'Des Two Jobs Browne' is not the main problem facing Britain's armed forces

Following yesterday's savaging of Government Defence Policy in the Lords by former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, David Cameron has written to the Prime Minister and asked him to end the fact that Des Browne is both Defence Secretary and Scottish Secretary:

“You will be aware of the comments by former Chiefs of the Defence Staff in relation to the Armed Forces and, in particular, from Admiral Lord Boyce regarding your decision to make the Defence Secretary a part-time post.

I made clear at the time that this decision was wrong. In light of the concerns expressed by these senior former military officers, I urge you once again to reconsider this decision.  As you will be aware, it has caused great concern ever since it was announced.

At a time when our Forces are engaged in two highly dangerous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for the Defence Secretary to be able to concentrate full-time on his role is surely a matter of plain common sense. People do not understand why you have chosen to combine the job of Defence Secretary with Scottish Secretary at such a crucial time. Now Admiral Boyce has made clear this concern extends to those on the front line, I hope you will take this opportunity to reverse your decision and appoint a Defence Secretary who is able to devote his total attention to this vital job, unencumbered by other responsibilities within Government.

I look forward to your early response.”

This is a good and necessary letter.  But the real problem is not overstretch at the top but overstretch throughout the armed forces.  Our armed forces are quite simply underfunded and the defence budget needs to be increased substantially over the coming years.  The Conservatives cannot remain silent on this issue for much longer.  Conservative members understand this.  They believe that Britain's military should be at the front of the queue for extra resources from a Conservative Government.  Defence of the realm is the first duty of any government.  It must be George Osborne's top expenditure priority.

For background see the website of the new UK National Defence Association.

Related link: Ministry of Defence comes bottom of league table for answering questions promptly according to research by Mark Harper MP

Comments

[Alan S]

Hasn't David Cameron said that the NHS is his spending priority?

[Mark Fulford]

Brown will not be able to resist the pressure to reverse his appalling decision to make Defence Secretary a part-time position. It will be very interesting to see how quickly and gracefully he concedes the point. The wise would do it here and now but my money's on a few months yet.

[Tony Makara]

A timely response and a well put argument by Mr Cameron. Our armed services have been treated with utter distain by this Labour government. These brave men and women deserve more respect from Labour.

[Drusilla]

It's pleasant to know that this particular bandwagon is now so obviously popular (and anyone who was e.g. fortunate enough to stand near Parliament Square this past Remembrance Sunday, watching the reaction of the crowds to the brave men and women marching past, will have some sense of the strength of feeling now about our armed forces, past and present) that even David Cameron has, belatedly, decided to clamber aboard. Meanwhile, some of our more principled Conservatives have been far from silent on the issue of overstretch:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2919571.ece

[Bruges Group NG]

I would have more respect for the likes of "Lord" Boyce and "Sir" Mike Jackson had they been slightly more voluable about the poor bllody infantry when in office. Maybe they were more concerned about hanging around to pick up their baubles ? The actions of Sir Richard Dannatt are all the more commendable given the circumstances.

Labour does not care about the Armed Forces because the vast majority of those serving are hard working, loyal, and genuinely patriotic - just the sort of virtues Labour most loathes, and just the sort of people least likely to vote for the chippy toytown Trots and class warriers who fill this Labour Govt.

However, social workers and Teenage Pregnancy Advisers can soon expect their own Cabinet Minister under Brown.

[David]

i Conservative members understand this. They believe that Britain's military should be at the front of the queue for extra resources from a Conservative Government

The problem is that spending was reduced markedly under the last Conservative government. And further, if you want to campaign on tax cuts and reductions on government spending, it makes it hard to call for increased spending.

[Michael Davidson]

We should tread carefully here. More spending on our armed forces must either result in higher taxes, higher borrowing or spending cuts in other areas. Until Osborne can say which one it will be and can convince the British public that this is acceptable, then we shouldn't be promising the earth to our troops.

Considering we are the second largest spenders in nominal terms on defence in the world, we have to ask ourselves - do we really need to spend any more on it?

[George Hinton]

Its ironic really, that NuLab launched our armed services into conflict, knowing full well that they were putting the services' budgets to the cheese parer.
Whilst Blair might well have hoped, that the Afghan and Iraqi imbroglio's would have loosened the iron-grip of the Chancellor on the purse strings, that did not actually happen. In fact the war gave the Chancellor and Treasury an ideal opportunity for even more nit-picking on expenditure and ever more control over Blair.
Now that Brown has taken over the hot seat of state, all his actions over the last 10 years are coming home to roost. He crows about the money spent, but there has been no impact, and when the ex-Chiefs of Staff stand up and lambast him at Westminster, the nature of the mendacity that NuLab has peddled becomes clearer. We have all been victims of an awful con.....( Makes you wonder if the loss of those two CD's is not all part of an elaborate scam, a Ponzi perhaps, a HIYIP, about to be perpetrated against us ).
Brown is a typical radical socialist, who has a hatred of "service", absolutely no regard for the armed forces, and would prefer that the UK was part of some armorphous social entity, where everything was owned by the state and we all knew our place, which was to ritually kowtow to our leadership.
Brown needs to be harried, relentlessly, on all fronts. His mendacious response to questioning today in Uganda, that he supports our armed forces needs to be tested, by actions not words.

In the meantime I wish a pox and plague on the House of Brown.

[Jake]

The post of Scottish secretary should be abolished anyway ; it is redundant now that there is a Scottish parliament and government . Ditto Welsh and NI secs .

Or conversely : Why isn't there an English secretary ?

of course Brown should never have combined these posts , its an insult to the armed forces .
That they are involved in at least 2 wars makes it far worse .

Brown ought to respond quickly and do as Cameron suggests - bet he doesn't though , though he will have to in the end . He just doesn't have the mental flexibility to do it until too late .

[Christina Speight]

Michael D: at 1447 "Considering we are the second largest spenders in nominal terms on defence in the world"

Eh? What about Russia, China, Pakistan, (after the US) and possibly Turkey, and as a percentage of GDP Israel.

[David Lindsay]

Of course the Government is putting our soldiers', sailors' and airmen's lives at unnecessary risk. It is doing so by deploying them in the wholly voluntary, and not remotely defensive, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars which are now lost, but from which it refuses to extricate them.

So they should bring themselves back, to be cheered through the streets by the grateful populace, whose liberties they really would be defending by thus, without needing to fire a shot, bringing about the collapse of the ID card-wielding, prolonged detention without charge-mongering Political Class, in whose place proper politicians and parties could then re-emerge.

If the next pointless war is to be against Iran, then we should stop bothering to have our own Armed Forces at all. Instead, we should simply conscript our least accomplished 16-year-old boys directly into the Israeli Defence Force. After all, it certainly needs the manpower in a country which now contains hardly anybody except non-Jewish Arabs (the single most common name for newborn boys inside the pre-1967 Israeli borders is now Muhammad), Sephardic Jewish Arabs despised (historically to the point of irradiation) by the Zionist Ashkenazi elite, ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists, Russian Nazis let in by the ridiculous retention of the Law of Return, and peaceniks.

If the more-or-less secular Ashknenazi base of Zionism cannot even be bothered to defend in itself by the most basic means of reproducing itself both physically and intellectually, then why should it expect anyone else to defend it by rather more exacting means? And how is a state which is in no sense part of Christendom in any sense part of the West, anyway?

[Mike A]

Which taxes should rise to pay for increases in defence spend?

[Christina Speight]

Mike A "Which taxes should rise to pay for increases in defence spend?"

Before doing that they could curtail the £2 billion refurbishment of the MoD building where new chairs are costing - ?? - £10K or was it £16k each.

[Drusilla]

Which taxes should rise to pay for increases in defence spend?

The answer, whatever it might be, is in any event entirely up to Labour, since the Tories agreed to match Labour's spending commitments.

[Traditional Tory]

then why should it expect anyone else to defend it by rather more exacting means

I wouldn't know David, but according to David Cameron, support for Israel is 'part of the Tory DNA'

Well it's certainly not part of my DNA. The sooner we pull out of these US/Israel linked wars the better.

[Patriot]

This letter is fine as far as it goes. At least it flags up the fact that Brown understands the importance of the armed forces as much as he understands the importance of data security in government departments.

We need to be aware that for a serving officer who is Chief of Defence Staff to go public with concerns about armed forces morale and equipment, as General Sir Richard Dannatt has this month is almost unprecedented. It tells us that the military are at rock bottom, at the tipping point where men and women on the ground are so neglected and ill supplied that they start getting killed in growing numbers unless support increases dramatically, or their commanders have the courage to defy their political masters and order them to withdraw.

David Cameron cannot reasonably expect to speak personally with General Sir Richard Dannatt, who has already exposed his position quite courageously and will suffer in the near future as a result. It would not be fair for him to also be asked to get involved at a political level.

However, it is clear that the five lords, retired Chiefs of Staff who have now taken up the military case, first in the debate yesterday, and today in outspoken interviews on radio and television, can be expected to be perfectly briefed on everything Sir Richard knows, and his concerns.

It is a matter of national importance that David Cameron meets with these men as soon as possible, and allows them to explain to him in detail how critical the state of the armed forces has become. They will also be able to give him chapter and verse on the real funding crisis, rather than the figures being talked about by Des Browne and others which include major builds such as aircraft carriers, and are intentionally misleading. Once he has done this he will have the ammunition he needs to be passionate, aggressive and forthright in highlighting this scandal and forcing the government to give the men and women in the armed forces the equipment, supplies, accommodation, food, and clothing they need at the front, and the first class accommodation, pay and medical facilities, including dedicated military hospitals, that they deserve at home. It's that or stop fighting and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.

In October 2006 Tony Blair made this pledge to the troops in Afghanistan:

"If commanders on the ground want more equipment - armoured vehicles for example, more helicopters - that will be provided. Whatever package they want - that will be provided."

In November 2007, one year later, Lt Col Stuart Tootal, who commanded the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan, resigned from the Army over the "shoddy" treatment of injured troops. In a letter to defence chiefs, he was reported to have criticised levels of pay, a lack of training equipment and appalling housing.

In the same month two SAS soldiers have died when a Puma helicopter came down in Iraq, the fourth to crash in the last 7 months. The Puma has been in service since 1971. The Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, one of which crashed last year in Afghanistan, has been in service since 1967. In military terms this is prehistoric.

Almost half of Britain’s forces are unfit to be sent on operations because of equipment shortages according to the Ministry of Defence.

