Non-motoring > Spending Cuts Volume 2   [Read only]	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: R.P.	Replies: 98

Thu 21 Oct 10 19:38   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - R.P.

***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 ***** One stop shop to discuss the recent spending cuts. Previous Volumes. Volume 1 Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 10:20

Thu 21 Oct 10 19:44   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

>> Our Dave has just scrapped >> the ones we've paid for, which would have been the most capable Maritime patrol aircraft >> in the world >> Yes terrific for finding Russian submarines. The Nimrod is cold war junk 30 years out of date, why do we need it now, even updated? If we really need it, buy the Orion (Hercules based) maritime patrol aircraft off the shelf from the Americans. I have flown as Nimrod crew, they are well past it. (Even 20 years ago).

Thu 21 Oct 10 20:35   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

The UK-G-I sosus line is much better, more reliable, and always in the right place at the right time to keep an eye on Russian SSN's and SSBN's. Not to mention the space hardware that tracks them.

Thu 21 Oct 10 20:35   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

The ones being canceled were basically rebuilt and new. Wings were brand new. Not cost effective to ever have done it this way mind.

Thu 21 Oct 10 21:23   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf

Anyone who calls Nimrod advanced either is joking or makes the junk.. And the people who ordered it were - to put it kindly - cretins...Unsafe at any speed was the motto of the prior one. The MOD tries to fight the last war.. We cannot prepare for every military eventuality.. and to suggest landing craft are needed for humanitarian operations and this justifies spending more on them is misguided. Military means military.. not aid. (If it can help, great). When you have limited resources, get your priorities straight.. £100 million stealth destroyers are crazy if you cannot afford the 10 required to defend one aircraft carrier from attack.. We cannot afford enough. Our aircraft carriers in the event of a real war would be sunk in the first attack. And if they are useless in real wars, why bother getting new ones? 50 tonne tanks are great fighting the Russians in Europe: waste of space elsewhere. The MOD are run by a bunch of old ........ who should be retired and replaced by realists not dreamers who aspire to fighting WW3. (IF WW3 does happen, London will be radioactive waste after day1) Where are our anti missile missiles? We have none.. So all this stuff about defending Britain from attack is wild rubbish ignoring the nature of a real attack: missiles.. We have no defence against them.So the people who write about the need for protection against such attacks needing the RAF are either totally incompetent or liars. The Chiefs of Staff should all be fired. Last edited by: madf on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 21:26

Thu 21 Oct 10 21:34   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

>> (IF WW3 does happen, London will be radioactive waste after day1) >> Where are our anti missile missiles? We have none.. >> You got one bit wrong, madf, sustitute the UK for London. I agree that an aircraft carrier would not last long, as my buddies demonstrated with the Belgrano. Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 21:36       1

Thu 21 Oct 10 21:44   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - MD

In a Kitchen we fit a 'Belgrano'. In a Bathroom a Basin. Simples.

Thu 21 Oct 10 21:49   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

What is it that you build MD? Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 21:49

Sat 23 Oct 10 08:16   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - MD

>> What is it that you build MD? >> Mainly domestic building and maintenance works from the smallest of repairs to conversions, renovations etc. Basically anything property related to bring in a pound. Difficult times with far worse to come.       1

Thu 21 Oct 10 22:02   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

The Yanks screen their carriers with an immense array of force. Awacs, outlying guided missile cruisers, destroyers, close in anti aircraft destroyers, ASW frigates, and SSN's. We cant afford that lot. We can only deploy carriers in areas of low threat, and that limits the use. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 22:03

Thu 21 Oct 10 21:56   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - midlifecrisis

>> >> Our Dave has just scrapped >> >> the ones we've paid for, which would have been the most capable Maritime patrol >> aircraft >> >> in the world >> >> >> >> Yes terrific for finding Russian submarines. The Nimrod is cold war junk 30 years out >> of date, why do we need it now, even updated? If we really need it, >> buy the Orion (Hercules based) maritime patrol aircraft off the shelf from the Americans. I >> have flown as Nimrod crew, they are well past it. (Even 20 years ago). >> Absolute rot. And if you make a claim like this, you haven't ever been part of a Nimrod crew. If it was only good for hunting submarines, could you explain why they have been operating over the deserts of Afghanistan for years. Do you what an R1 is and what it's replacement (the Rivet Joint) does. Can you explain why of all the defence cuts, the one that has caused universal disbelief and outrage is the chopping of Nimrod. The USAF and US Navy were always green with envy at the capability of the MR2. The MR4a, despite tabloid nonsense was a new aircraft. Zero lifed fuselages with brand new wings and engines and the most capable electronic kit in the world. It was so important, our current defence secretary said "Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan. " A comment from another maritime specialist " a platform with 15 hours un-refuelled flight duration, 2100 mile radius of action, an F18E derived 1760 Mil Std weapons databus with 13 weapons hardpoints (9 bomb bay and 4 wing), a radar with a 250 mile range, SAR and ISAR modes, Link 11 and Link 16, SHF Satcom, HFx2, V/UHF x 5 and fitted for but not with UHF Satcom, capable of operating from 36000ft to 200ft. All integrated, working and demonstrated for the last 10 months." (If that's blinded you with science..look it up) Sub hunting was one of the aircrafts many strings, as was long range command and control for search and rescue operations. It is a supreme ELECTRONIC WARFARE aircraft There's a reason that right up to the last minute, the one piece of equipment that the CAS was arguing to save was MR4a. It's peoples ignorance of what the aircraft could do and they're willingness to swallow this 'cold war relic' nonsense trotted out on demand by the tabloid pressthat has allowed 'Our Dave' to get away with this travisty. (Oh..and the Orion was based on a Lockheed Electra, not a Hercules. It's very old and doesn't have half the capabilities, speed or endurance of a Nimrod. Old or new)

Thu 21 Oct 10 22:03   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

I am probably a little biased, the last one I flew in (206 Squadron) nearly killed me.

Thu 21 Oct 10 22:10   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

It wont stop suicide bombers blowing up people on the tube tho will it. Hasn't stopped British troops being blown up by IED's either has it. We need to completely rethink our place in the scheme of things. There is no need to be operating 2.200 miles away. And alas, yes, that means abandoning the defence of the Falklands. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 22:12

Thu 21 Oct 10 22:27   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

Unfortunately the politicians fail to grasp the fact (like many other facts) that we have not been a world power for over 100 years.

Fri 22 Oct 10 10:04   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - FotheringtonTomas

>> It wont stop suicide bombers blowing up people on the tube tho will it. Neither will policemen, lets get rid of them. Neither will the combined armed forces stop them, get rid of them too. Let's just give up, that'd be much cheaper.

Fri 22 Oct 10 07:29   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf

"It was so important, our current defence secretary said "Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan. " Liam Fox has shown an inability to grasp we are in the 21st century with a lame economy and no empire. Rhe Falklands are not worth £billions. Submarines? We have no merchant navy left to defend... Two carriers with not enough support ships.. Forget subs,,, it's the Exocets that will kill them...Oh I forget the Exocet is out of date.. Who's building big sub navies now? No-one.. Fighting WW2 again... Last edited by: madf on Fri 22 Oct 10 at 07:29

Fri 22 Oct 10 08:44   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - midlifecrisis

>> >> Rhe Falklands are not worth £billions. >> I'm sure the British Citizens in the Falklands will be pleased to hear you say that. >> >> Who's building big sub navies now? No-one.. >> Russia The USA Iran North Korea India Brazil and I could go on. All are putting emphasis on submarine fleets. You really should try and get your facts somewhere different than the Daily Star!

Fri 22 Oct 10 08:57   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

>> >> >> >> The Falklands are not worth £billions. >> >> I have always thought that the "ownership" of the Falklands had a smell of oil reserves about it. As the price of oil increases it will become economically viable to extract it. Do you really think the politicians give a stuff for the people there, how many votes do they generate? They only have scant regard for the people here because we keep them very comfortably by voting for them them.

Fri 22 Oct 10 09:15   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf

So far Falklands oil drilling has been less than successful.. A successful defence strategy on a tight budget means concentrating on doing a few things well... We try to do lots - badly.. Re submarines.. The Chinese are building in preparation for war with the US over Taiwan. www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25iht-25submarine.10349022.html The Indians to counter the Pakistanis.. www.nti.org/db/submarines/india/index.html So we're going to get involved in those wars? I give up... There is no way we as a small country can use every report of some other country building up its weapons systems as an excuse to keep ours. We need more focused spending. We've had a military defeat in Basra and left Iraq in ignominy, are failing in Afghanistan.. and you want us to have more capability to fight foreign wars? Meanwhile the emphasis on the bread and circuses mean the RAF spend £ millions on a display team...but don't have enough helicopters for real wars.

Fri 22 Oct 10 10:19   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

Shamelessly lifted from another forum:- Is there is a broad measure of consensus, that we spend far too much money on things only of interest to admirals, politicians and defence contractors, and in so doing, ignore our real defence needs?

Fri 22 Oct 10 11:01   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Wjy aren't me doing something to support democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe? No oil there- that's why! Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 22 Oct 10 at 11:04       3

Fri 22 Oct 10 11:23   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf

>> Wjy aren't me doing something to support democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe? No oil >> there- that's why! >> Anyone who belives that was why we invaded Iraq is either a (prior) Government stooge or has no view of history or is easily lead. It's like the US vs Iran: the imprisonment of US citizens during the Revolution - and prior to that the US support for the Shah and the deposing of a legal Government by the US - gives all the history you need.

Fri 22 Oct 10 13:17   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Tooslow

Ah well PP, you've put your finger on it. If you invade Iraq then why not Zimbabwe, North Korea, Malaya, Sudan and on and on. All of them oppressing their citizens. While I'm pleased to see any evil dictator toppled there was no real justification to invade. John       2

Fri 22 Oct 10 14:03   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Yes but they are not oppressing British/white farmers who have been there for 100 years. Maybe not being an influence for good themselves for all of that time but for most of the last 50 years at least. I did not mean to imply a full invasion guns blazing but some sort of strong mediating/restoring democracy presence what is what we are doing in Afghanistan, allegedly! At a cost of one military life everyother day and £50 million a month, best guess on the latter.

Fri 22 Oct 10 15:00   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

We couldn't invade Rhodesia 40 years ago when it's uppity PM was in open revolt against the British Crown. In those days we still really did have global reach, though the political argument that the rebels were our 'kith & kin' might have borne heavily as well. The idea that we could (or should) have, in the 21st century, capacity to invade a landlocked country thousands of miles away is beyond comprehension.

Fri 22 Oct 10 15:11   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Not invade - render assistance. That's what we did in Sierra Leone some time ago and are still doing in Afghanistan SFAIK, which is further away that Zimbabwe and where not one UK citizen in in danger, other the UK personnel who are there trying to do something but what is it? Hearts and minds, train the utterly useless locals to be policeman and soldiers, build schools and put in fresh water supplies, set up and repair electricity generation infrastructure, support a corrupt regime that refuses education to female children, tolerates the mutilation of child brides who annoy their husbands or "None of the Above"? We are supporting a regime that thinks that this a civilised way to treat people tinyurl.com/27nmctq "NOT in my name"!!!!!!

Fri 22 Oct 10 12:33   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

>> Russia Are they a threat to us? No, Its not like WW2 where all our aid came from the USA, It comes from Rotterdam, The north sea and the english channel is not a good area for a submarine blockade. If the Russians want us out they can press the button. Discount 1 then >> The USA Our Allies, mostly building against China, Russia, Iran, Korea, and possibly pakistan Nothing to do with us, Discount 2 then >> Iran They are based at Bander-e Abbas. The Americans have friendly territory on one side of the Straighs of Hormuz, so failry easy to bottle them up there. Do they have the capability to attack us? No! Discount 3 then >> North Korea Got some pretty crappy boats based on old soviet designs, albeit with the aid of China and a lot of them to boot. Pretty effective locally and good at deploying mines. Able to deploy on our coasts and bother us with strategic weapons? No. Discount 4 then >> India Able to deploy within range of the UK? threaten us at home? No Discount 5 >> Brazil and I could go on. Brazil Able to deploy around our coasts? No. Discount 6 Now these are strategic facts and not from the Daily Star. Last edited by: Zero on Fri 22 Oct 10 at 12:34

Fri 22 Oct 10 14:44   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - midlifecrisis

You've done a great job of showing that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about! An ex-colleague summed it up for me: "This is one of the most idiotic decisions I have ever seen ANY Government make! Don't they know (weren't they briefed?) that the first Tier 1 item in the National Security Strategy Priority Risks is something that Nimrod has been doing for a long, long time (both over water and over land) and would have been doing in the future??? The 4th Tier 1 item is something that Nimrod has played a big part in the past and would have been ideal for in the future! The same goes for the 2nd and 3rd Tier 2 items! Tier 3, item 1 - trained for that; items 2 & 3 - been there, done that; item 5 - trained for that; item 6 - done that; item 7 - you guessed it, a role for Nimrod!!! Add to all these that we, as a nation, have an international commitment to provide SAR over the North Atlantic out to 30W and that we need to protect our Strategic Nuclear Deterrent from possible foe." And all this banging on about submarines. You still haven't explained what you think Nimrod has been doing for years out over Afghanistan. You still haven't given us the benefit of your knowledge with regard to all it's other capabilities. Perhaps we should all adopt the approach of putting our head in the sand and pretending that if we keep really, really still, all the baddies will just ignore us. (Yes, I was in the Fleet Air Airm and do have some knowledge that I haven't needed to 'google' to find out)

Fri 22 Oct 10 15:19   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - BobbyG

>> Perhaps we should all adopt the approach of putting our head in the sand and pretending that if we keep really, really still, all the baddies will just ignore us. Seems to work for many other countries who do not seem to kid themselves on that they are bigger than a tiny wee island? What are all the other Eurpopean countries doing - like Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain etc, are they all out in Afghanistan with same numbers as us? Iraq?

Fri 22 Oct 10 15:29   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Tooslow

m, at the risk of stepping into the middle of a shooting match... First let me confess to being totally ignorant of tier 1 etc. You obviously know your subject. As a self confessed ignoramus on this subject, and therefore representative of the great majority of the British public, the Nimrod is, to me, a Comet. A 60 year old plane with exploding fuel tanks. If it is so good why haven't we sold any? I have seen industrial plants built to safety levels which are so conservative that much of the equipment in them is obsolete on the day they start up. Getting spares is somewhere between a nightmare and impossible. Given the glacial rate at which the MoD move (e.g. Airbus / transport plane) I find it hard to believe that anything our forces have is much different. I may be wrong. I'm afraid though that my impression of the MoD is that they throw my hard earned at inappropriate projects, badly managed, ludicrously expensive, late and over budget. So credibilty? None. How is my ignorance to be cleared up / how am I to be educated / how are you to persuade me that this is important? I don't know the answer to that one. A half hour programme each week in which the forces explain what they do and what their kit does isn't going to happen and, if it did, is going to be a bit one sided. You're quite right, I have no idea what Nimrod's are doing in Afghanistan. But it seems to me that the arguement has been put to the politicians and, with only so much money to go around, some hard decisions had to be made. They may not be the decisions they wanted to make, I'm sure they had to though. The arguement should not be "what have we got / shall we keep it" rather "what is the purpose of our armed forces / what kit do they need to provide that / what can we afford". Everyone facing cuts has been guilty of NIMYism, from teh luvvies at the Film Council through to the armed forces. I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying that you may be too close to the wood to see the trees and I do feel strongly that some credibility has to be established and that is going to take years to do. John       1

Fri 22 Oct 10 15:48   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

>> the Nimrod is, to me, a Comet The Nimrod MR2 (the one currently used) is an old plane. The MR4 is effectively a brand new plane. The fuselage is one that was effectively new. To this were fitted new wings, engines, avionics, etc. Part of the delays were down to using the old airframes. Instead of them all being built to a standard there were variations between them. So I bet fitting the newly designed and built wings proved a bit of a challenge. But essentially the Nimrod that was scrapped was new (but delayed) and most of the money was already spent so where the savings really come from is anyones guess.

Fri 22 Oct 10 16:04   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

>> You've done a great job of showing that you haven't got a clue what you're >> talking about! I have tried to do it without insulting anyone, and in terms that are understandable. You wrote a lot of technical words, most of which I understood, however nowhere did I see benefits or value for money. >> An ex-colleague summed it up for me: You and your ex colleague are the ones with a head buried up the idea that we are a military power. You fail to grasp we do not have the money OR THE RIGHT to intercede in affairs of other contries outside our borders. We are not the worlds policemen, we do not project influence. We are also not here to save every Russian trawlerman in the Atlantic or polar regions. Do the rest of the world pay us for such services, or have the ability to reciprocate in the middle of the indian ocean? You are acting like a small child thats had his fancy electronic toys taken away from him. You are going to have to accept there is a lot of tier nothing we are going to be performing. Money talks, we havent got any. And please stop berating us in an intimdating and beligerant manner.       5

Fri 22 Oct 10 16:33   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

>> And please stop berating us in an intimdating and beligerant manner. >> I don't think MLC will get the message untill his budget is slashed or is declared surplus to requirements.

Fri 22 Oct 10 17:29   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

I think we all know that if we were not in this mess, we'd probably all accept that aircraft carriers should have planes. But we owe so much money as a country and are continuing to borrow so much. So we have to accept these cuts are necessary. No doubt some on here will be directly impacted by the cuts - people are going to lose jobs. And if people tighten their belts they then stop spending as much is a knock on affect for those offering goods and services.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:24   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Ian (Cape Town)

>> No doubt some on here will be directly impacted by the cuts - people are >> going to lose jobs. what about the poor boys and girls in uniform who'll lose LIVES? Because they have inferior - or non-existent - kit, and inferior -or no - support?

Fri 22 Oct 10 17:53   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - midlifecrisis

>> You fail to grasp we do not have the money OR THE RIGHT to intercede >> in affairs of other contries outside our borders. We are not the worlds policemen, we >> do not project influence. We are also not here to save every Russian trawlerman in >> the Atlantic or polar regions. Do the rest of the world pay us for such >> services, or have the ability to reciprocate in the middle of the indian ocean? And therein lies everything that is wrong in the UK today. It doesn't affect us, so we shouldn't be saving peoples lives. It's called human compassion and responsibility. I seem to remember a lot of people in Europe in the 40s had a similar attitude, when others of a certain religous persausion were marched off to the train stations and packed into cattle wagons. The only word that applies is shameful. I'm also assuming that should you fly/sail/walk abroad and get into difficulties, then you'll be happy not to receive assistance from non-UK rescue organisations. After all, you've not contributed. But they'll rescue you and your family regardless, because that's what they do. Tooslow:-, the Nimrod is, to me, a Comet. A 60 year old plane with exploding fuel tanks. If it is so good why haven't we sold any? ">> The MR4a is a totally new aircraft. The previous MR2 served for 40 years and millions of flight hours. How many exploded in mid air..one! A tragic incident, but that doesn't detract from the superb and vital service the aircraft gave. As an ex-Navy chap, you might expect me to be cheering the loss of an RAF asset to pay for a ship. No. There is not a single person in the Forces who isn't stunned at the decision to axe this aircraft. It's that important. The MR4a is PAID FOR. It will cost £50 million/year to operate. Dave gave away £11.5 billion to corrupt governments and then went further and pledged £4 billion to hopeless windmills and the 'carbon capture' scam. All he and his mate George demonstrated is that the Prime Minister and Chancellor are as ignorant about the capabilities of our armed forces as the average Star reader. And please stop berating us in an intimidating and beligerant manner>> Please! If you get intimidated by words on a page, then you need to have a lie down in a dark room..for a long time. Last edited by: midlifecrisis on Fri 22 Oct 10 at 17:56

Fri 22 Oct 10 15:14   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - L'escargot

The government should adopt principles along the lines of Business Process Reengineering, which has successfully increased the profitability of many a business organisation.

Fri 22 Oct 10 17:42   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu

It does tickle me seeing public sector workers complain about their jobs being cut and blaming the Coalition. It was Labour who created so many jobs that they couldnt fund long term, it just happens that its the Coalition are having to do Labours dirty work. Bullet dodged for them id say. It strikes me that there really are just too many people in this country full stop, immigrant or otherwise which is why we are so dependant on jobs which are not wealth creating.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:02   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf

Nimrod in Afghanistan? All I see is the UK doing lots of military stuff badly and fighting wars it cannot win with minimal strategic advantages.. That's not clever. MLC can say what he likes about us dumbos. We can see the end results which are : lots of money spent for no return.. Just cheaper to stop spending it.. Period.       1

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:40   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Woodster

'berating us in an intimidating and belligerent manner' 'You reap what you sow' and 'heal thyself ' spring to mind Zero.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:45   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

Have I sown anything to reap in this thread?

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:47   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Ian (Cape Town)

>> Have I sown anything to reap in this thread? >> >> >> To every thing, turn turn turn

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:50   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero

Utterly bemused. So be it.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:54   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

Wasn't 'turn turn turn' in Driftwood by Travis?

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:56   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Ian (Cape Town)

rtj, I'm an old frat - just remember the Byrds version...

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:49   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

>> The MR4a is PAID FOR As said the Mr$a is largely paid for and ready to be used. To scrap it seems stupid. But we do need to cut expenditure. My wife works for our local council - in a frontline type role. Hopefully it won't be cut. But who knows. And I work in IT and we have lots of government work/projects too.... Maybe we'll move abroad earlier ;-) Thankfully our downsizing when we did was to (a) allow us to move abroad in around 5 years, (b) because we didn't need such a huge house and (c) to be mortgage free in these troubled times.

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:29   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - midlifecrisis

And just for info. Two Nimrod SIGINT aircraft are deplying to Afghanistan now. They'll be detecting Taliban Comms and roadside bombs, thereby saving many lives. They'll be doing that until march, when they are prematurely retired. Their replacements are 45 year old ex USAF aircraft with inferior kit. That's progress.

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:31   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

>> when they are prematurely retired. Maybe not prematurely. They should be replaced by the MR4a's. And the tragic loss of life with the old MR2's was an in-flight refuelling problem. Something the aircraft was never designed for originally - at least I didn't think that was something they did originally.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:48   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - BobbyG

Stu, why shouldn't they complain about losing their jobs? Its not their fault who is in power, its a job to many of them.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:51   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - BobbyG

Labour lost a chance when Osborne announced these job losses and their back benches were filled with shouts of Yay. Labour should have started by making an announcement to those half million just to remember what the coalition's reaction was to them losing thir jobs. Just to keep it in their mind. But they didn't.

Fri 22 Oct 10 18:56   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Old Navy

>> Labour lost a chance when Osborne announced these job losses and their back benches were >> filled with shouts of Yay. >> >> Labour should have started by making an announcement to those half million just to remember >> what the coalition's reaction was to them losing thir jobs. Just to keep it in >> their mind. >> >> But they didn't. >> Labour come across as a totaly demoralised outfit who know that the have blown any chance of power for many many years.

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:00   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

>> Labour come across as a totaly demoralised outfit who know that the have blown any >> chance of power for many many years. Which means the right Milliband brother will have the chance of being Prime Minister. Think I've said that before though.

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:13   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu

>>Stu, why shouldn't they complain about losing their jobs? Its not their fault who is in power, its a job to many of them.<< Public sector = Unions. Unions = Labour Party. Labour Party = Over spend. Over spend = Money runs out. Money runs out = Cuts in Government spending. Cuts in Government spending = Public sector cuts. True, the government was responsible for creating jobs that were unsustainable. Unions are supposed to represent the interests of many public sector workers, so Im left wondering why they turned a blind eye to half a million jobs which could only be paid for by unsustainable borrowing. By all means complain to Labour or their Unions who failed them, but this narrow minded 'shoot the messenger' rhetoric that seems to suit the public sector just makes them look either naive or stupid. The Coalition didnt spend them out of a job.

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:27   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - BobbyG

I understand the system Stu, what I am saying is these are folk's jobs. Do you expect someone who is offered a job with a council to do a full financial check on them, and the country's economy and the possibility of a future election before they take it? Or do they say, its a job, I want it. Then when it becomes unsustainable, of course they are going to complain. Yes some may understand reasons why etc but at the end of the day its their job. That they probably thought they were secure in. That they were given a mortgage based on etc etc. I bet you they would all want to keep their jobs and for money to be saved by pulling out of Afghanistan instead

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:49   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Woodster

You've been the antagonist in plenty of other threads zero. I'm off for a game of poker with some gents....

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:49   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Tooslow

On an individual basis B, yes, every one is a minor tragedy. John

Fri 22 Oct 10 19:50   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

stu, I work in the public sector and I'm a member of a union - PCS. While its evidently not tory its also not funding labour and has fought the last Gov over for example redundancy schemes with the same vigour it will contest the current lo.

Fri 22 Oct 10 20:44   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu

I do get the basic reaction to loosing your job, its happened to me once, but we are a long way down the road and everyone who will be affected knows exactly what happened with the public finances and while nobody wants to loose their job, if you do loose it, whatever happened to standing up straight and just finding another - they do exist even in these hard times although it may not be the job a person wants ideally. Fact is, these jobs WILL go, so rather than mooching about complaining about that which has already be decided, why not prepare now for impending difficulties - the cuts arent immediate in many cases so the opportunity to economise further, get a financial buffer to help with the transition to other employment, is there. If a company goes under, place gets boarded up, do the employees turn up anyway demanding to be able to work, even though there is no money with which to pay them? No, they go find another. Complaining doesnt pay the bills unless you write for newspapers.

Fri 22 Oct 10 20:57   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

The NHS has taken a good line, in some PCTs anyway. Almost everybody over 65 has been terminated. The thinking behind this is that it cane be done without falling foul of age related discrimination, yet, and everybody over 65 can be got rid off without redundancy payments or any other form of compensation

Fri 22 Oct 10 21:11   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - -

Quite right too PP, though the age of termination will be gradually increased as the retirement age steadily approaches 72. The money saved by not paying pensions to those non productive pensioners will keep foreign dictators in brandy women and MB's and provide 4x4 pushchairs for single mothers under the age of 13, the revenues from taxing the over 65's will be used exclusively to provide state mansions for retired MP's.

Sat 23 Oct 10 12:52   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - L'escargot

>> ........... though the age of termination will be gradually increased as the >> retirement age steadily approaches 72. I know the government is considering increasing the State Pension age to 68 at some time in the future ~ tinyurl.com/2vtw6wc ~ but I've not heard about the 72 figure. A significant number of people wouldn't be capable of working up to age 72.

Sat 23 Oct 10 13:24   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - -

I've not heard about the 72 figure. >> A significant number of people wouldn't be capable of working up to age 72. >> Nor have i L'es it was purely a number, though would you really put it past them doing it gradually over the next couple of decades, i'm chuffed as hell that i fall just right for an extra couple of years..it will be 67 by the time i get there sure as eggs is eggs. I'm quite convinced this round of cuts is merely a softener for things to come, there is no way of getting us out of the mess we are in, we have a constantly unnaturally rising population (the elephant people are terrified to mention in case they come to the wrong attention) with an ever increasing dependency culture. We have at least a couple of generations of people who have little or no work ethic or pride in themselves or the idea they are responsible for their own livelihoods, any politician who thinks a round of cuts such as these will suddenly turn the clock back to a time when the work ethic was instilled in generations of working class children by their hard working fathers is deluded more than we fear.

Fri 22 Oct 10 21:46   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H

>> >>Stu, why shouldn't they complain about losing their jobs? Its not their fault who is >> in power, its a job to many of them.<< Have I misunderstood something? I thought that it was 490,000 posts that were "forecast" to go over 4 or 5 years. Osborne said that these would be achieved in the main through natural wastage, with redundancies as a last resort. So the number of people losing jobs will be far fewer than the headline figure of posts lost. www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23691.html The wider measure of unemployment, which also includes people out of work who are not eligible for benefits or choose not to claim, provided a more positive picture after it declined in the three months to August. As for defence cuts, we should follow the example of Germany and Switzerland. Britain is not the economic power it once was. Last edited by: John H on Fri 22 Oct 10 at 21:51

Fri 22 Oct 10 22:05   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

John, What Osborne says, and what departments are saying to staff via Intranets etc. about natural wastage, is not consistent with what is actually being said in project plans. Natural wastage occurs mostly amongst the junior grades; these days that means people who see a few years in a government claimant/litigant etc facing role as part of their career plan. The people they need to get rid of now are in what used to be the HEO, SEO and Grade 6/7 roles. These are likely to be people in their forties/fifties with 25 to 35 years service recruited at a time when the civil service (or the bank, insurance co etc) was a career in itself. I'm one of them. I work in one of the 'quangos' slated for abolition last week.

Sat 23 Oct 10 12:26   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - AnotherJohnH

>> Almost everybody over 65 has been terminated. That should help with the pension costs.

Sat 23 Oct 10 12:32   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

You must get the termininogy right! They have not been "Terminated with Extreme Prejudice". They are out of work, not dead!

Sat 23 Oct 10 12:55   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Robin O'Reliant

There are a lot of people out there who are physically and intellectually capable of finding some sort of self-employment if the worst comes to the worst and their firm lays them off. However, we have developed a culture of sitting on our backsides demanding the government whistles up work for us to go to. it doesn't work like that, employment is created through the enterprise of individuals who are prepared to develop a business they can do themselves, even if it is only buying a set of ladders and cleaning windows or going to college and learning how to fit pipes together. We have a shortage of skilled trades people, look on redundancy as an opportunity, not a disaster.

Sat 23 Oct 10 13:15   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Roger.

The poll tax was quite simply the most logical and fair way to raise local taxes which has been devised. The protests in Jockland were an orchestrated plot to preserve the status-quo for the client voters of that land, in total thrall to their benefit paying masters of the left wing. Why is it not fair to tax individual users for their local government services? How is it fair to base local taxes on an arbitrary value placed upon a dwelling, without regard to its number of inhabitants?

Sat 23 Oct 10 13:34   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Part of the problem is the grisly UK education system which produces some of the poorest results and least employable people in Europe. The Government's base Standard is for pupils to achieve 5 'C' grade GCSEs, to include Maths and English. This is regarded as a satisfactory outcome to 11 years of education. One school in Essex only managed to get 8% of their pupils up to this very low standard. There are tens of thousands of young people who can't even pass the written theory driving test because they can't understand the questions. They definitly can't fill in the average job application and as for writing a CV!!!! There may be jobs out there but they are hard to find and many of our school leaving teenagers aren't close to getting a foot on the first rung of a very tall ladder. There may well be a shortage of skilled tradespeople but they aren't coming from our our educatio/ further education system.

Sat 23 Oct 10 21:55   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

>> The Government's base Standard is for pupils >> to achieve 5 'C' grade GCSEs, to include Maths and English. This is regarded as >> a satisfactory outcome to 11 years of education. One school in Essex only managed to >> get 8% of their pupils up to this very low standard. Perky, In principle GCSEs at grades A* to C are the equivalent of GCE O levels; you can argue dimming down and my wife will point out the stuff they now learn at GCSE Chemistry that she didn't encounter until Uni. My daughter took hers in 2009 and sonny jim does them in 2011. I've asked both for a considered response to the idea that all that effort equals a 'very low standard' and if they can pick themselves up from the ROFLMAO posture I'll post it here.

Sat 23 Oct 10 22:31   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Bromptonaut I am not picking on your charming children, I am saying that failure to achieve the equivalent of 5 "O" levels at the end of 10+ years of education is a pretty awful indictment of our education system. I would say that any student who can't meet that standard hasn't done well, however much effort they have put in. Poor teaching perhaps? The standard I mentioned is the lowest that the Government considers acceptable. One can always hope to surpass the lowest standard.

Sat 23 Oct 10 22:55   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

I'm not singling out my kids but I know that either could write an account that counters the idea that today's youngsters have been let down. 5 O levels is grammar school stuff. Like wot you and I did. There will be significant part of the population that, however hard they and their teachers try, just cannot get there. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 23 Oct 10 at 22:57

Sat 23 Oct 10 22:13   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut

The terminology in my place is 'exited'.

Sat 23 Oct 10 15:01   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Harleyman

>> It does tickle me seeing public sector workers complain about their jobs being cut and >> blaming the Coalition. >> It was Labour who created so many jobs that they couldnt fund long term, it >> just happens that its the Coalition are having to do Labours dirty work. Bullet dodged >> for them id say. >> Couldn't agree more. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth about having survived on poor wages for years, so they're therefore entitled to retire early and enjoy an index-linked pension. Diddums. Welcome to the real world.

Sat 23 Oct 10 15:06   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - -

Clever cunning politics though, set different groups against each other. Give private sector a bashing which leaves those envious of the public sector, next day do the opposite private sector then feel better, everyone loses except for those who own the country and it's politicians. Divide and rule.

Sat 23 Oct 10 15:11   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Tooslow

But it wasn't the government that beat up the private sector. It was the financial crisis, and while Gordon had a (big) hand in exacerbating the effect on Britain by spending and borrowing and by permitting lax banking regulation even I wouldn't blame him 100%. I don't see that getting rid of 500,000 of 800,000 public sector jobs that Labour conjured up is anything more than sensible and essential. Hardly bashing. So what is it that you had in mind? John

Sat 23 Oct 10 15:18   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Tooslow

On a different tack... am I the only one disappointed to see that the BBC licence fee is not to be reduced? Freezing it for six years is ok but an organisation that can spend so much on flowers and dinners for one another, pay eye-watering salaries and believes it is ok to claim on expenses when your handbag gets stolen is one that has too much money. John

Sat 23 Oct 10 15:20   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Delighted to see that we are no longer subbing the Ghastly "Wossy". That is £6 million weLl saved! Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Sat 23 Oct 10 at 15:21

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:21   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - -

Despite my better judgement i listened to (Mathew Bannister i think standing in made it worth listening) the J Vine programme today and was bemused for a while about the intended capping of housing benefit at £400 per week, some Labour bod wingeing about it as usual. What staggered me was the figure given that this capping will affect over 900,000 people...nearly blew a gasket, little wonder we're going headfirst into the drink if nearly a million people are having their housing costs paid at over £400 per week, just how many in the £300+ are there i wonder.

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:34   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

There are some in the £1500 a week + bracket too, which is what has drawn attention to the matter. Abu Hamza's family while he is in chokey fighting his extradition and a single refugee mother with 7 children living in something very tasty in North London.

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:38   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70

Perky, the one you mention with 7 children are getting about £8000pm for somewhere in Kensington I think. Crazy isn't it. tinyurl.com/23u883c But there's probably lots of examples. Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 18:38

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:54   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

I send money to the Salvation Army who take soup to the unfortunates sleeping under Thames Bridges and try to find them a bed for the night. How do they fall thru the net while people who aren't even citizens of this country are living in free splendour in Central London (well inside the M25 anyway)? I can also recommend Crisis at Christmas, as a cause to support, I send them something too. www.crisis.org.uk/pages/volunteering-at-crisis-christmas-2009.html As an aid worker once said to me. "Anything you can spare means something to someone who has nothing" Sentiments like that make me appreciate what I have got

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:57   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy

...I send money to the Salvation Army who take soup to the unfortunates sleeping under Thames Bridges... Perky, That's a tough one, there is a school of thought which says the more soup and buns you put on, the more homeless people will appear - rather like feeding pigeons.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:06   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

I agree, a bit. the same school of thought holds that money sent to Africa goes first to fund a fleet of logoed up Land Cruisers! On balance I don't think that many people would go for an evening out, to sit inder a bridge and pretend to be homeless, for a mug of soup and bun but I take your point.

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:39   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy

The financial circumstances of a thieving single mother were outlined in court a short while ago. I think she had three young children, and when all benefits were totted up, she was clicking about £330 a week, nett, without getting out of bed. Except she was getting out of bed, but only to go pinching from the local off-licence. There was a time when only doctors could afford large families, now it's the unemployed.

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:43   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - swiss tony

>> Despite my better judgement i listened to (Mathew Bannister i think standing in made it >> worth listening) the J Vine programme today and was bemused for a while about the >> intended capping of housing benefit at £400 per week, some Labour bod wingeing about it as usual. >> >> What staggered me was the figure given that this capping will affect over 900,000 people...nearly blew a gasket, little wonder we're going headfirst into the drink if nearly a million >> people are having their housing costs paid at over £400 per week, just how many >> in the £300+ are there i wonder. >> I do agree that £400+ a week is OTT, But...... private rent around here is £900ish PCM for a 3 bed house. Average wage £18k PA... that doesn't leave a lot for council tax, and food.... The current social housing waiting list is running at around a 5-10 year wait..so what are new families on low wages meant to do?

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:53   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Runfer D'Hills

Not breed until or unless they can afford it maybe ? Or is that too establishment a view ?       3

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:58   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke

It is too much from the state. I do think they by reducing housing benefit and other things and making having kids slightly more expensive it will make things harder. The government need to end the mad situation where 16 year olds get a baby in order to get a free council house. I know these cases are probably extremely rare but who knows.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:01   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - CGNorwich

To use the term breed, usually used when discussing livestock, when talking of poor families is quite frankly offensive.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:02   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Runfer D'Hills

Good, it was meant to get your attention.       1

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:08   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy

...Good, it was meant to get your attention... I agree with your use of the term 'breeding'. The casual approach of these young lads and lasses to procreation makes it no more or less than that. In fact, most animals are better mothers - they look after their offspring without expecting anyone else to do it. By the way, was it a bad day at work, Humph? That's your second tetchy post in the last few minutes.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:16   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

At this level it isn't love, it is not even breeding, it is self-indulgent rutting! Described as ‘Britain’s worst father’, jobless Keith Macdonald has fathered eight children by eight different women, and has two more on the way. He became a father for the first time at 15 and has abandoned every one of his children. The lay-about sparked outrage last night after it emerged that he does not give money to any of his children’s mothers, most of whom are claiming benefits. This means that the taxpayer will be left to foot the bill, which by the time the children have grown up is estimated to be £2 million.       1

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:20   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke

It all sounds a bit too much like the sort of thing the Daily Mail would report (and I use that word lightly) when they are bored of writing stories on how immigrants will kill us all.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:22   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy

...writing stories on how immigrants will kill us all... Nah, they wouldn't be that stupid - no one left to sponge off.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:25   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke

Still dosn't stop the Mail reporting it. Mind you never even bother reading it now I got so sick of it. Btw I am actually a socialist but I am shocked just how much some people are getting in housing benefit. I just looked at south Manchester rent prices and it seems £500-£700 a month will get you a decent sized 3 bedroom house. It won't be in the nicest postcode but at the same time its not in the middle of a war zone either. So apart from in some posher London postcodes I really can't see how £400 a week rents can apply. Also the fact the government thinks they can make savings over this means there most be a lot of people claiming that amount. Just one thing, it is £400 a week and not a month?

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:30   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin

Was my quote from the Mail?

Wed 27 Oct 10 18:56   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke

Rent around here is about £700 to £1200 for a bedroom post depending on the exact location, but just two miles away you could rent the same property for £400 a month. When I first read the cap it was on the BBC and I thought they meant per month and I thought that is going to be tough, but being capped at £1600 a month is still far more than I earn after tax etc. There is a real problem but I think maybe it will mean people are forced to look into new areas, the problem is I am not sure I want my local area to be populated purely by southerners who have moved out of London but that has happened over the past ten years. Even the cheapest 3 bed houses are over £200k now and my business is here. Thankfully rent isn't too bad (1 bed flat is around £400 a month) but I will happily move out and travel into the area if it was cheaper. Each case as its own unique circumstances, for some people the £400 a week cap will hit them hard but in reality I think all it will do is reduce the amount these people have to spend on their booze, cigs and sky HD TV. So on balance as longs if they are sensible about it I am all for the housing benefit cuts, if I was made homeless tomorrow I could rent a house share for £250 a month in a good area. I am all for social benefits but I think in the last ten years things have got a bit out of hand. It just annoys me when my parents are not earning hardly anything yet are not entiteled to benefits, they have not got a spare penny, my and my sister are constantly helping them out. They have bothed worked hard all their lives etc. I also do also understand how easy it is to fall in into the unemployment trap so I do also have sympathy for people loosing their benefits depending on their circumstances.

Wed 27 Oct 10 19:30   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - MD

>> Rent around here is about £700 to £1200 for a bedroom post depending on the >> exact location. WHAT is a Bedroom post?

Wed 27 Oct 10 22:07   Spending Cuts Volume 2 - FotheringtonTomas

>> >> Rent around here is about £700 to £1200 for a bedroom post >> WHAT is a Bedroom post? I haven't the faintest. Perhaps he means a bed-sitting room, or an (expensive) "letter from fr4nce"[1]. [1] A bunk-up. Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 22:08