Jump to content

Armed Forces numbers to be cut by 20%

Thedelldays

By Thedelldays,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Seriously dd, that's concerning.

 

Could this be pre-election spin though?

would be the worst kind of spin surely..

 

people will automatically mention trident..when in the cost of that is spanned over a 40 year period so the yearly savings would not be big enough..

 

they simply want to reduce the numbers in the forces...which is a completely different kettle of fish...

 

we are close (if not at all) to having the smallest service for 300+ years..

with the ways of the world, it is worrying....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bungle

bungle

Posted
Posted

Seeing as that is an independent study, not linked to a political party, saying that "any government" "might" cut the armed forces by 20%, one can only assume this is the armed forces themselves trying to look after their own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Seeing as that is an independent study, not linked to a political party, saying that "any government" "might" cut the armed forces by 20%, one can only assume this is the armed forces themselves trying to look after their own interests.

I think the gist for ages is that the budget is going to be cut....so, things will have to change, the forces themselves are not going to cut their own spending..

 

everything else has been cut..no it seems man power is the next on the list

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hamster

hamster

Posted
Posted
What a shame to exclude yourself from any future political debate post election.

 

Don't vote can't moan.

 

That sounds like me up until last year. I accept you right to that opinion. But out of respect for you I won't even try to explain why I will never ever again vote for any political party.

 

Please note though that when you hear them read out 'spoilt' one of thiose will be mine (and mrs h's as I get two votes in this house, and she doesn't even know about that bit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
They could only base their opinions on the "facts" presented by your hero Mr Blair. Anyway, it didn't need their votes as enough lefties were bloody thirsty enough to push it through

 

Not my hero Adolf, Blair was always no more than a tory and as soon as war was mooted I moved "left" to the Liberals!

 

Still, nice attempt from you to deny that EVERY tory voted for the war.

 

Nothing you fascists like more than the death of innocent fuzzy wuzzis in far off darkie lands.

 

Stops more of them coming here afterall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thorpe-le-Saint

Thorpe-le-Saint

Posted
Posted
OK, I'll stop the bickering.

 

My serious point is that the world is more unstable and if 'we' are to have influence, we need a strong military capability.

 

We haven't been able to have any sizeable influence on world affairs since the 1940s, just see the Suez crises for when it all started to go wrong.

 

I don't agree with cutting the military so much that it leaves us vulnerable, but do we need an army the size of the current one? Serious question that...

 

Then again, I suppose many will say it is easy for me to advocate cuts in other sectors when I'm sat in my 'cushy' public sector job...however, I don't think that education will be so 'cushy' come this time next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjinksie

saintjinksie

Posted
Posted
would be the worst kind of spin surely..

 

people will automatically mention trident..when in the cost of that is spanned over a 40 year period so the yearly savings would not be big enough..

 

they simply want to reduce the numbers in the forces...which is a completely different kettle of fish...

 

we are close (if not at all) to having the smallest service for 300+ years..

with the ways of the world, it is worrying....

 

just what i thought, defence is something that should be a priority after health and education IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wilko

Wilko

Posted
Posted

we are close (if not at all) to having the smallest service for 300+ years..

with the ways of the world, it is worrying....

 

Why do we need the armed forces for defence?

 

Who is threatening to invade us? At the moment, the armed forces are fighting what many people see as questionable wars overseas that seem to have little to do with defending the realm. Aside from the spurious argument that 'if we don't get the terrorists abroad, they'll pour over our borders and blow us all up', is there another reason?

 

We are told the biggest threat is from terrorists. If this is the case, surely we need to pour more money into intelligence, rather than soldiers.

 

Please give a sensible answer.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

Dell Days

 

your a bit behind with that news. the government has already started to cut service numbers. it started at the back end of 2008. They are hitting the Territorial army big time. especially the medical services.

If your a major and you don't have relevent trauma care or surgical skills, then they are not getting an extension to their TA careers. So if they work ina care capacity , pharmaceutical environment, then they have either left or will have been served their notice papers.

 

The medical services are struggling as it is with out doing away with even more staff. Oh unlike the football side of this forum I am in the know on this

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
How about keeping all the weapons (I'm sure the Forces would like that).

 

How about keeping all the personnel (I'm sure the forces would like that)

 

Just pay them all less (I'm sure the f. .woul...)

 

Oh!

 

And if they don't like it they could all buy themselves out and find other work?

 

Idiotic post of the decade.........you SIR!!! clearly have no idea, so stick with talking sh1t about other things, that again, you have no idea about. It seems to be your thing!!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Why do we need the armed forces for defence?

 

Who is threatening to invade us? At the moment, the armed forces are fighting what many people see as questionable wars overseas that seem to have little to do with defending the realm. Aside from the spurious argument that 'if we don't get the terrorists abroad, they'll pour over our borders and blow us all up', is there another reason?

 

We are told the biggest threat is from terrorists. If this is the case, surely we need to pour more money into intelligence, rather than soldiers.

 

Please give a sensible answer.

 

Thanks.

 

 

I will provide a few reason for the RN...you can make your own mind if it still has a role today..

 

around 70% of the worlds surface is the sea, 2/3 of the worlds population live within 100 miles of the sea, nearly all the states signed up to the UN have a coast and obviously, the UK is a coastal nation

 

something like 90% of the worlds trade is done via the seas by over half a million sea farers..95% of the world sea trade passes through just 9 bottle neck type of areas like the suez canal and are absolutely essential to the industry..in the last 40-odd years the worlds population has exploded and trade via the seas has quadrupled and both are still growing..

these 'bottle neck areas' which the UK needs, like the Suez, Gib straits, Malacca Straits, bab el mendeb straits etc need protecting, our trade needs protecting..and the RN simply cannot do that anymore with the cuts that keep happening..

 

lets bring it a tad closer to home

UK sea trade is one of the top 5 earners for the UKPLC with 95% of our visible trade done on the ocean (see a pattern)..

the UK is the worlds 5th largest exporter of goods (value wise) and this trade is essential..not just needed but essential.

UK shipping earns UKPLC around £1m per hour, every day, something like 18 tonnes of freight per second passes throuh UK sea ports......you can see how it is in all of our best interests that this is protected..and protected well..

 

then you have the emerging Piracy issue in the Indian Ocean..our trade (see above) is very vulnerable and it would be a rich prize to get hold of a UK vessel..also, the casual sea goer needs looking after in that part of the world...

 

as for looking after people...

the RN provides and essential air support to the UK search and rescue force which is vital to groups like the RNLI etc..the Surface fleet provide and are highly trained in dishing out humanitarian aid is times of disaster...a groups of RN ships is en route right now to Haiti...

 

then you have to factor the Combat element and the fishery protection element of the RN..after all it is the military..ships on patrol in the Gulf, off the UK, in the Med etc etc

 

this is my opinion..im sure people in the Army and RAF could make a similar case for their service

Edited by Thedelldays
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Idiotic post of the decade.........you SIR!!! clearly have no idea, so stick with talking sh1t about other things, that again, you have no idea about. It seems to be your thing!!.

 

You, presumably, are the fount of all knowledge then?

 

I knew I wouldn't have to put much meat on the hook.

 

This was for those from the right, who replied in such a manner to some bemoaning the redundancies and possible closure of the local Ford plant.

 

What goes around comes around.

 

Sh!t happens, as we were told. Go live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Bognor

Johnny Bognor

Posted
Posted (edited)
We haven't been able to have any sizeable influence on world affairs since the 1940s, just see the Suez crises for when it all started to go wrong.

 

I don't know about that. We've had a permanent place on the UN security council since WWII and been a major force within NATO. Obviously we are not a superpower anymore, but as a nation we do still have influence and a strong armed forces is important to maintain this (especially when considering some of DellDays points)

 

I don't agree with cutting the military so much that it leaves us vulnerable, but do we need an army the size of the current one? Serious question that...

 

This government has employed over 500,000 EXTRA people in the various quangos (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html) since 1997. This 'army' of pen-pushers outnumbers the entire armed forces by a factor of 3 and costs 7 times as much. Do we really need those 500,000 extra pen pushers that we didn't have 13 years ago?

 

I mean, do we really need a Potato Council that costs £6.5m a year? (I suppose in an ideal leftie world, potatoes have rights too). I suppose we could do away with the armed forces and if we are ever invaded, we could lob spuds at the enemy.

 

The dumb ****s have even created a British Potato Council website in Welsh FFS

http://www.potato.org.uk/welsh-home.html

 

 

Then again, I suppose many will say it is easy for me to advocate cuts in other sectors when I'm sat in my 'cushy' public sector job...however, I don't think that education will be so 'cushy' come this time next year.

 

In the interests of fairness, I think you lot are due a bit of pain.

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Bognor

Johnny Bognor

Posted
Posted (edited)
Trust me the cut backs have started in anticipation and thankfully it's all the non-jobs, at last, under review.

 

The waste has been criminal.

 

At the end of the day, Brown has spunked all the money and borrowed heavily. Whoever is in power come may will have to make tough choices.We will have to decide whether or not we really do need a Potato Council.

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
Why do we need the armed forces for defence?

 

Who is threatening to invade us? At the moment, the armed forces are fighting what many people see as questionable wars overseas that seem to have little to do with defending the realm. Aside from the spurious argument that 'if we don't get the terrorists abroad, they'll pour over our borders and blow us all up', is there another reason?

 

We are told the biggest threat is from terrorists. If this is the case, surely we need to pour more money into intelligence, rather than soldiers.

 

Please give a sensible answer.

 

Thanks.

The real issue for the armed forces is maintaining the core capabilities required to Defend the Nation (includes Intelligence, anti terrorism and anti piracy), Support Foreign Policy (Including Disaster Relief), fully meeting our internationally agreed obligations through NATO and other defence treaties. Our US friends are continually gobsmacked by the effect we are able to deliver for the budget, one example is the new QEC carriers, the media leeches keep on about the cost Circa £4.5b for two ships compare this to the cost of a single US CVN Circa £17b. These costs do not include the aircraft. In order to have a sensible debate on the armed forces, as with most public service debates, we need to stop believing the press and start understanding the facts including the value of the UK defence industry to our balance of trade and support to High Value Science, Engineering and Academia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
Trust me the cut backs have started in anticipation and thankfully it's all the non-jobs, at last, under review.

 

The waste has been criminal.

 

Totally agree. I have found a number of jobs that the councils have been advertising. You couldn't make it up:

 

Biodiversity Officer £15,420 - £18,140 plus PrP/Bonus Opportunities

 

Gypsy & Traveller Liaison Officer – South East Up to £15 per hour

 

Community Engagement Officer £23,860 - £26,917

 

Play Strategy Manager £37,851 - £40,506 pa

 

Head of Clean and Green £57,111 - £59,982

 

Cultural Officer £34,707 - £37,476 p.a. inc

 

Brent Tobacco Control Alliance Co-ordinator From £34,045 - £43,529 p.a. inc

 

and my particular favourite....

 

Street Football Co-ordinator - £19,887

 

and you wonder why we can't afford the armed forces...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

To be fair CB , the jobs the Council you refer to are not being designed by the Coucil. Its is ring fenced money coming from central government. You should direct your angst at cental government and all the quangos it have set up. You will find that these jobs have a short lif span , maybe two years at the most. Its frustrating for HR people to find new jobs for these folk when the contract comes to an end , Not so bad if its only a one year funded post. two years plus then it becomes problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
To be fair CB , the jobs the Council you refer to are not being designed by the Coucil. Its is ring fenced money coming from central government. You should direct your angst at cental government and all the quangos it have set up. You will find that these jobs have a short lif span , maybe two years at the most. Its frustrating for HR people to find new jobs for these folk when the contract comes to an end , Not so bad if its only a one year funded post. two years plus then it becomes problematic.

 

Don't worry, I have plenty left for them.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
We don't have the seaborne capacity to stop them now anyway.

 

In terms of amphibious capabilty we actually have far more than at the time of the 1982 Conflict, the problem is we do not have the escorts to protect them or a carrier bourne fighter capbilty, we do however have a fully functioning airbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
In terms of amphibious capabilty we actually have far more than at the time of the 1982 Conflict, the problem is we do not have the escorts to protect them or a carrier bourne fighter capbilty, we do however have a fully functioning airbase.

 

This is very true. Bulwark and Albion p*ss all over Fearless and Intrepid in terms of capability.

 

But I find it f**king bizarre that we are building two aircraft carriers (if they get finished, which I doubt) that will DWARF any that we have built before, but :

 

1. Might not buy planes for them

2. Wont have enough escorts available to protect them, since we cut the original plan to buy 12 Type 45 destroyers to 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Number crunch:

 

5th largest economy in the world.

2nd largest military spending.

24th in world. The rank of the UK education system...

 

Good to see we've got our priorities in order :rolleyes:

 

The UK is the 2nd largest military spender ? Maybe due to the overspends on the Astute submarines and carriers, yes, but that doesnt trickle through to the soldiers on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
The UK is the 2nd largest military spender ? Maybe due to the overspends on the Astute submarines and carriers, yes, but that doesnt trickle through to the soldiers on the ground.

 

 

The UK is not the 2nd largest military spender, its 4th in monetary terms, USA, China and France are above us and in % of GDP the UK is 70th, Rusia is 5th and would be above the UK if they paid their staff anywhere near UK levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
In terms of amphibious capabilty we actually have far more than at the time of the 1982 Conflict, the problem is we do not have the escorts to protect them or a carrier bourne fighter capbilty, we do however have a fully functioning airbase.

 

 

I meant the carrier battlegroups and associated escorts as oppossed to HMS Albion and her ilk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted (edited)
The UK is the 2nd largest military spender ? Maybe due to the overspends on the Astute submarines and carriers, yes, but that doesnt trickle through to the soldiers on the ground.

 

The UK is not the 2nd largest military spender, its 4th in monetary terms, USA, China and France are above us and in % of GDP the UK is 70th, Rusia is 5th and would be above the UK if they paid their staff anywhere near UK levels.

 

Yup, you're right. I was using 2006 figures. What's more interesting is that China has not just leapfrogged the UK and France (in 3 years), it now outspends us by a huge amount...

 

Anyhow, my point still stands. We have chosen as a country to prioritise spending on 'defence' over spending on education. We share this priority with such honourable countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Oman, Chad, North Korea, Angola, Russia, Libya, Columbia, Pakistan, Syria and the USA. Whereas the crazy axis of countries who prioritise their own people above being aggressive include the notorious Canadians, Swedes, Kiwis, Japanese, Danish, Norwegians, Irish, Thais, Icelandic, Belgians, Dutch, and Swiss...

Edited by Joensuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yup, you're right. I was using 2006 figures. What's more interesting is that China has not just leapfrogged the UK and France (in 3 years), it now outspends us by a huge amount...

 

Anyhow, my point still stands. We have chosen as a country to prioritise spending on 'defence' over spending on education. We share this priority with such honourable countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Oman, Chad, North Korea, Angola, Russia, Libya, Columbia, Pakistan, Syria and the USA. Whereas the crazy axis of countries who prioritise their own people above being aggressive include the notorious Canadians, Swedes, Kiwis, Japanese, Danish, Norwegians, Irish, Thais, Icelandic, Belgians, Dutch, and Swiss...

 

 

i wonder the % of GDP we spend on defence compared to education..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted (edited)
i wonder the % of GDP we spend on defence compared to education..?

 

Our GDP is about £1640 billion. (vs goverment spending of £586.35 billion).

 

MoD £35.6 billion (or 2.1% GDP) Edit: might even be a £42 billion budget (or 2.56% of GDP)

Schools £41.2 billion (or 2.5% GDP)

 

Not a lot in it. It's not like you can make a fair comparision between the two though, it's results that count: It's fairly clear that our education system isn't working as well as it should, while our military has one of the largest budgets in the world to play with... (considering the numerical size of the US and Chinese armies, our servicemen/women must have one of the highest per capita budgets!)

 

Mind you what I find more shocking:

 

Benefits £125.3 billion (or 7.64% of GDP) ouch...

Edited by Joensuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
Our GDP is about £1640 billion. (vs goverment spending of £586.35 billion).

 

MoD £35.6 billion (or 2.1% GDP)

Schools £41.2 billion (or 2.5% GDP)

 

Not a lot in it. It's not like you can make a fair comparision between the two though, it's results that count: It's fairly clear that our education system isn't working as well as it should, while our military has one of the largest budgets in the world to play with... (considering the numerical size of the US and Chinese armies, our servicemen/women must have one of the highest per capita budgets!)

 

Mind you what I find more shocking:

 

Benefits £125.3 billion (or 7.64% of GDP) ouch...

 

These comaprisons are always fraught with danger. In the UK the uniformed establishment is very much focused on the front line whilst the tail is served by both Civil Servants and Industry Staff whilst in China and to a lesser degree the US Uniformed staff perform many of the non front line roles so the per captia comparison needs a good degree of qualification. Your spot on about the concern over benfits spending. Whilst I want to live in caring society these levels of spending are outrageous it appears that a 20% cut would repay the deficit in 7 - 10 years without impacting on other services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...