• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Mandelson guards defence budget from cuts

#1
Financial Times

Lord Mandelson added defence to the list of “essential frontline services” that Labour wants to protect from spending cuts on Sunday, implying that ministers are planning swingeing cuts in areas outside military, health and education spending.

Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, hoped to defuse a political furore over government support for British troops in Afghanistan, contrasting Labour’s plans to sustain defence spending against potential Tory cuts.

Asked on Sky News whether a future Labour government would cut the £48bn defence budget, Lord Mandelson said: “That is not our intention.”
Now we all know Mandy pandy is speaking shite.

But where have the FT got this mysterious £48 billion figure from for the defence budget? I was under the impression the defence budget was around £34 billion?
 
#2
Its £38Bn including the ops support.

The idea that Defence is protected is an interesting one. Perhaps he should look in more detail at the size and scale of cuts we're having to implement through PR09 and PR10!
 
#3
jim30 said:
Its £38Bn including the ops support.

The idea that Defence is protected is an interesting one. Perhaps he should look in more detail at the size and scale of cuts we're having to implement through PR09 and PR10!
It's a bit of a worry that the Financial Times can't get it's numbers right... :x

It also says in the article:
The Treasury’s plans assume cuts in defence spending in both nominal and real terms next year. In 2010-11, total defence spending is projected by the Treasury to fall by just over £2bn to £45.5bn.
And here's another Financial Times masterpiece:
Armoured vehicle purchases to go ahead

Despite the budget crisis, the government is quietly moving ahead with a £16bn programme to acquire thousands of multi-purpose armoured vehicles for the military, described by a group of MPs as a “fiasco” earlier in the year.

In the next few days the Ministry of Defence is likely to send out a final invitation to contractors BAE Systems and General Dynamics (UK) to bid for a chunk of the Future Rapid Effects System project worth up to £2bn.

The tender is for 600 tracked vehicles to replace Britain’s aging fleet of Scimitars and Spartans which have been used for vital reconnaissance and troop carrying missions in Afghanistan but suffer from excess weight and an inability to fire on the move.

The programme has committed funding and the MoD is pressing for an accelerated schedule. It has asked for responses from the two companies by September and a decision would follow in March of next year with deliveries starting in 2014.

Cont/...
All it needs now is Richard North and Whet to add their invective, and we have a full house of nonsense spouted. :)
 
#4
Surely under FOI the government is obliged to publish its budgets for each department?
Or is that not the case?

I know the NAO wouldn't sign off on similar last month.
 
#9
Its simple, you tell the dumb believing press/public that 'X' is safe under me, then they look elsewhere, while they are looking elsewhere you rape 'X' blind to a shaow of its former self.

And if anyone raises the fact you said you wouldnt, or that your promised not to, well, you just follow the lead of Gordon and either...

A. Ignor them.
B. Tell them that you had already planned to do this a long time ago so it was included in the 'promise'
C. Evade the question and refuse to answer anything to do with it.


Oh joy, I feel so well led.
 
#11
What Mandlecockshiner said was "That is not our intention" - which usually means: "we do not wish to but may if we have to"; which further translates to: "ideally we don't want to but are prepared to"; this in turn distils down to: "We would prefer not to but will probably have to"

Which in this case ultimately translates into: "bend over lads - here it comes"
 

Latest Threads

New Posts