have done more damage to this county and it's armed forces than all the other plots in history
 
#17
angular said:
But did people look at Thatcher in 1979 and think, "Oh good, she's the one to fix everything?"
In terms of Defence, yes. From my juvenile pad brat memory, it went something like:

3 May 1979 - Thatcher elected
6 May 1979 - Big pay rise for Armed Forces announced.

Ironically, GB snr once pointed out that when he left BAOR in 1983, he was getting the same in cash terms as he had on posting in 1980, during a time when inflation was sitting at somewhat more than 2%... so it wasn't all roses under Thatcher.
 
#18
Gravelbelly said:
angular said:
But did people look at Thatcher in 1979 and think, "Oh good, she's the one to fix everything?"
In terms of Defence, yes. From my juvenile pad brat memory, it went something like:

3 May 1979 - Thatcher elected
6 May 1979 - Big pay rise for Armed Forces announced.

Ironically, GB snr once pointed out that when he left BAOR in 1983, he was getting the same in cash terms as he had on posting in 1980, during a time when inflation was sitting at somewhat more than 2%... so it wasn't all roses under Thatcher.
To be fair to Mrs Thatcher, she had a lot of catching up to do.

For example by about 1978, 35% of all married soldiers were so badly paid that they had to be given what was then known as Supplementary Benefit.

Generally pay across all ranks was a disgrace.
 
#19
Balleh said:
To be fair to Mrs Thatcher, she had a lot of catching up to do.

For example by about 1978, 35% of all married soldiers were so badly paid that they had to be given what was then known as Supplementary Benefit.

Generally pay across all ranks was a disgrace.
Thanks for that Balleh - it's too easy to look back to 'the good old days' as this totally mythical time of great plenty, loads of foreign travel and stacks of kit. The sad truth is that we have always been treated like crap.

How depressing.
 
#20
CharlieBubbles said:
It's not just Broon who has the monopoly on letting HM Forces down and down badly!
However, IF / WHEN we are in the EU proper, we will be able to cut even more of all three services and rely more upon the EU!
Shot in Foot!
And stabbed in the back.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts