NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Wartime Cabinet - Why? Which War? Where? what's changed!? The role of any PM has never been any different! The UK was a laggard, a laggard on his watch - the hollowing out from 2010 to 2024 is being reversed, it can't be done in 2 or 3 years If we have to base any policy in keeping Trump happy then the problem is Trump not the POlicy. Tell him to fuck off! What nuclear deterrent , an aging system we pay an extortionate sum for that we cannot control. Its obsolete and can we trust anything Trump has control over.
Yeah, what would he know about the military situation.
The UK has the second biggest defence budget in Europe. If the UK's military is so crap whose fault is that?
Funnily enough it’s complicated. IMHO the nuclear deterrent should be stripped from the defence budget as it’s such a fundamental cost. It’s not however Radikin’s fault. It’s decades of Treasury, top brass, complacency, the gradual, understandable time shift which has resulted in few politicians and the public experiencing war and so it not seeming “real”.
I would still take Radikin’s opinion over say, Brixian’s or Starmer and Reeves.
Radakin is just making a few quid by telling Sunday Times readers what they want to hear. That's it.
The article not a masterclass in strategic threat analysis and defence procurement planning, it's a retirement hobby.
Russia is zero coventional threat to the UK so this panicky, and frankly cowardly, rush to increase defence spending to counter a threat that doesn' t exist is ludicrous.
If the asymmetric, grey threat is so grave then spend money on law enforcement and intelligence. I wouldn't agree with it, but that at least has an internal logic that is missing from the easily manipulated Russophobe arseholes playing toy soldiers.
How about easily manipulated Russophile arseholes?
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
Lib Dems face call for inquiry into deselection of election candidate ... The party has admitted it unlawfully discriminated against former BBC journalist David Campanale on the basis of his religious beliefs when he was stopped from standing in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in 2024.
A civil court in London will this week begin the process of deciding what damages and costs Campanale is due.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
England are not showing anything like the elan that France, Spain or Argentina have.
They'll be out in the quarters or the semis.
We've got 3 players who are genuinely world class. Kane , Bellingham , Saka.
We've more athletic defenders than in a long while but sadly they lack defensive "nous" and organisational skills. The midfield pair of Rice and Anderson graft well but lack a touch of class, and we have a number of inverted wingers, christ the world is full of inverted wingers, but few of them can actually go round a player.
Rashford is decent but the rest of the attacking options are barely EFL level!
Tuchel just doesn't do it for me at all, a sullen dispiriting figure who looks forlorn and doesn't seem to have the team nor the country with him.
If I have written anything negative about Bellingham in the past I apologise. He is the only England player who seems capable of making something out of nothing.
And well done Tuchel for leaving out a right back who has won every trophy against the best players in the world and can drop the ball on a six pence and instead putting in centre backs as right backs. A Penny for Trent’s thoughts.
Ha I wrote that about Bellingham before he scored.
Never doubt Bellingham.
Those of us fortunate enough to have known from a very early age how special he will is know , it's been hard to persuade those who didn;t know how very special he really is.
In my humble opinion the best footballer this Country has produced since Duncan Edwards, and Duncan Edwards was head and shoulders above any player this Country ever produced apart from possibly Matthews and Bobby Charlton, and in Charltons case he was just iconic on and off the pitch.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
Speaking of AI, here is a recent video comparing AI to past sacrifices-to-gods. You have to give offerings so that the Singularity will arise and spare you.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
Speaking of AI, here is a recent video comparing AI to past sacrifices-to-gods. You have to give offerings so that the Singularity will arise and spare you.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
Against that I knew someone whose startup was hours away from running out of cash when he won $1m on the north Carolina education lottery.
15 years later he just sold the business for $700m (although he only owned about 30% by that point)
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
I think one of the defining moments of my childhood (aged about 8) was seeing a woman in front of me in a queue at the local post office play a £1 scratchcard, win £2, immediately buy two more scratchcards, and win nothing.
It demonstrated to me the utter futility of the whole business, except as a means to transfer money to the people selling scratchards, and from that day on I vowed I would never touch one.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Bin Laden was kiiled and the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan until troops were removed. We need to defend ourselves and our overseas territories as in the Falklands War and protect any nation invaded as in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and take part in Nato operations, including protecting Nato nations in Eastern Europe from Russian invasion and UN peacekeeping operations
Afghanistan is the best example of this logic fail. What’s the point if we will just hand a country back to evil scum like the Taliban without a fight? And Bin Laden was killed in a different country 10 years after the invasion and billions in spending - not the smartest use of public cash from that perspective.
We haven’t protected NATO allies - their territory and airspace has been repeatedly crossed by Russia. We have not sent the army into Ukraine despite the fact they’ve been invaded like Kuwait was.
Russian planes fly into UK airspace regularly to test - would you like us to shoot them down? There are games that all sides play and responses are proportionate. In your world the military we don’t want goes balls deep on the enemy and then what.
Yes, ffs. A deterrent isn’t credible unless you actually have the conviction to use it. The Russians will continue to push it unless you stand up to them at some point - but your attitude means it’s always logical not to.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him.
He had a not great, not terrible reputation in the service. Always held in a bit of sniffy disregard because he wasn't from the "Holy Trinity" (Surface Warfare, Submariners, Fleet Air Arm) but was a lawyer who had only done the Tarts and Vicars course at BRNC.
Of course, he was a fantastically able bureaucrat and political operator. That's how he made to 1SL/CoDS.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
They are threadbare despite being the 6th most expensive military in the world.
No point in throwing good money after bad until there has been a thorough chucking out at the MoD and higher ranks. There has to be some accountability for the waste and profligacy.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him.
He had a not great, not terrible reputation in the service. Always held in a bit of sniffy disregard because he wasn't from the "Holy Trinity" (Surface Warfare, Submariners, Fleet Air Arm) but was a lawyer who had only done the Tarts and Vicars course at BRNC.
Of course, he was a fantastically able bureaucrat and political operator. That's how he made to 1SL/CoDS.
Sounds reminiscent of a Gilbert & Sullivan character.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him.
He had a not great, not terrible reputation in the service. Always held in a bit of sniffy disregard because he wasn't from the "Holy Trinity" (Surface Warfare, Submariners, Fleet Air Arm) but was a lawyer who had only done the Tarts and Vicars course at BRNC.
Of course, he was a fantastically able bureaucrat and political operator. That's how he made to 1SL/CoDS.
"Stick close to your desks and never go to sea, And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!"
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
Surely he's had a lot more than 3 1/2 weeks. He was clearly on manoeuvres when he was turned down for selection for the Gorton by-election. And I presume for a while before that. He must have had backing from people within the party, I can't see that the Andy premiership has happened without some strong support (even if secret) from some influential people in the background.
However, given that Labour obviously won the election without much idea what to do next, though, makes it quite possible Andy will do the same
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
The problem with this is simple. The MOD has demonstrated again and again that all it is good at is pissing vast quantities of money away for almost zero return. They will keep demanding ever more cash, and we will never have a functional army.
The only possibilities for solving this are 1) That we somehow end up fighting a significant war, and the military make them sort it out. 2) We burn the MOD to the ground and start again.
Just giving the MOD more money absent either of these is pointless. We might as well heap up huge a pile of fivers in the street and burn them.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him.
He had a not great, not terrible reputation in the service. Always held in a bit of sniffy disregard because he wasn't from the "Holy Trinity" (Surface Warfare, Submariners, Fleet Air Arm) but was a lawyer who had only done the Tarts and Vicars course at BRNC.
Of course, he was a fantastically able bureaucrat and political operator. That's how he made to 1SL/CoDS.
"Stick close to your desks and never go to sea, And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!"
A send-up of the appointment of WH Smith (not the original one, but yes that family and company) as First Lord of the Admiralty.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
Rare agreement from me on most of this.
Wait: you don't think the government accepts this kind of incompetence in other parts of the public sector???
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
They are threadbare despite being the 6th most expensive military in the world.
No point in throwing good money after bad until there has been a thorough chucking out at the MoD and higher ranks. There has to be some accountability for the waste and profligacy.
Do you think all other NATO countries (there are 31 of them) that have agreed the 5% target by 2035 are saying "we shouldn't throw good money after bad" and dragging their feet or do you think that they are urgently getting on with it recognising that security threats have changed and extra investment in defence is urgently needed because they're acutely vulnerable?
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
The problem with this is simple. The MOD has demonstrated again and again that all it is good at is pissing vast quantities of money away for almost zero return. They will keep demanding ever more cash, and we will never have a functional army.
The only possibilities for solving this are 1) That we somehow end up fighting a significant war, and the military make them sort it out. 2) We burn the MOD to the ground and start again.
Just giving the MOD more money absent either of these is pointless. We might as well heap up huge a pile of fivers in the street and burn them.
I'm calling bollocks on this.
Yes, the MoD hasn't been brilliant at managing a few projects, many of which were strongly influenced by politicians - remember - and, at the same time, we have boats laid up for want of fuel, sailors and maintenance and other serviceable assets being cannibalised for parts. So we can't even properly patrol our own waters. Let alone upgrade to the next generation of technology that we need to keep the UK safe.
Your prescription is irresponsible, naive, dangerous and juvenile.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
With such policies like sack everyone and start again, and burn the MoD to the ground, etc. the only ones who'd be cheering would be the Kremlin.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
They are threadbare despite being the 6th most expensive military in the world.
No point in throwing good money after bad until there has been a thorough chucking out at the MoD and higher ranks. There has to be some accountability for the waste and profligacy.
Do you think all other NATO countries (there are 31 of them) that have agreed the 5% target by 2035 are saying "we shouldn't throw good money after bad" and dragging their feet or do you think that they are urgently getting on with it recognising that security threats have changed and extra investment in defence is urgently needed because they're acutely vulnerable?
Other countries already deliver greater capability for less money. However we can't copy how to do it due to "not invented here" (like the rest of government).
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
The problem with this is simple. The MOD has demonstrated again and again that all it is good at is pissing vast quantities of money away for almost zero return. They will keep demanding ever more cash, and we will never have a functional army.
The only possibilities for solving this are 1) That we somehow end up fighting a significant war, and the military make them sort it out. 2) We burn the MOD to the ground and start again.
Just giving the MOD more money absent either of these is pointless. We might as well heap up huge a pile of fivers in the street and burn them.
The other thing is that it's pretty clear that the nature of warfare is changing before our eyes. Drones change things in ways where we still have to work out the consequences. I suspect that Robot Wars are better for humanity, but the instability will be worse- at least until we locate the new equilibrium.
Meanwhile, the bigger current threat, that the national mind is being turned to mush by propaganda, is insufficiently addressed and probably not solved by traditional military.
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
This is all fairly obvious as far as it goes, and I don't think any facts, possibilities or ideas here are unknown to anyone paying attention. Other questions include these:
To what extent will Burnham take the risk of being fairly clear about the realities of hard choices between competing options, something recently either avoided altogether or reversed quickly?
How far will be go in exposing the current leftish fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet?
What choice will be make in the contest of the leftish desire to tax the plutocrats and the plutocrat propaganda campaign to make sure they don't have to pay?
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
The reason that happens is because Defence has only been drip-fed new money for years and, once you take off the nuclear deterrent, we're still barely at 2% of GDP, whilst still expecting us to fulfill all the massive ambitions of the SDR on a shoestring as well as massive new equipment and procurement programmes, in a high inflation environment and where we've already sold off a lot of bases and land and don't have sufficient trained personnel.
That's why they're struggling. It's not hard to figure out.
There are no answers here that don't involve a much bigger and expanded investment and growth programme that's fully funded.
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
Pepys Diary, 28 June 1662, 364 years ago to the day:
Great talk there is of a fear of a war with the Dutch; and we have order to pitch upon twenty ships to be forthwith set out; but I hope it is but a scarecrow to the world, to let them see that we can be ready for them; though, God knows! the King is not able to set out five ships at this present without great difficulty, we neither having money, credit, nor stores.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
Rare agreement from me on most of this.
Wait: you don't think the government accepts this kind of incompetence in other parts of the public sector???
Not to this degree, no. My uninformed theory is that there's a bit of a Radio 3 dynamic here- even if we don't benefit form defence spending ourselves, we collectively feel happier for knowing it's there.
I certainly can't think of another bit of government spending where those loyal to the ideals of Thatcher would accept "we should spend £X" or "we should have P and Q" over "we should achieve Y and Z for the lowest reasonable price".
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
With such policies like sack everyone and start again, and burn the MoD to the ground, etc. the only ones who'd be cheering would be the Kremlin.
Dunno about that - there are 60,000 civil servants at the MOD, more than the RN and RAF combined. We could swap them out and field 3 new divisions instead.
Slightly baffled by your new found love of Whitehall tbh. Looking at civil service headcounts the MOD is weirdly massive - you’d expect HMRC/DWP/Prisons to have lots of call centre staff. The MOD?
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
What's your view on Generals always fighting the last war? Plenty of examples from history and an explanation of Russia's current problems (and Trump's?)
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
Pepys Diary, 28 June 1662, 364 years ago to the day:
Great talk there is of a fear of a war with the Dutch; and we have order to pitch upon twenty ships to be forthwith set out; but I hope it is but a scarecrow to the world, to let them see that we can be ready for them; though, God knows! the King is not able to set out five ships at this present without great difficulty, we neither having money, credit, nor stores.
We need to be wary of the Cloggie threat. They have more serviceable frigates than us, and submarines too.
Though we would be really up against it if the vikings invaded again. No chance of stopping their fleet.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
They are threadbare despite being the 6th most expensive military in the world.
No point in throwing good money after bad until there has been a thorough chucking out at the MoD and higher ranks. There has to be some accountability for the waste and profligacy.
Do you think all other NATO countries (there are 31 of them) that have agreed the 5% target by 2035 are saying "we shouldn't throw good money after bad" and dragging their feet or do you think that they are urgently getting on with it recognising that security threats have changed and extra investment in defence is urgently needed because they're acutely vulnerable?
Other countries already deliver greater capability for less money. However we can't copy how to do it due to "not invented here" (like the rest of government).
So British exceptionalism is a thing, but only when we're shit?
Give over. The arguments I'm reading on here this morning are laughable.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
This is all fairly obvious as far as it goes, and I don't think any facts, possibilities or ideas here are unknown to anyone paying attention. Other questions include these:
To what extent will Burnham take the risk of being fairly clear about the realities of hard choices between competing options, something recently either avoided altogether or reversed quickly?
How far will be go in exposing the current leftish fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet?
What choice will be make in the contest of the leftish desire to tax the plutocrats and the plutocrat propaganda campaign to make sure they don't have to pay?
Will he ease the pressure on employment costs?
Interesting thoughts.
I don't think the 'fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet' is an exclusively leftish one - look at the state the last government left finances in - I think it's embedded deep in the British psyche.
As for the contest between wanting to tax plutocrats and the plutocrat anti-tax propaganda, Burnham will hopefully brazen it out and ignore the propaganda.
One way he could ease employment costs is by ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed evenly, rather than NI only applying to earned income.
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
With such policies like sack everyone and start again, and burn the MoD to the ground, etc. the only ones who'd be cheering would be the Kremlin.
Dunno about that - there are 60,000 civil servants at the MOD, more than the RN and RAF combined. We could swap them out and field 3 new divisions instead.
Slightly baffled by your new found love of Whitehall tbh. Looking at civil service headcounts the MOD is weirdly massive - you’d expect HMRC/DWP/Prisons to have lots of call centre staff. The MOD?
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
Pepys Diary, 28 June 1662, 364 years ago to the day:
Great talk there is of a fear of a war with the Dutch; and we have order to pitch upon twenty ships to be forthwith set out; but I hope it is but a scarecrow to the world, to let them see that we can be ready for them; though, God knows! the King is not able to set out five ships at this present without great difficulty, we neither having money, credit, nor stores.
We need to be wary of the Cloggie threat. They have more serviceable frigates than us, and submarines too.
Though we would be really up against it if the vikings invaded again. No chance of stopping their fleet.
A footnote to the Pepys quote above; the war with the Dutch, rumoured in 1662, for which Pepys privately knew we were then totally unprepared actually broke out in March 1665.
Meanwhile, in "let's go fly a kite" news, the Observer has this;
David Miliband is ready to serve in Andy Burnham’s Cabinet. Burnham is actively considering appointing him - possibly as foreign secretary with a seat in the Lords.
Pretty sure this would be unwise. If Burnham's government turns into "colleagues from the Blair years who buggered off because opposition and fighting Corbyn was beneath them", that's going to leave a lot of hacked-off backbenchers.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
With such policies like sack everyone and start again, and burn the MoD to the ground, etc. the only ones who'd be cheering would be the Kremlin.
Dunno about that - there are 60,000 civil servants at the MOD, more than the RN and RAF combined. We could swap them out and field 3 new divisions instead.
Slightly baffled by your new found love of Whitehall tbh. Looking at civil service headcounts the MOD is weirdly massive - you’d expect HMRC/DWP/Prisons to have lots of call centre staff. The MOD?
60 000 MoD staff yet we have a recruitment and retention crisis particularly amongst technical grades. Says it all.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
This is all fairly obvious as far as it goes, and I don't think any facts, possibilities or ideas here are unknown to anyone paying attention. Other questions include these:
To what extent will Burnham take the risk of being fairly clear about the realities of hard choices between competing options, something recently either avoided altogether or reversed quickly?
How far will be go in exposing the current leftish fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet?
What choice will be make in the contest of the leftish desire to tax the plutocrats and the plutocrat propaganda campaign to make sure they don't have to pay?
Will he ease the pressure on employment costs?
Interesting thoughts.
I don't think the 'fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet' is an exclusively leftish one - look at the state the last government left finances in - I think it's embedded deep in the British psyche.
As for the contest between wanting to tax plutocrats and the plutocrat anti-tax propaganda, Burnham will hopefully brazen it out and ignore the propaganda.
One way he could ease employment costs is by ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed evenly, rather than NI only applying to earned income.
Agree.
It's the leftish fad which will be the principal difficulty for Burnham, not the Tory one!
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
Just giving the MOD £30bn is the best way to lose £30bn. There needs to be absolute root and branch reform. If we are not getting: 1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland 2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
With such policies like sack everyone and start again, and burn the MoD to the ground, etc. the only ones who'd be cheering would be the Kremlin.
The only thing cheering the Kremlin is the fact that we are spending as much as we are, and for it we are getting:
1. A nuclear deterrent that doesn't fire, or the missiles decide to go home to Florida when we fire them. 2. More admirals than things that float. 3. One single ship with missile defence capabilities. 4. Tens of billions wasted on dud programmes. 5. A vast bureaucracy that despite its size has still handed procurement over to a US company.
I am for the increase in defence spending, but I am sure as shit not for it being poured into the MOD as things currently stand. It would be actively harmful.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
I think one of the defining moments of my childhood (aged about 8) was seeing a woman in front of me in a queue at the local post office play a £1 scratchcard, win £2, immediately buy two more scratchcards, and win nothing.
It demonstrated to me the utter futility of the whole business, except as a means to transfer money to the people selling scratchards, and from that day on I vowed I would never touch one.
This reminds me of a school presentation at a gambling conference I attended, when I failed to convince the teacher there might be a problem with their statistics, but that there was a better, more interesting lesson for the children hidden underneath their scare stories of how much the public lost on gambling. How much had the woman in your Post Office lost? The £3 she spent on scratchcards, the £2 which was the most she had at any one time, or just the £1 she went in with?
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
It’s the leftist equivalent of “tattoo removal on the NHS”: highly visible, hard to defend and utterly irrelevant.
There does need to be a rethink about defence procurement - the desire for tailored products isn’t that helpful but the argument that the defence industry uses is that it creates future jobs and tax revenues from exports - it’s an argument that plays well with the treasury as allows them to offset the costs.
Another issue is that a lot of military capabilities aren’t talked about. For example, Dragonfire has moved from a prototype to a naval production version in 10 years (expected first installation next year). I suspect the land based version has been available for some time, but not highlighted publicly.
Thirdly it’s not just about kit. We need resilience - supply chain strengthening (for example) with chip manufacturing. But when we forced Nexperia (China) to sell Newport why did we let it go to a US buyer vs insisting on UK ownership? We didn’t care about the price that Nexperia achieved.
Finally we need a lot more investment in the less glamorous side of the MoD - training, recruitment, repairs, servicing capabilities, etc. A lot of the MoD spending should be about having the capacity to scale up quickly when needed. I don’t care if a naval dockyard, for example, runs at 60% capacity - but on Treasury models that’s unbelievable inefficient. We need to find a way to value strategic resilience which is currently missing from the analysis.
A large part of the issue is that the English national psyche is buttressed by the highly visible trappings of military puissance rather than actual capability. Hence the Army owning thousands of horses, frigate counting as a national pastime and an unslakeable lust for pointy aircraft. That's the reason the public, on the whole and ably egged on by a few legacy media outlets, would prefer to have the Red Arrows than more F-35 instructors.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
It’s the leftist equivalent of “tattoo removal on the NHS”: highly visible, hard to defend and utterly irrelevant.
There does need to be a rethink about defence procurement - the desire for tailored products isn’t that helpful but the argument that the defence industry uses is that it creates future jobs and tax revenues from exports - it’s an argument that plays well with the treasury as allows them to offset the costs.
Another issue is that a lot of military capabilities aren’t talked about. For example, Dragonfire has moved from a prototype to a naval production version in 10 years (expected first installation next year). I suspect the land based version has been available for some time, but not highlighted publicly.
Thirdly it’s not just about kit. We need resilience - supply chain strengthening (for example) with chip manufacturing. But when we forced Nexperia (China) to sell Newport why did we let it go to a US buyer vs insisting on UK ownership? We didn’t care about the price that Nexperia achieved.
Finally we need a lot more investment in the less glamorous side of the MoD - training, recruitment, repairs, servicing capabilities, etc. A lot of the MoD spending should be about having the capacity to scale up quickly when needed. I don’t care if a naval dockyard, for example, runs at 60% capacity - but on Treasury models that’s unbelievable inefficient. We need to find a way to value strategic resilience which is currently missing from the analysis.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
The reason that happens is because Defence has only been drip-fed new money for years and, once you take off the nuclear deterrent, we're still barely at 2% of GDP, whilst still expecting us to fulfill all the massive ambitions of the SDR on a shoestring as well as massive new equipment and procurement programmes, in a high inflation environment and where we've already sold off a lot of bases and land and don't have sufficient trained personnel.
That's why they're struggling. It's not hard to figure out.
There are no answers here that don't involve a much bigger and expanded investment and growth programme that's fully funded.
There are always excuses for not spending money when with the MoD a lot of the problems have been caused by not spending money, but not cancelling capability to cut that spending.
Given that we absolutely now need the capability the solution is pretty simple - spend the necessary money.
A massive increase in spending on defence is necessary but not sufficient.
The whole MoD is set up to fight the last war, and several floors of staff need to be cleared out of Whitehall.
We need to stop throwing good money after bad on custom projects such as Ajax, instead buying off the shelf. We need to work with a variety of suppliers from different countries, including startups such as Anduril and several companies in Ukraine who are fighting the current war - not the big company who has a habit of offering well-paid non-jobs to MoD retirees.
We need to prioritise making ammunition for current weapons rather than looking at the next big expensive boondoggle, get the Navy actually able to field more than two small ships at any one time, recruit and train tens of thousands of men and officers, address key bottlenecks such as flying school instructors and cybersecurity specialists.
It’s been ignored for decades, probably since 1991, under governments of all colours, well now there’s a heightened threat and we’re not ready, and neither is most of Europe.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
I wouldn’t mind spending 3% if we took the same approach as the French - fully independent nukes + much more aggressive towards Russia. But there are people in this thread suggesting we should let them fly through our airspace unhindered while also massively increasing spending - that’s mental.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
The reason that happens is because Defence has only been drip-fed new money for years and, once you take off the nuclear deterrent, we're still barely at 2% of GDP, whilst still expecting us to fulfill all the massive ambitions of the SDR on a shoestring as well as massive new equipment and procurement programmes, in a high inflation environment and where we've already sold off a lot of bases and land and don't have sufficient trained personnel.
That's why they're struggling. It's not hard to figure out.
There are no answers here that don't involve a much bigger and expanded investment and growth programme that's fully funded.
There are always excuses for not spending money when with the MoD a lot of the problems have been caused by not spending money, but not cancelling capability to cut that spending.
Given that we absolutely now need the capability the solution is pretty simple - spend the necessary money.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aGYe7YvgKTM
It's a sentry gun. To kill mosquitos. With lasers. Automatically. IT'S A REAL-LIFE BUG HUNT.
...
The party has admitted it unlawfully discriminated against former BBC journalist David Campanale on the basis of his religious beliefs when he was stopped from standing in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in 2024.
A civil court in London will this week begin the process of deciding what damages and costs Campanale is due.
A party group, the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, has called for an inquiry into the deselection.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gypnyk788o
ETA the LibDems won Sutton & Cheam with its replacement candidate.
We've more athletic defenders than in a long while but sadly they lack defensive "nous" and organisational skills. The midfield pair of Rice and Anderson graft well but lack a touch of class, and we have a number of inverted wingers, christ the world is full of inverted wingers, but few of them can actually go round a player.
Rashford is decent but the rest of the attacking options are barely EFL level!
Tuchel just doesn't do it for me at all, a sullen dispiriting figure who looks forlorn and doesn't seem to have the team nor the country with him.
Crying out for a Klopp or Guardiola figure.
Those of us fortunate enough to have known from a very early age how special he will is know , it's been hard to persuade those who didn;t know how very special he really is.
In my humble opinion the best footballer this Country has produced since Duncan Edwards, and Duncan Edwards was head and shoulders above any player this Country ever produced apart from possibly Matthews and Bobby Charlton, and in Charltons case he was just iconic on and off the pitch.
F1: dramatic F1 qualifying. I'd be irked if I'd backed Leclerc for pole. But I didn't.
I think Russell will fail. His tyre management has been way weaker than Antonelli's this year and Austria chews them up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxEPkufryI
I can see a number of SC and VSR.
The pace that the GOAT Max got in the 5th fastest Car bodes well for the race if they can get the set up right and I think he's the value bet here.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
Contrasting fates for Asia, with 7 of 8 gone, and Japan the only surivor. Next to play Brazil.
Czechia and Turkey join Scotland for the wooden spoon in Europe.
Uruguay the only South American going home.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
15 years later he just sold the business for $700m (although he only owned about 30% by that point)
Utterly appalled.
It demonstrated to me the utter futility of the whole business, except as a means to transfer money to the people selling scratchards, and from that day on I vowed I would never touch one.
Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68qv2NlpVhg
Of course, he was a fantastically able bureaucrat and political operator. That's how he made to 1SL/CoDS.
No point in throwing good money after bad until there has been a thorough chucking out at the MoD and higher ranks. There has to be some accountability for the waste and profligacy.
The main thing I struggle with is spending an additional £30 billion on a government department that currently uses £60 billion to put a single frigate, builds a IFV that doesn’t work and injures troops, and destroys RAF recruitment via Capita. You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of incompetence anywhere else in the public sector, would you?
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!"
However, given that Labour obviously won the election without much idea what to do next, though, makes it quite possible Andy will do the same
1. Missile defence over Britain and Ireland
2. The ability to control and police our territorial waters
Then they don't deserve the £30bn and I don't want to know. Sack everyone and start again.
The only possibilities for solving this are
1) That we somehow end up fighting a significant war, and the military make them sort it out.
2) We burn the MOD to the ground and start again.
Just giving the MOD more money absent either of these is pointless. We might as well heap up huge a pile of fivers in the street and burn them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMHl0_yleO0
Some things never change.
Yes, the MoD hasn't been brilliant at managing a few projects, many of which were strongly influenced by politicians - remember - and, at the same time, we have boats laid up for want of fuel, sailors and maintenance and other serviceable assets being cannibalised for parts. So we can't even properly patrol our own waters. Let alone upgrade to the next generation of technology that we need to keep the UK safe.
Your prescription is irresponsible, naive, dangerous and juvenile.
Meanwhile, the bigger current threat, that the national mind is being turned to mush by propaganda, is insufficiently addressed and probably not solved by traditional military.
Until that aspect and the MoD's well documented and discussed broad spectrum incapacity are addressed then we'll get what we alway get because we're doing what we've always done.
To what extent will Burnham take the risk of being fairly clear about the realities of hard choices between competing options, something recently either avoided altogether or reversed quickly?
How far will be go in exposing the current leftish fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet?
What choice will be make in the contest of the leftish desire to tax the plutocrats and the plutocrat propaganda campaign to make sure they don't have to pay?
Will he ease the pressure on employment costs?
That's why they're struggling. It's not hard to figure out.
There are no answers here that don't involve a much bigger and expanded investment and growth programme that's fully funded.
