Gideon wields his axe [The UK's Comprehensive Review Thread]

Undesired Walrus said:
That doesn't seem that scandalous. As others have pointed out, the defence budget is bloated.
Click to expand...

If they had closed both it would have been a travesty. One is bad enough. You have to take into consideration the area when you say it is not scandalous.

Moray's two RAF bases contribute more than £150m to the local economy annually and support 5,700 jobs, according to a report in August by consultants hired by Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE).
Click to expand...

If it was me I would guarantee Lossiemouth to stay and shut Marham. It's a ******** in the middle of ******** central. Move the Tornados to Lossie from Marham. If any should go in Scotland after Kinloss it should be Leachars. They have already shut down one squadron there and only have 111 squadron and the schoolies there. That would piss off all the movie stars who jet in for the Dunhill cup though.
 
But what do we need those particular projects for? I respect the fact that they create work, but building a horse & carriage factory generates work too. It just has little need.
 
Last edited:
richardm said:
Still got quite a lot of 'em in Germany as well. Do we still need that? I bet that would save a bob or two.
Click to expand...

Not really there where a lot of training facillities are. So to rapaid a closure would cost money.
 
Architect said:
You need to do a calculation in to the impact of those number of job losses in a very fragile rural economy with very few alternatives.

I'm more than happy for, say Arborfield base (Army, I know) to be cut instead. Or perhaps something closer to London, eh? You'd never notice another 5-10k jobs in a city of 10m.
Click to expand...

Because a base set up to support manned aerial reconnaissance is obsolete. You can't hang onto the 20th century forever.

Do you know the population of, say, Elgin? Or (what the heck) the entire of the former Grampian region?
Click to expand...

Considering house prices in the area it would appear to be overpopulated for it's housing stock compared to the rest of scotland.
 
geni said:
Because a base set up to support manned aerial reconnaissance is obsolete. You can't hang onto the 20th century forever.
Click to expand...

This is very true. It would, however, draw us nicely into the very kind of discussion set out in "Scotching the Myth" about the location of UK military bases, notably their preponderence in the south and south east of the UK and the fact that said bases received a proportionately higher expenditure/investment.

One might equally well argue that, given we no longer face a tank-led invasion across the North German Plain, we should start looking at our facilities around Salisbury Plain with a beady eye.

But, of course, that'll not happen. Will it? There are Tory votes in that part of Englandshire.....
 
Last edited:
Presumably, the location of bases is influenced by a number of factors, proximity to headquarters, quality of communications links and closeness to the threat (which is after all our natural enemy, France).

I would have preferred the £billions which are being wasted building unnecessary aircraft carriers (the industry of the past) being used to support the manufacturing industries of the future (whatever these turn out to be).Then again, I didn't negotiate the binding contracts which necessitate their completion
 
andyandy said:
So, seeing as tomorrow Gideon will announce cuts that will reshape the state for years to come, it seems worthy of its very own thread....

Lots of this has already been leaked in advance, so what we could expect:

10% cut in defence budget (trident put off)

80% in university budget

BBC made to cover £500million cost of free licenses for elderly out of its own budget and possibly BBC worldwide sold

Welfare slashed in many possible ways (housing, disability, job-seeker etc etc)

Token big bank tax

Withdrawl of universal benefits for higher incomes

Justice slashed by 30% (prisons reduced, legal aid decimated)

So, predictions and then from tomorrow reactions.....
Click to expand...

This is what's going to happen to Obamas spending spree in 40 years (if the patience of Americas creditors hold out that long).
 
The Don said:
Presumably, the location of bases is influenced by a number of factors, proximity to headquarters, quality of communications links and closeness to the threat (which is after all our natural enemy, France).
Click to expand...

Self-perpetuating concentration of forces and hence expenditure, with consequent economic impact, in the south and southeast then?

This is, incidentally, the point of a large part of said BBC "Scotching the Myth" - that the focus on public sector expenditure towards the south of England acts as a massive economic subsidy which far outweighs the supposed advantages for Scotland in the Barnett Formula.

I would have preferred the £billions which are being wasted building unnecessary aircraft carriers (the industry of the past) being used to support the manufacturing industries of the future (whatever these turn out to be).Then again, I didn't negotiate the binding contracts which necessitate their completion
Click to expand...

Defence-related shipbuilding is about the only thing keeping the alst few Clyde yards open. On the back of that there's a major supply line in electronics, engineering, and the like. If you close it down then we can wave bye-bye to shipbuilding in Scotland. The question we should perhaps ask is not whether to cancel the orders, but rather how to encourage the yards to diversify in the meantime. Or actually become/remain competitive, like our German friends did.......
 
The Taliban defeated the US without a state defense budget. Couldn't those plucky UKians do the same?
 
commandlinegamer said:
Wondering if Osborne will make a 'Keep Calm and Carry On'-type speech.

ETA: first news of what to come - science budget frozen.
Click to expand...

He said "we're all in this together", actually said it out loud. We're doomed, aren't we.
 
Architect said:
Defence-related shipbuilding is about the only thing keeping the alst few Clyde yards open. On the back of that there's a major supply line in electronics, engineering, and the like. If you close it down then we can wave bye-bye to shipbuilding in Scotland. The question we should perhaps ask is not whether to cancel the orders, but rather how to encourage the yards to diversify in the meantime. Or actually become/remain competitive, like our German friends did.......
Click to expand...

I'd much prefer it if the yards became competitive and economically viable building ships that people actually want as opposed to building ships we don't want merely to keep the industry alive.

To me the latter makes as much sense as churning out oak square-rigged ships of the line to keep the skills in Portsmouth.
 
Yes, but you're missing out the problem that if we cancel the orders then the yards go down the tubes before they can diversify/try to become competitive.
 
Last edited:
Whole country looking forward to the Diamond Jubilee? Couldn't give a stuff, mate.
 
Architect said:
Yes, but you're missing out the problem that if we cancel the orders then the yards go down the tubes before they can diversify/try to become competitive.
Click to expand...

So how long does the creation of useless ships have to continue ?

How long has the UK's shipbuilding industry known that there's a change in the world market, 50 years ?

I'm all for the preservation of industrial expertise but there has to be some likelihood that the skills so preserved will come in useful.

So far the industry has failed to respond in the last 10, 20, 30, whatever years. Do we just accept that we need to continue to support this industry indefinitely ?

I don't necessarily have a problem with this "make work" approach but if at all possible I'd like the results of their labour used in some useful way.
 
I would scrap all child benefit, with immediate effect. Having children is a lifestyle choice. No one subsidises my lifestyle choices so why should I have to subsidise those who want to have babies? If the argument is one about avoiding child poverty, then my view is that those too poor to feed and clothe them should not be having children in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom