Do you support the UK increase in the military budget?

[prunus]

No. While I am happy for there to be a proper independent review of defence spending, what is required, how it should be spent and so on, and how any identified needs should be balanced with other public spending requirements, this announcement is simply a combination of desperate electioneering and the leaving of a haddock behind the radiator in No. 10.

 

[_Russ_]

The wider picture is it's not really about the UK but we are obliged to play our part

Why is NATO preparing for World War III?

 

[A380]

The UK is not going to be attacked by a foreign state.

Yes, they just want to visit cathedral. Spire is very tall.

 

[Spandex]

Fifth columnists. Should be interned.

Well meaning, but seen as useful idiots by fascists. The BUF infiltrated it and the Nordic League tried to join en masse.

 

[Silas Loom]

The wider picture is it's not really about the UK but we are obliged to play our part

Why is NATO preparing for World War III?

Is that very suspect looking site where you get all your news? Its masthead claims “all views, all voices” but it does seem to lean rather heavily on the side of the shit ones.

 

[_Russ_]

Is that very suspect looking site where you get all your news? Its masthead claims “all views, all voices” but it does seem to lean rather heavily on the side of the shit ones.

No

 

[The39thStep]

Well meaning, but seen as useful idiots by fascists. The BUF infiltrated it and the Nordic League tried to join en masse.

I'm not saying that they would have been my cup of tea 90 odd years ago however their membership also contained socialists, anarchists , and Labour Party members, who I suspect were in the majority. The PPU also raised funds for Spanish Civil War refugees and Jewish refugees. In terms of company that people keep , Richard Kemp who was briefly discussed on the Ukraine thread for calling Catholics 'taigs' described the PPU as 'arch appeasers' . I doubt if anyone on here attacking the Peace Pledge Union would want to be associated with him , in the same way those posters on here who are against spending more money on the military wouldn't want to be associated with being infiltrated by fascists.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I've changed my mind on this issue in the light of recent events. We now obviously need an increase in defence spending. How else will the Household Cavalry be able to perform their most important functions correctly? Something you woke lefties fail to consider.

 

[steeplejack]

I'd quite like to know what is being done with the current military procurement budget, given that the Army are known globally as the "borrowers" because radios, rifles, Snatch Land Rovers, er, don't really work at all. Given that we wasted enormous amounts of coin on ships we don't need and when they do put to sea develop massive mechanical problems almost immediately and even when they work are crashed by cretinous officers who don't know what they're doing. The air force is chronically under-equipped and cut to the bone, with so many aircraft on the books but not serviceable for lack of parts or expertise. Helicopters that should have been scrapped decades ago were being patched up daily by erks and put back in the air in Afghanistan.

I have met one or two former Army people who just shake their heads when the topic of military procurement is raised. There is so much waste, idiocy and corruption in the process.

Would dearly wish for armed forces globally to be done away with but unfortunately we are facing a Russian authoritarian strongman who has decided to live in the parallel universe where Russia is in an existential struggle with "the West" and is cobbling together an alliance of the wrold's worst regimes. Not increasing military spending and preparedness in such a world is not really a credible option unfortunately. We can't just wish these people away as PPU and other hardliners appear to wish to do.

War's the worst of all options, an absolute failure of human deiplomacy and decency, the very worst outcome producing the very worst lives for all involved. No one wants it. But we may be geting it anyway.

 

[Rob Ray]

Fifth columnists. Should be interned.

A fifth columnist wouldn't be doing something as ineffectual as the PPU. Also they tried that and it turns out making martyrs of pacifists for holding a moral position is counterproductive.

 

[Silas Loom]

I'd quite like to know what is being done with the current military procurement budget, given that the Army are known globally as the "borrowers" because radios, rifles, Snatch Land Rovers, er, don't really work at all. Given that we wasted enormous amounts of coin on ships we don't need and when they do put to sea develop massive mechanical problems almost immediately and even when they work are crashed by cretinous officers who don't know what they're doing. The air force is chronically under-equipped and cut to the bone, with so many aircraft on the books but not serviceable for lack of parts or expertise. Helicopters that should have been scrapped decades ago were being patched up daily by erks and put back in the air in Afghanistan.

I have met one or two former Army people who just shake their heads when the topic of military procurement is raised. There is so much waste, idiocy and corruption in the process.

Would dearly wish for armed forces globally to be done away with but unfortunately we are facing a Russian authoritarian strongman who has decided to live in the parallel universe where Russia is in an existential struggle with "the West" and is cobbling together an alliance of the wrold's worst regimes. Not increasing military spending and preparedness in such a world is not really a credible option unfortunately. We can't just wish these people away as PPU and other hardliners appear to wish to do.

War's the worst of all options, an absolute failure of human deiplomacy and decency, the very worst outcome producing the very worst lives for all involved. No one wants it. But we may be geting it anyway.

I don’t think there is corruption. Yes, BAE gets lots of work, and yes there is a revolving door for senior military retirees into industry jobs. It’s probably too cosy, although that’s the price one pays for sustaining domestic players. But broadly speaking, genuine corruption - as in rake-offs, theft and contract award bribery - is very limited in the UK and barely figures in the reasons why military procurement is inept.

You’re much more on the mark citing waste and idiocy, alongside internal politics, bureaucratic empire building, attenuated decision-making chains and ministers who are incapable of thinking further ahead than the next day’s headlines.

 

[discokermit]

I don’t think there is corruption. Yes, BAE gets lots of work, and yes there is a revolving door for senior military retirees into industry jobs. It’s probably too cosy, although that’s the price one pays for sustaining domestic players. But broadly speaking, genuine corruption - as in rake-offs, theft and contract award bribery - is very limited in the UK and barely figures in the reasons why military procurement is inept.

lol.
not the military but the national audit office, bloke who was giving out the building contracts had a lovely new massive extension on his massive house in richmond, all material and labour booked to the natonal audit office job number. i know cos i made the steelwork.
if it is going on there, what must it be like in the military where the sums are enormous.

 

[Silas Loom]

lol.
not the military but the national audit office, bloke who was giving out the building contracts had a lovely new massive extension on his massive house in richmond, all material and labour booked to the natonal audit office job number. i know cos i made the steelwork.
if it is going on there, what must it be like in the military where the sums are enormous.

This sounds like a story which has grown in the telling. The NAO is very unlikely to have “a bloke who gives out building contracts”. Even primary schools and district councils have more procurement governance than that.

 

[Silas Loom]

Much more likely is that subcontractors were booking materials and labour for other jobs to the NAO contract because it was fixed price rather than T&M, and so an easy way to hide either cash jobs in Richmond or to reduce taxable profits. Fraud against HMRC is so much more common than fraud against customers that it’s the best starting point for explaining any weird practices in a supply chain.

 

[discokermit]

This sounds like a story which has grown in the telling. The NAO is very unlikely to have “a bloke who gives out building contracts”. Even primary schools and district councils have more procurement governance than that.

i dont know the fellers position but we had a lovely thank you letter from him on behalf of the nao saying what a great job we had done, which went on the noticeboard. that was when we realised it was the same feller we had been doing the house job for and booking it all down to the audit office job number.
on a related note, when my boss walked in one day wearing a brand new very expensive watch, i asked him how much it cost. "i won it in the freemasons raffle" he said, with a grin.

 

[discokermit]

a perk of the clerk of the works, as my old mate always used to say.

 

[PTK]

Yes, they just want to visit cathedral. Spire is very tall.

View attachment 421986

That was an attack on UK soil, but not actually an attack on the UK.

 

[Raheem]

That was an attack on UK soil, but not actually an attack on the UK.

Ok, fine. Long may it continue.

 

[PTK]

Ok, fine. Long may it continue.

If you think it fine, good for you.
I condemn it, myself.

 

[Raheem]

If you think it fine, good for you.
I condemn it, myself.

But you split hairs about it first.

 

[izz]

Defence procurement is a complicated business. There is much governance, but this is trickle-down governance, with the most scrutiny being applied to the people at the bottom of the food chain, dealing with paltry amounts of money. The amount of time, energy and people's salaries being spent on governance is staggering. It can be ten times as difficult to spend £100 than £1M, it's just not scalable in the least.

When it comes to developing new products, there's too much tendency to try and please everyone, leading to acquiring products which are less effective in some ways than they should be, there's so much time and energy spent on trying to get the best overall product for the best deal that by the time the deal's done the world has moved on and the threat may have changed.

Because it's defence, its intensely political, there are political pressures to use certain providers as well as any technical and financial pressures. Sometimes procurements are proceeded with in spite of major faults with the capability or with the provider because of political pressures.

Overall though, I don't think we the public ask enough questions of our MPs and our government, we don't pester them enough to justify developing aircraft carriers, or tanks, or whatever really, and I don't know why that should be. Defence should be more transparent, but I guess then that the needs for defence, the current and possible future threats, should be more transparent also, we should have access to threat assessments, but there's this feeling in government and in defence that if the public knew about the threats we're facing, they'd be terrified. So again, another complication, are there genuine threats we need to protect ourselves against and if so, tell us what they are.

And, the UK has a tendency to get itself embroiled in conflicts which may not directly impact the UK. again this is hugely political, we the public should probably be questioning our government more, making them justify defence involvement.

 

[Silas Loom]

^ All this except last para.

 

[newme]

The complete lack of governance and sign offs that could have lead to thus baffle me. That would need like 5 sign offs and probably go through 12 peoples hands before it was done at local council. Everyone just forgot their jobs?

Have seen an MP get involved that a £100k loan got given to a company already defaulting on the first £100k loan. It was forced through, they got the money and immediately declared themselves bankrupt. Buggered up the entire scheme for 9 months which was producing hundreds of jobs a year through advance loans paid back by EU funding for investment.

 

[izz]

^ All this except last para.

'splain please Mr Loom ? Doncha think we should question our military involvements ? Not looking for an argument but would like to understand your viewpoint.

 

[A380]

That was an attack on UK soil, but not actually an attack on the UK.

Tell that to the family and friends of the British citizen who died. Or does she not count? Or the British police officer disabled for life.

 

[Silas Loom]

'splain please Mr Loom ? Doncha think we should question our military involvements ? Not looking for an argument but would like to understand your viewpoint.

Iraq aside, I’ve generally felt that UK military interventions in my lifetime have been proportionate and justifiable, so I don’t see any great need for the already high and sceptical degree of public scrutiny to be increased.

Just mentioning because otherwise I am in total agreement, not just on defence and national security procurement but also on transparency. There is no need to classify material about future hypothetical threats. To be fair, the trend is towards accepting this and publishing more of the underlying thinking.

 

[A380]

Also I voted yes; but then I support increases to the budgets of all areas of the public sector.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm surprised by the number of "yes" vote on here.

Ska's next thread: "Would you support the beatification of Margaret Thatcher?"

 

[gosub]

Defence procurement is a complicated business. There is much governance, but this is trickle-down governance, with the most scrutiny being applied to the people at the bottom of the food chain, dealing with paltry amounts of money. The amount of time, energy and people's salaries being spent on governance is staggering. It can be ten times as difficult to spend £100 than £1M, it's just not scalable in the least.

When it comes to developing new products, there's too much tendency to try and please everyone, leading to acquiring products which are less effective in some ways than they should be, there's so much time and energy spent on trying to get the best overall product for the best deal that by the time the deal's done the world has moved on and the threat may have changed.

Because it's defence, its intensely political, there are political pressures to use certain providers as well as any technical and financial pressures. Sometimes procurements are proceeded with in spite of major faults with the capability or with the provider because of political pressures.

Overall though, I don't think we the public ask enough questions of our MPs and our government, we don't pester them enough to justify developing aircraft carriers, or tanks, or whatever really, and I don't know why that should be. Defence should be more transparent, but I guess then that the needs for defence, the current and possible future threats, should be more transparent also, we should have access to threat assessments, but there's this feeling in government and in defence that if the public knew about the threats we're facing, they'd be terrified. So again, another complication, are there genuine threats we need to protect ourselves against and if so, tell us what they are.

And, the UK has a tendency to get itself embroiled in conflicts which may not directly impact the UK. again this is hugely political, we the public should probably be questioning our government more, making them justify defence involvement.

Would be the blind leading the blind ..going into Falklands even Thatcher was thinking FAA was Phantoms and Bucanners. Even among the vets association press (who might have better take on the impact of things)the MOD leans on keeping things as mushroomy as they can.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Interesting that the steepest part of that line after the 50s is under Thatcher.

during Glasnost and Perestroika , which saw a decrease in tensions, also tied in with the International Nuclear partial disarmament under the first START agreement

the Navy stopped carrying WE.177 by 1992 meaning it;s nuclear weapons appartus was solely confined to the sub fleet , rather than any surface vessel that could embark Wasp, Lynx or Wessex ...

the RAF started winding down RAFG in the 1980s and we also saw last Vulcan squadrons disbanded i nthe 1980s , and the remaining Victor squadrons being solely AAR tasked , and while the Bucaneer was used in the first Gulf war it was gone entirely by 94