Paratroopers preparing to go to Afghanistan next April have to train with only six Land Rovers fitted with machineguns, instead of the 110 they should have.

There are only six Challenger 2 tanks available for training in the UK and Germany because others have been cannibalised to provide spares for Iraq.

The evidence of forces’ overstretch is explained in a performance report by the MOD, which comes after the sudden departure of Lord Drayson, the procurement minister who quit this month after a row with Des Browne over the defence budget.

According to the report, 42% of UK forces faced “critical or serious weaknesses” in their ability to be “ready to deploy”, and 35% stated they could not even be certain of meeting their basic peacetime requirements. This in a country which is effectively at war.

While the Treasury claims it meets the cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, put last year at £1.7 billion, large sums are clawed back from the regular defence budget. A £2 billion “black hole” has now emerged, meaning that cuts to all three services are inevitable.

To underscore just how bizarre, inept and incompetent this government's treatment of the armed services has become, all of this is happening against a backdrop of £2.3 billion which has been committed to refurbish the Ministry of defence buildings in London. Particular care is being taken with the restoration of some of the marble.

If you take a deep breath and a step back from this for a moment, the only conclusion you can reasonably draw about a Prime Minister who appoints a part time secretary for defence when our men and women are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then fails to give them the support they need and deserve, is that he is so far removed from reality that he almost certainly has neither the integrity, the moral compass or the basic processing capacity required to run a country.

The men and women in the armed forces who are dying for us in distant lands away from their homes and their families as you read this need a strong Conservative party and a forceful leader to fight for them.

David needs to engage in this fight immediately. This isn't about politics. This isn't a battle we have a choice about. This is about duty and responsibility, and about values which go to the heart of any party which aspires to government.

[Robert Winterton]

Considering we are the second largest spenders in nominal terms on defence in the world, we have to ask ourselves - do we really need to spend any more on it?

Posted by: Michael Davidson | November 23, 2007 at 14:57

Firstly, this statement completely incorrect. Secondly, it has to be stated that it is not only a question of money and the MOD budget, but how we spend it. We waste Billions on failed Defence projects and on inappropiate equipment, chosen as much for 'political' reasons and 'boys and their toys' syndrome, rather than the most effective and surprisingly quite often the cheapest option. For more relevant detail please see Richard North's excellent website (http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/) and its defence section. It has provided a devastating inditement of our appalling military procurement history. Yes this Government has failed our soldiers, but also so has the military leadership in terms of equipment procurement.

[Robert Winterton]

With regards to the above I have belatedly noticed 3 errors - a missing 'is' , the incorrect spelling of both inappropriate and indictment - too much haste!

[Patriot]

For a summary of the truth about the government's support for the armed forces, the defence cuts which are coming, and the attitude of Brown, Milliband, Browne et al, read a blistering article by Robert Fox here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2007/11/what_a_carrier_on.html

[Anoneumouse]

Elephant, elephant, elephant, elephant, elephant

This is just a ploy by the ex generals to get this government to invest more heavily in the European Union Rapid Inaction Force

You know that gallant group of men who cant even muster a Helicopter between them for the EU ambitions in Dafur

Don't be fooled by these ex military men, they presided in office and were pushing the incompetent Lord Drayson to invest in the EU FRES procurement program.

Wake up Foxy, he may be dong a half job, but its 100% better performance than you.
.

[David Lindsay]

Traditional Tory, the US and Israel are friendly states, and should therefore be treated like any other friendly states (never to be confused with those states which are not hust friends but family, since they share our and each other's Head of State). No worse. And no better. Who could possibly disagree with that...?

Meanwhile, a comment on my blog reads:

"The conscription into the IDF thing is terrifyingly close to the truth. Either Clinton or Giuliani would actually draft young Americans into the IDF, at least if given a second term. We must all make sure that neither of them gets a first term."

Quite. I'm a Ron Paul Democrat, both for this reason and because only states' rights can bring social democracy to America, just as only national sovereignty can restore it to Europe.

[Michael Davidson]

Robert Winterton, you are completely wrong. We ARE the second highest spenders on defence in the world. Only the United States spends more than us on defence.

Take a look (and don't moan about Wikipedia not being an accurate source - there are plenty of links on there):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures

[Michael Davidson]

^^ that should end with 'expenditures'.

[Patriot]

""Behind all the name-calling and finger-jabbing between the former defence chiefs and defence secretary Des Browne lies one enormous and very ugly fact. Defence is about to be hit by a tsunami of cuts, which will render the UK's forces less capable of operations at home and abroad than they have been for more than a century.

The government insists that the allowance of an increase of something over 1% of the defence budget over the next three years, bringing the defence budget to about £35bn in 2011, is equitable, and generous even. New Labour, says the government, has consistently increased the defence budget more than any other administration in recent years.

Technically true, but there is much less to this than meets the eye. In fact, it all looks like a huge smoke screen to mask the parlous state of our forces, their equipment, morale and, above all, the confused and weak strategic thinking behind them on the part of the government. In recent decades, the forces have not been in two sustained warlike operations, one of which, in Afghanistan, within weeks will have lasted longer than the second world war.

The gap between expected expenditure now on current operations and current equipment programmes is anything between £2bn and £3bn. That gap has to be closed now.

"The cuts are going to be far deeper than anyone in the public or media may realise," a senior official in the defence administration put it to me a few weeks back.

Now that the shape of the cuts is emerging, the story is more bizarre than even a sketch of Bremner, Bird and Fortune in their best blimpish military mode could devise. It's not so much black farce as theatre of the absurd.""

An extract from an article by Robert Fox.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2007/11/what_a_carrier_on.html

[Richard North]

It is interesting to how, now that defence spending is high profile, all the world is suddenly an "expert", including five super-annuated defence chiefs, whose word is taken as gospel.

However, I wonder how many people actually read the defence debate in full, or even the speeches of the "famous five" and, of those who did, how many understood them.

Look, for instance, at Bramall's speech, and his references to "FRES" - how many of you commentators here even know what that is ... Bramall certainly does not.

Yet this is the largest ever single procurement project in the history of the British Army, currently costed at £16 billion - and going up (it started at £8 bn).

If you are to understand defence spending at all though, you have to look for Dannatt's references to the project (and Jackson before him) and see how important it is to them. Yet there are grave doubts as the viability of the project, and the enormous expense, compared with alternatives which are a fraction of the cost.

Now if you look at Jackson's recent statements, he effectively admits that the funding crisis stem from having to fund current operations AND what we have to do in the future. Therefore, it is the "future war" scenario - centred on FRES - which is creating the funding problems. Take that away and there is no funding crisis.

If you want to engage in the debate, beyond the mantra of "more money", look to what the Army actually wants to do with the money. Then, and only then, if you are able to come to a decision about the validity of those plans are you in a position to judge whether more money is needed.

[member of the forces]

""I would have more respect for the likes of "Lord" Boyce and "Sir" Mike Jackson had they been slightly more voluable about the poor bllody infantry when in office. Maybe they were more concerned about hanging around to pick up their baubles ? "Bruges Group NG""

I take particular issue with this short sighted and small minded little outburst.

Lord Boyce as Chief of the Defence Staff, publicly disagreed with Geoff Hoon whilst on air, didn't apologise for it and had his tenure as the CDS cut short by some two years. Geoff Hoon also tried to stop his accession to the house of Lords as a punishment. People have short memories, but should check what they say before spouting off. I'm proud to be of the same service as Lord Boyce.

We're running on sticking plasters and gas fumes in the Royal Navy because we're being bled dry to pay for the war today to the point that we won't be able to fight the war tomorrow against the next protagonist.

[member of the forces]

Richard North: I don't even think the Army Actually know what FRES is, but we do know is that at 32 tons a piece there is only one way these things are going to get to the fight

[Malcolm Dunn]

I do not claim to be an expert on defence procurement but if 5 (now 6) former defence chiefs are to have their views disregarded who should we look to Richard North? You?

[Richard North]

I do not claim to be an expert on defence procurement but if 5 (now 6) former defence chiefs are to have their views disregarded who should we look to Richard North? You?

Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 23, 2007 at 23:17

Look at what they are saying, not who they are, try to assess why they are saying it, and evaluate the underlying agendas. Then - rather than absorb pre-digested opinion - make up your own mind.

[member of the forces]

Try to assess why they are saying it?
Ok here is a starter for ten: Each one of the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff will have had to of adjudicate over the allocation of the decreasing defence budget. Each one of them will have had to authorise missions such as the first Gulf War, Second Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan to name but a few. In the back of their minds will always have been some kind of fear that to resource these operations a commitment somewhere else will have to be gapped and taken on risk.
The problem over the last ten or so years is that the men and equipment have been worked very hard, but the underlying factor has been that there hasn't been the flex to rotate men and equipment in order to stand them down and regenerate the capabilities. Add to this that the MOD has been seen as a soft target for so called efficiency savings meaning that badly needed equipment has been scrapped.
Examples of this are 3 Type 23 frigate each less than 15 years old sold to Chile, 4 Type 22 frigates sold to Chile, Romania and Brazil; each of them less that 15 years old but apparently not flexible enough to be modified, but each of them modified by BAe systems for a very cheap sum indeed and all now more capable then before. Challenger 2 main battle tanks, some of the most capable tanks in the world, brought into service then scrapped because apparently we needed lighter forces, but which are desperately needed in Afghanistan. Sea Harrier Fleet Air defence fighter scrapped because he RAF saw them as a way of staving off their own cuts. The list goes on.
All of this has a knock on effect on recruiting to the point where people see how hard the forces are working and decide that a job in Burger King would be so much easier.

There are two analogies for would be defence commentators to bare in mind; the armed forces are like and insurance policy, you pay the premium not knowing when you’re going to make a claim but you are safe in the knowledge that when you need the protection it is there. However keep making claims and you must expect to pay a higher premium.

Secondly; The Armed Forces are like a sports team, if you have plenty of reserves then you can last the season. If you only invest in a decent starting line up and a couple of half decent substitutes then by the end of the season the team is knackered.

I think you would do hoist this in before spouting off such crap Richard North. Finally, for the argument that Britain shouldn’t be involved in these and other interventions consider this: As a nation we have more corporate knowledge of conducting successful military operations than any other nation on earth. This makes us the only real world class Armed Force on earth.

[member of the forces]

Try to assess why they are saying it?
Ok here is a starter for ten: Each one of the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff will have had to of adjudicate over the allocation of the decreasing defence budget. Each one of them will have had to authorise missions such as the first Gulf War, Second Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan to name but a few. In the back of their minds will always have been some kind of fear that to resource these operations a commitment somewhere else will have to be gapped and taken on risk.
The problem over the last ten or so years is that the men and equipment have been worked very hard, but the underlying factor has been that there hasn't been the flex to rotate men and equipment in order to stand them down and regenerate the capabilities. Add to this that the MOD has been seen as a soft target for so called efficiency savings meaning that badly needed equipment has been scrapped.
Examples of this are 3 Type 23 frigate each less than 15 years old sold to Chile, 4 Type 22 frigates sold to Chile, Romania and Brazil; each of them less that 15 years old but apparently not flexible enough to be modified, but each of them modified by BAe systems for a very cheap sum indeed and all now more capable then before. Challenger 2 main battle tanks, some of the most capable tanks in the world, brought into service then scrapped because apparently we needed lighter forces, but which are desperately needed in Afghanistan. Sea Harrier Fleet Air defence fighter scrapped because he RAF saw them as a way of staving off their own cuts. The list goes on.
All of this has a knock on effect on recruiting to the point where people see how hard the forces are working and decide that a job in Burger King would be so much easier.

There are two analogies for would be defence commentators to bare in mind; the armed forces are like and insurance policy, you pay the premium not knowing when you’re going to make a claim but you are safe in the knowledge that when you need the protection it is there. However keep making claims and you must expect to pay a higher premium.

Secondly; The Armed Forces are like a sports team, if you have plenty of reserves then you can last the season. If you only invest in a decent starting line up and a couple of half decent substitutes then by the end of the season the team is knackered.

I think you would do well to hoist this in before spouting off such crap Richard North. Finally, for the argument that Britain shouldn’t be involved in these and other interventions consider this: As a nation we have more corporate knowledge of conducting successful military operations than any other nation on earth. This makes us the only real world class Armed Force on earth.

[Richard North]

One of the many things that drags this debate down (apart from the tendency of commentators to resort to the ad hominem every time the orthodoxy is questioned) is the inability to discriminate between the various factions within the overarching organisation of the MoD, and to separate political from military influence.

One of the simplistic fictions of modern politics is the belief that the Secretary of State is actually in charge of his department and thereby has absolute powers to control it. This is hardly the case and less so in the MoD, where there is an uneasy "alliance" (conflict would be a better word) between the politicians and their advisors, the officials and then the three separate services (with huge meddling by defence contractors), all overlaid by dealings with the common enemy (the Treasury) and the even more dangerous enemy, the Foreign Office. Furthermore, there is not only bitter inter-service rivalry, there is also intra-service rivalry (gunners versus tanker versus infantry, etc), which makes for a turbulent, foetid broth of intrigue and back-stabbing.

Add to that the length of the procurement cycle (procurement taking 40 percent of the budget) where decisions are made which have a direct finanical impact decades after that are taken (the Eurofighter was agreed over 25 years ago but only now is the MoD having to find the bulk of funds for it) and the SoS's freedom of action is massively circumscribed. He is at best a referee, with a rule book that is constantly changing (without him being told), with his decisions being overruled off-field, all in the context that he cannot see (or control) most of the players (or even the ball).

Looking at the bigger picture, the military has an infinite capacity for spending money and, as a general rule, the more they are given, the more they will spend - but much of it will be spend unwisely and wasted. Conservatives should know that throwing money at public services is not the answer to improved efficiency, if there are underlying structural problems. That applies to the military as much as any other service. Give more money to a wasteful organisation and it will simply waste more money.

In that context, we are faced with two modest (in military terms) overseas operations (not even a division in each theatre) which absorbs less than ten percent of the manpower of the Armed Forces. Would you like to tell me any other organisation which screams "overstretch" and "lack of resources" when it has less than ten percent of its strength committed to doing the job for which it is designed (and paid) to do?

The problem, therefore, is not operations, per se, but the enormous resource put to other tasks - the main one of which is preparing and training for the "future war", the nature of which has not been defined.

This is akin to a situation in WWII of holding back the bulk of your forces to train for the next war, while devoting the bulk of your budget to equipping for that war.

In the latter area, the economics are stark. A state of the art, superbly equipped Mastiff protected vehicle - specfically designed for counter-insurgency operations - costs £600,000. Based on a commercial truck chassis, it is supremely reliable and durable and, using commercial parts, maintenance is cheap and simple. Yet the Army spurns these in preference to specialist vehicles, custom-made, which offer less protection, but are designed for "high end" warfare and cost at least £10 million each - and a fortune to maintain.

This is a microcosm of the general situation. Tucanos cost £5 million apiece, but the RAF spurns them in favour of Tranche 3 Eurofighter, at £80 million each - not because the Tucano can't to the job (it can, better than the Eurofighter) but because it can't operate in "high end warfare".

And so on and so on ... So so I squeak from my little corner, while the media (which has never taken a serious interest in defence) rolls out the mantra - more money - and the little lambs fall into line and agree. All so that the Generals can buy some shiny new toys to play with.

Thank goodness, in the final analysis, we have civilians in charge of the defence budget. Left to themselves, the military would still be buying cavalry horses and muskets.

[fitaloon]

Have a look at the article in the Daily Mail about Headley Court and War veterans being hectored in a public swimming pool. This is a national disgrace.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Er no! Michael Davison on 23/11 @ 14.57, we jusst have to out a stop on this government spending £2BILLION on refurbishing of the Ministry of Defence Whitehall headquarters. As Christina Speight said what on earth can justify that sort of expence - AT the expense of our soldiers who are DYING, while these fat-bottomed, labour-loving, office workers push papers around. Of course not all the civil servants would have agreed with these expensive changes - at the expense of the soldiers, and with builders quite likely creaming off some sort of bonuses!

Anoneumouse on 23/11 @ 18.51 - back again! No doubt you approve of all that money being spent on offices in a department dealing with soldiers, some of whom are dying because they are ill-equiped!

How strange Patriot that the sum you quote as the gap between 'expected expenditure on current operations, and current equipment programmes' equates quite neatly with the £2BILLION being frittered on office staff!!!

[Richard North]

Er no! Michael Davison on 23/11 @ 14.57, we jusst have to out a stop on this government spending £2BILLION on refurbishing of the Ministry of Defence Whitehall headquarters. As Christina Speight said what on earth can justify that sort of expence - AT the expense of our soldiers who are DYING, while these fat-bottomed, labour-loving, office workers push papers around. Of course not all the civil servants would have agreed with these expensive changes - at the expense of the soldiers, and with builders quite likely creaming off some sort of bonuses!

Anoneumouse on 23/11 @ 18.51 - back again! No doubt you approve of all that money being spent on offices in a department dealing with soldiers, some of whom are dying because they are ill-equiped!

How strange Patriot that the sum you quote as the gap between 'expected expenditure on current operations, and current equipment programmes' equates quite neatly with the £2BILLION being frittered on office staff!!!

Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | November 24, 2007 at 15:39

And where do you expect to get with that line of argument? The MoD office project is a PFI deal, with the sums payable over 30 years - and therefore no immediate charge on the defence budget.

On the other hand, the rationalision of buildings and resultant cutbacks of staff is expected to yield £50 million savings per year, to be ploughed back into operations.

The scheme can be rightly criticised for running over-cost (name me one major project that has not?) but the NAO report broadly endorsed the scheme on the basis of it being necessary to improve the efficiency of the MoD.

When targeting defence spending, a blunderbuss approach is unlikely to give results. A sniper's rifle is often more effective.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Richard North - I am not so easily squashed! Those PFI's you talk about as if they are the answer to everything, are extremely expensive, and in the case of new hospitals, have loopholes and drawbacks that prove expensive to the taxpayer. As for the rationalisation and cutbacks equation, its part of that wonderful mantra that I have heard before, you spend a large amount of money to SAVE a lot of money. PFI's are a bit like mortgages - you borrow an illusory amount of money in the first place, but as the final pay-back is light years away it doesn't have to be quantified, in terms of the difference that the interest makes! In the case of a PFI the final sum PLUS interest is enormous, and it is us the taxpayer once more that pays the bill.

[Richard North]

Patsy - fine ... so make the case. Don't make false comparisons to advance your argument. But that will require you to read the NAO report and other material, to assess whether this particular deal was merited, and whether it has actually improved or hindered the MoD financial situation.

On the other hand, make sweeping generalisations and you get shot down in flames.

[Patriot]

Patsy Seargeant - it's ok, we can afford it. Gordon is spending £8bn in aid over the next 10 years to help fulfil his ambition to see that every child in the world goes to primary school, so we must be ok, mustn't we?

Then there's the £30bn or so on Trident which, because it's dual trigger means that we are effectively simply subsidising America's nuclear weapons stock rather than acquiring our own independent nuclear system.

And Richard yes I understand that the £2.3bn is a PFI deal, and I hear they're making a jolly good job of reconditioning the marble, so that's ok.

Although I can't help feeling that all this racing around signing up off the balance sheet deals on PFI is a little like running amok with your credit card - sooner or later it has to be paid of.

Did you know, btw, that the UK's external debt now exceeds $10 Trillion?* In '97 it was a little over $3 Trillion - that's nearly trebled in 10 years. We are second only to the USA which stands at a staggering $11.7 Trillion external debt.

Scary isn't it?

*World Bank Joint External Debt Hub
http://www.jedh.org/jedh_instrument.html

[Richard North]

Patriot - don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying things are OK - I'm saying that targeted criticism is more effective than broad-brush generalisations.

The problem with the current argument on defence is that there is no shortage of money for operations. There is only a shortage when we have to run these and prepare for a "future war".

What the rent-seekers have to do, therefore, is justify the assumptions on which they base their future war scenarios. They then have to show that the hugely expensive equipment they want to buy to meet projections is the best and most appropriate. Without that, the case for increased funding has not been made.

And that is the point. While we should be sympathetic to calls for more spending, the military - like any public service - must make its case. Guthrie, et al, are not attempting to do so - they are simply rattling the collecting tin.

[Patriot]

Richard, I don't believe that things are OK. I don't believe that there is enough money. I do believe Robert Fox when he says that funding is getting worse not better. And I do believe the serving and recently serving armed forces men and women who posted their experiences in their hundreds on the recent "in your view" column on this government's treatment of the military in the Telegraph.

I do believe that the 4 Puma's that have crashed in the last 7 months probably did so because they over 30 years old.

I do believe that the two Nimrod incidents which have occured happened because the aircraft are over 30 years old.

I don't believe that 5 ex chiefs of staff, Mike Jackson and General Sir Richard Dannatt are saying things are bad just so they can "negotiate a better deal".

I think the military are being hung out to dry.

Convince me otherwise.

[Richard North]

I have written over 300 posts on my Defence of the Realm site, rehearsing these issues. They are in the public domain and there for anyone to look at. Convince yourself you are right!

And, while you are about it, ask yourself what the Nimrods are doing in Afghanistan and whether the tasks carried out by these hugely expensive aircraft could be done by other, much cheaper assets. See here.

[Robert Winterton]

Patriot,
I am afraid you are wrong,nothing is simply a matter of simply more money, please examine what the defence budget is actually is spent on. Spouting semantics and taking everything on face value does make sense. Due diligence always pays, everyone has their agenda and don't forget all these recent 'top brass' have all been involved with these very expensive 'boys and their toys' projects - if more appropiate spending had taken place then 'our boys' could have not only more appropiate kit, vehicles, ammunition, money for better accomodation, the list is endless. We do not need to reinvent the wheel in terms of kit, particularly for the last 3 major conflicts that we have been involved in. A litle more sceptical research may lead you question the past and current military establishment's mantras. I don't mean to preach, but I have learnt the hard way to dig a little deeper. I do believe that our soldiers in particular are overstretched in terms that they do not have enough R&R, pay or time with their families as we have been doing 'too much' with so few.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Which taxes should rise to pay for increases in defence spend?

Posted by: Mike A | November 23, 2007 at 17:03

We should not raise taxes. We should, because we and the USA are paying more than our fair share in defence of the West in treasure, blood and grief, refuse to pay all or some of contribution to the EU - even more so now that Blair has increased this punitive financial burden in years to come. Some of the EU members are free loaders, getting defence on the cheap and some of those that have condescended to become involved are only making a half hearted effort. It is about time we negotiated our way out of the sloth and ineptitude of the socialist EU. Cameron (someone has woken him up) is right to call that overbearing bureaucracy the enemy and there are quite a few in the political field much nearer to home.
There is plenty of money around, but it is needlessly being given away to Brussels.

[Patriot]

Robert, Richard. Almost half of Britain’s forces are unfit to be sent on operations because of equipment shortages according to the Ministry of Defence.

Paratroopers preparing to go to Afghanistan next April have to train with only six Land Rovers fitted with machineguns, instead of the 110 they should have.

I heard recently that paratroopers are unable to practice jumps any more because there are no C130's left in the UK available for training.

There are only six Challenger 2 tanks available for training in the UK and Germany because others have been cannibalised to provide spares for Iraq.

The evidence of forces’ overstretch is explained in a performance report by the MOD, which comes after the sudden departure of Lord Drayson, the procurement minister who quit this month after a row with Des Browne over the defence budget.

According to the report, 42% of UK forces faced “critical or serious weaknesses” in their ability to be “ready to deploy”, and 35% stated they could not even be certain of meeting their basic peacetime requirements. This in a country which is effectively at war.

While the Treasury claims it meets the cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, put last year at £1.7 billion, large sums are clawed back from the regular defence budget. A £2 billion “black hole” has now emerged, meaning that cuts to all three services are inevitable.

The direct impact of these facts is that at least a proportion of the men and women we are sending abroad to fight are dying or being injured because they are being denied the support and equipment they need.

Other issues, like substandard housing for servicepeople and their families are acknowledged by the government. The absence of dedicated hospitals and medical facilities during a time of war is scandalous.

Which of the above facts have I got wrong?

[Richard North]

Patriot: I think you have several problems here - first you assume that what you read are "facts"; secondly you are taking what passes for information in the "framing" you are given without looking at the broader context.

Just to take one example on the availability of Challenger tanks.

Firstly, there is a new system of inventory holdng for tanks, where there are now held centrally in purpose-built stores, and issued to units as needed. Therefore, there are fewer tanks held at unit level.

Second - your "factoid" refers to training in the UK and Germany. It does not mention Canada. Yet the bulk of the armoured training in carried out in the BATUS facility in Canada, where there is a fully equipped battle group dedicated for training. With the scaling down of BAOR, much of the training previously carried out in Germany is now carried out at BATUS.

And therein lies your problem - you think you have "facts" to prove your point, whereas all you are doing is recycling pre-digested "factoids" without even beginning to understand what is going on.

[Patriot]

Richard. So the MOD reports are wrong? The anecdotal evidence of the returning troops is wrong? Robert Fox is wrong?

Are you saying that Lt Col Stuart Tootal, who commanded the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan, was mistaken when he resigned from the Army over the "shoddy" treatment of injured troops?

Are you saying that he didn't criticise levels of pay, a lack of training equipment and appalling housing in his letter to the MOD?

Are they all "mistaken?"

[Richard North]

Patriot - I didn't notice you quoting any MoD reports. Your source was the Sunday Telegraph which itself was selective quoting from a partial extract of a report.

And that is the point I am making, which you seem to have difficulty understanding. You are spraying out "factoids" without understanding the context and any of the broader issues, without even beginning to understand what is going on.

For the last time - I have other things to do - let me point out some of the background to another of your little "factoids" - about the shortage of "Land Rovers fitted with machine guns".

There are, in fact, WIMIKs. There is a shortage in the UK because operations take priority, so troops train in unarmoured "Wolfs" - no big deal. But the bigger picture is that they should not be using WIMIKs anyway - they are death traps.

And herein lies the story - the WIMIK is a stop-gap solution which exists only because of the failure of successive governments to produce a replacement for the Ferret/Fox armoured cars and the Scorpion light tank.

If you want to break the habit of a lifetime and read something factual, you will see that successive governments have spent £300 million on NOT producing a replacement.

The sorry saga started on the Conservative watch and has continued into the Labour domain, but much of the blame has to be put down to successive CGSs, who have failed utterly to get a grip of the situation.

Thus, we have a situation where troops are riding around in dangerously vulnerable WIMIK Land Rovers, with the combined military establishment having wasted £300 million on not replacing them.

And this is my point. As long as you have an establishment which is wasting huge amounts of money on procurement (and more examples on my site - look up "Panther") giving them more money isn't going to solve anything. Get procurement right and you will find that they are not actually short of money.

[Patriot]

""And this is my point. As long as you have an establishment which is wasting huge amounts of money on procurement (and more examples on my site - look up "Panther") giving them more money isn't going to solve anything. Get procurement right and you will find that they are not actually short of money.""

Richard, you refer dismissively to the figures from the MOD report which appeared in the Telegraph, but do not suggest that they are wrong. You are erecting straw men but not addressing any of the points I make, so let's close on this note. Even if I accept the point I think you are making that this isn't the government's fault, it's all the blame of the army chiefs of staff(and let me make it clear I do not accept this point in any way shape or form), It is this Labour government who has committed the armed forces to all of the areas of combat that they have seen since '97. It is this Labour government that committed the armed forces of this country to an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is this Labour government which keeps the troops effectively fighting two wars today.

And it is this government which is responsible for the way those armed services are under equipped, under supplied, ill housed, not provided for with dedicated hospitals....and on.

I hear the same sort of argument you are presenting every single time it surfaces that this Labour government is responsible for another scandal. "It isn't the government, it's the civil service." "It isn't the government, it's the chiefs of staff." "It isn't the government, some lowly clerk didn't read the manual". "It isn't the government, it's because of something the Conservatives did (insert number) years ago.

The Labour party were excellent in opposition. They were ferocious and feral and aggressive and they never failed to go for the throat over someone elses perceived failings. Their huge problem seems to be that they have continued since '97 as if they are still in opposition. They don't seem to have grasped that they have the responsibility to see that the organisation they have managed for the past ten years is actually fit for purpose. They seem to believe that, just as when they were in opposition, their only job is to say what should be done, then point the finger of blame at someone else when things go wrong.

You've also chosen not to address any of the points Robert Fox makes, but let me leave this one with you:

""But hold on a minute, Gordon Brown seems to be prepared to cling to some defence projects, after all. It is clear that the aircraft carrier project was completely unfeasible from the first, yet it still survives. Could it be that a lot of the fitting-out and finishing work goes to constituencies not unadjacent to those of Mssrs Brown and Browne (Gordon and Des)?""

It just doesn't wash any more Richard. The evidence is too great and its gone on for far too long.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_fox/2007/11/what_a_carrier_on.html

[Richard North]

Did I actually say, anywhere, that the current mess was not the government's fault? Am I not saying that there is a joint responsiblity - or are you suggesting that the Defence Chiefs have no input into, and no responsiblity for, procurement policy?

And since when has Robert Fox's opinion qualified as evidence? You quote him on the aircraft carriers ... does not the Conservative Party support the commissioning of these ships, and has it not demanded that the project is expedited?

Note also - which you would have picked up if you had ever listened to any defence debates - the policy of dismantling specialist military hospitals was originated by the Tories and is still supported by the Tories ... see Liam Fox, passim (for very good reasons).

But hey! Who needs facts when you can read the newspapers!

[Patriot]

Well that didn't take long did it Richard?

""The policy of dismantling specialist military hospitals was originated by the Tories."

You're correct, and I personally believe that was a bad decision, BUT it was 12 years ago, we were'nt engaged in multiple actions, hadn't invaded two sovereign countries, and weren't fighting two wars.

Labour have now be in power for ten years.
Let me bring you a little further up to date.

""Dr. Fox has campaigned on the issue of separate military hospitals, and he told the Politics Show: "Medical care [has] got to be done in completely independent units and it means no mixing with civilian patients.

"And what we've had so far in my view has been an absolute betrayal of people who've put their lives on the line for our security and it's simply not acceptable."

However, writing in the News of the World on Sunday, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown made clear that while troops would be treated in separate military wards in NHS hospitals, he was opposed to separate military hospitals.""

[Richard North]

This really is my last word. It you refer to primary sources instead of regurgitating news reports, you might actually get somewhere. Until then, anything you have to say has as much authority as the archetypal "man in pub".

[Robert Winterton]

Patriot,
Please wake up and question before you spout! The current and past military high command are as guilty as all previous governments in how it equips our armed services, but a blind following of what you take as facts demeans your line of argument. As I have said previously in this post, yes our soldiers have been underpaid, not given enough R&R or time with their families,but most particularly we have not given those injured in the conflics the best available hospital treatment in dedicated hospitals and/or recompense when appropiate. Listen to what Richrad North has been trying to say and look at his defence section on his website over the last year or so and you might learn something.