Great talk there is of a fear of a war with the Dutch; and we have order to pitch upon twenty ships to be forthwith set out; but I hope it is but a scarecrow to the world, to let them see that we can be ready for them; though, God knows! the King is not able to set out five ships at this present without great difficulty, we neither having money, credit, nor stores.
I certainly can't think of another bit of government spending where those loyal to the ideals of Thatcher would accept "we should spend £X" or "we should have P and Q" over "we should achieve Y and Z for the lowest reasonable price".
Slightly baffled by your new found love of Whitehall tbh. Looking at civil service headcounts the MOD is weirdly massive - you’d expect HMRC/DWP/Prisons to have lots of call centre staff. The MOD?
Though we would be really up against it if the vikings invaded again. No chance of stopping their fleet.
Give over. The arguments I'm reading on here this morning are laughable.
I don't think the 'fad for wanting nice things without concern for the balance sheet' is an exclusively leftish one - look at the state the last government left finances in - I think it's embedded deep in the British psyche.
As for the contest between wanting to tax plutocrats and the plutocrat anti-tax propaganda, Burnham will hopefully brazen it out and ignore the propaganda.
One way he could ease employment costs is by ensuring earned and unearned income are taxed evenly, rather than NI only applying to earned income.
That's less than 0.05% of the Defence budget:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d4r5n9dzgo
NEW THREAD
David Miliband is ready to serve in Andy Burnham’s Cabinet. Burnham is actively considering appointing him - possibly as foreign secretary with a seat in the Lords.
https://bsky.app/profile/rachelsylvester.bsky.social/post/3mpdfmwrzh22a
Pretty sure this would be unwise. If Burnham's government turns into "colleagues from the Blair years who buggered off because opposition and fighting Corbyn was beneath them", that's going to leave a lot of hacked-off backbenchers.
It's the leftish fad which will be the principal difficulty for Burnham, not the Tory one!
1. A nuclear deterrent that doesn't fire, or the missiles decide to go home to Florida when we fire them.
2. More admirals than things that float.
3. One single ship with missile defence capabilities.
4. Tens of billions wasted on dud programmes.
5. A vast bureaucracy that despite its size has still handed procurement over to a US company.
I am for the increase in defence spending, but I am sure as shit not for it being poured into the MOD as things currently stand. It would be actively harmful.
There does need to be a rethink about defence procurement - the desire for tailored products isn’t that helpful but the argument that the defence industry uses is that it creates future jobs and tax revenues from exports - it’s an argument that plays well with the treasury as allows them to offset the costs.
Another issue is that a lot of military capabilities aren’t talked about. For example, Dragonfire has moved from a prototype to a naval production version in 10 years (expected first installation next year). I suspect the land based version has been available for some time, but not highlighted publicly.
Thirdly it’s not just about kit. We need resilience - supply chain strengthening (for example) with chip manufacturing. But when we forced Nexperia (China) to sell Newport why did we let it go to a US buyer vs insisting on UK ownership? We didn’t care about the price that Nexperia achieved.
Finally we need a lot more investment in the less glamorous side of the MoD - training, recruitment, repairs, servicing capabilities, etc. A lot of the MoD spending should be about having the capacity to scale up quickly when needed. I don’t care if a naval dockyard, for example, runs at 60% capacity - but on Treasury models that’s unbelievable inefficient. We need to find a way to value strategic resilience which is currently missing from the analysis.
Given that we absolutely now need the capability the solution is pretty simple - spend the necessary money.
The whole MoD is set up to fight the last war, and several floors of staff need to be cleared out of Whitehall.
We need to stop throwing good money after bad on custom projects such as Ajax, instead buying off the shelf. We need to work with a variety of suppliers from different countries, including startups such as Anduril and several companies in Ukraine who are fighting the current war - not the big company who has a habit of offering well-paid non-jobs to MoD retirees.
We need to prioritise making ammunition for current weapons rather than looking at the next big expensive boondoggle, get the Navy actually able to field more than two small ships at any one time, recruit and train tens of thousands of men and officers, address key bottlenecks such as flying school instructors and cybersecurity specialists.
It’s been ignored for decades, probably since 1991, under governments of all colours, well now there’s a heightened threat and we’re not ready, and neither is most of Europe.