Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Marks DTM Calib]

Redundancy money is no big issue, for most it will be less than a years wages so its a years costs plus a much reduced support charge. Hence its a one off loss and a medium and long term saving.

As for the reality of the situation we are in, the former labour government can point the finger at the bankers all they like but, its THEM speding more than we were earning for 10 years and running up huge deficits thats the real issue.

The money dumped into the banks they will (and are) getting back with the possibilty for profit, the money dumped into the bottomless pit that is the NHS and the debts run up on new schools was just way to much.

ALL sections need to save BIG money and the forces are one of them, if it means no (not greatly useful) aircraft carrier and the now particularly knackered Harrier fleet going then thats better than impacting those in Afghanistan etc

[albitz]

One of the most sensible posts I have read in a long time.
I do hope that they  ensure that the troops on the battlefront have absolutely everything they need. To starve them of resources while at the same time ring fencing the foreign aid budget and the bottomless pit that is the NHS would be unforgivable imo.

[Kevin Wood]

Yep, you've skelped the arse of that one K. 8-)

I figured it out the one and only time I've visited said establishment in a business capacity. The meeting was not going too bad apart from the stench of cigar smoke - until 11:00AM, whereby one of our hosts announced that the pubs were open and the rest of the day was spent by them attempting to determine if there was a limit on the "entertainment" budget for the meeting (there wasn't).

So, there's value for money for the public purse. 8 hours paid for (maybe more - perhaps they claimed overtime while sobering up) and 2 hours useful work delivered (assuming they arrived on time and paid any attention to my presentation. Not sure they did, TBH.).

Kevin

[albitz]

sad passing, but maybe we should be looking at a United European armed force and share the costs.

Just don't let the Germans take the reigns.......obviously 


and I can't believe the Harrier's getting pulled  - the Yanks love 'em 

In the immortal words of Ian Paisley - NEVER !!

[Varche]

Yep, you've skelped the arse of that one K. 8-)

I figured it out the one and only time I've visited said establishment in a business capacity. The meeting was not going too bad apart from the stench of cigar smoke - until 11:00AM, whereby one of our hosts announced that the pubs were open and the rest of the day was spent by them attempting to determine if there was a limit on the "entertainment" budget for the meeting (there wasn't).

So, there's value for money for the public purse. 8 hours paid for (maybe more - perhaps they claimed overtime while sobering up) and 2 hours useful work delivered (assuming they arrived on time and paid any attention to my presentation. Not sure they did, TBH.). Kevin

What and you thinbk it is different in ANY public enterprise. The higher up you go the less accountability and thus no sackability there is. Different at the coal face. There you can measure how many houses a postman delivers to or how many children to a teacher or how many houses refuse collected from. My blood is still boiling from the huge waste on the necessary RAF replacement tanker planes fiasco. Billions spent, still not delivered and when they are we won't own them and they won't have armour 9till later). 

[Debs.]

Has history taught these people nothing? :-/

For, t`was the same penny-pinching mindset that precipitated the Falkland`s war with the withdrawal of the antarctic supply/patrol fleet.......Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world and whilst not being a fan of gun-boat diplomacy; one must recognise the need for an adequate long-ranging Naval fleet......which surely would be incomplete without a heavy(ish)`carrier. :-?

[Radiomarko]

Great plan this, yet again we will have carriers, eventually, but a period with no planes that fit properly.

I seem to remember the last defence review showed that we needed a rapid reaction force ready for worldwide deployment, eg Falklands, surely carriers with jets are the core of that? The point made earlier about Falklands oil fields is a good one.

Cuts- too much, too fast, too soon = economic slowdown. IMHO ofc.

[tunnie]

Great plan this, yet again we will have carriers, eventually, but a period with no planes that fit properly.

I seem to remember the last defence review showed that we needed a rapid reaction force ready for worldwide deployment, eg Falklands, surely carriers with jets are the core of that? The point made earlier about Falklands oil fields is a good one.

Cuts- too much, too fast, too soon = economic slowdown. IMHO ofc.

Done a little digging on that, apparently they have 1,000 troops on the Island as well as the Typhoon? fighter jets. Although they are all currently grounded with dogey ejector seats.

Plus Argentina is even more broke than we are with about 3 ships and 15 planes.

Luckly we still have the Subs so looks like its unlikey there will be a second war there.

Brilliant as the Harriers are they are old, but no idea how many flight hours they have left? As i believe age is not important its hours of flight / stress to chassis.

No doubt the thinking is to rely on the Americans 

[Psychoca]

Redundancy money is no big issue, for most it will be less than a years wages so its a years costs plus a much reduced support charge. Hence its a one off loss and a medium and long term saving.

As for the reality of the situation we are in, the former labour government can point the finger at the bankers all they like but, its THEM speding more than we were earning for 10 years and running up huge deficits thats the real issue.

The money dumped into the banks they will (and are) getting back with the possibilty for profit, the money dumped into the bottomless pit that is the NHS and the debts run up on new schools was just way to much.

ALL sections need to save BIG money and the forces are one of them, if it means no (not greatly useful) aircraft carrier and the now particularly knackered Harrier fleet going then thats better than impacting those in Afghanistan etc

I couldn't have put it better...  Sadly financial cuts are required in all places, which, the government are looking inward to save, not just massive tax rises...

It is a shame the "real" country financial accounts are never up for public scrutiny, I think it would make for some very interesting reading...

[24_Valve]

Debs wrote:

Has history taught these people nothing?
For, t`was the same penny-pinching mindset that precipitated the Falkland`s war with the withdrawal of the antarctic supply/patrol fleet.......Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world and whilst not being a fan of gun-boat diplomacy; one must recognise the need for an adequate long-ranging Naval fleet......which surely would be incomplete without a heavy(ish)`carrier. :-?

Thats the most intelligable response I've heard debs 

It really is that straight forward! sadly many just talk a lot of tripe, to the point where I wonder if they are seeing this like buying new toy's or upgrading a TV set? You can argue to the end of time about new stategies, projects, modern threats... etc. but the Ark Royal is servicable & so are the jump jets. They're proven & revered worldwide. They're not worn out & Argentina will take full advantage of this sort inept decision making. The so called new projects will end up costing twice the projected budget and be at least 2 years longer than proposed, in the making (this is Britain not Germany!). No doubt the manufacture of the new carriers will do nothing for our economy due the lack of industry in this country & the work shy masses that sit around & scratch there ar*ses.

There's only one reason this can be sold to us as defence cuts; Actual known cost of keeping the Ark Royal, Harriers & 3000+ servicemen & women who's jobs depend on it Vs the imaginary figure for these new projects. On paper it reduces the budget deficit thus counting toward the 8% defence cuts needed over the next 5 years. It's a load of b*llocks if you ask me or indeed any service personnel.

Become an MP debs & I'll vote for you 

[Amigo]

Seems sensible, we have nothing to put on it, cant afford anything to put on it and have 2 new carriers coming (which we cant afford but also cant get out of).

Yeah but no need to scrap it Mark. Long after we've gone she should be the next HMS Victory etc. I feel she's earned her place in history as do those who served on her. I know we have costs to cut but we have duty to recognize as well.
   The Ark Royal should no more be cut up weigh in than your locomotives & my old cars.

[Martin_1962]

For historical reasons Invincible is more important than Ark Royal or Illustrious.

Withdrawing the Harriers is just completely ridiculous

[24_Valve]

I second that Amigo... these are the very things that define our heritage but sadly no one really cares if it doesn't directly affect them 

[Nickbat]

Oh, and I see they're scrapping the Nimrod MRA4 programme (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodmra4.cfm). Having sucked up £3bn of our money, you'd think we'd have SOMETHING to show for it.

I say, keep politicians out of the loop when it comes to defence procurement. They are twa*ts.

[Nickbat]

Aircraft carriers without aircraft are little more use than a pub with no beer.

[Norman Tebbitt on today's announcement:]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100059722/defence-review-aircraft-carriers-without-aircraft-are-like-a-pub-without-beer/

Too true, Norman.