Defence spending increase

[macron]

So we had a budget ten minutes ago, and they forgot to mention this. What's being cut to pay for it do we know?

Not saying it's a bad thing given the state of the world right now, but, local elections you're going to get spanked in aside, seems odd to announce it.... Right now..?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68880171

[Mr Penguin]

macron said:

So we had a budget ten minutes ago, and they forgot to mention this. What's being cut to pay for it do we know?

Not saying it's a bad thing given the state of the world right now, but, local elections you're going to get spanked in aside, seems odd to announce it.... Right now..?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68880171

They announced it (to the media) over a year ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D4uriF4eOs

It was also in the budget speech but with a vaguer timeline https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-06/d...

Jeremy Hunt said:

Our armed forces remain the most professional and best-funded in Europe, with defence spending already more than 2% of GDP. We are providing more military support to Ukraine than nearly any other country, and our spending will rise to 2.5% as soon as economic conditions allow.

I think it is too little and we will be forced into spending quite a lot more than 2.5% within a couple of years, but hopefully I'm wrong on that.

[RobB_]

Cameron meeting Trump last week
Trump supporting Ukraine aid this week
Macron wanting French troops on the Ukrainian / Belarus border
Iran / Israel testing each others resolve

[CoolHands]

I would ask why it’s going to be 2030 before we manage it. Get on it now

[RobB_]

CoolHands said:

I would ask why it’s going to be 2030 before we manage it. Get on it now

Because the OBR hasn't approved that a war is good for GDP

[Derek Smith]

Empty promise. The tories won't be in.

Labour reckon they will hit 2.5% when we can afford it. Guesses when that will be?

[standards]

CoolHands said:

I would ask why it’s going to be 2030 before we manage it. Get on it now

My thoughts exactly.

[Biggy Stardust]

RobB_ said:

Because the OBR hasn't approved that a war is good for GDP

It's the 34th Rule of Acquisition, surely?

[RobB_]

Biggy Stardust said:

It's the 34th Rule of Acquisition, surely?

You're forgetting of the 35th Rule of Acquisition!

[hidetheelephants]

CoolHands said:

I would ask why it’s going to be 2030 before we manage it. Get on it now

Mainly because there's little that can be bought quickly that UK forces need, it's all long lead time stuff or things to fix recruitment and retention which lack sexiness, no Secretary of State for Defence dreams of cutting the ribbon to open a Single Living Accommodation block, despite people leaving early because heating doesn't work or there's no hot water out of the taps. Retention bonus payments are also not sexy, nor are pay increases.

[Biggy Stardust]

RobB_ said:

Biggy Stardust said:

It's the 34th Rule of Acquisition, surely?

You're forgetting of the 35th Rule of Acquisition!

And the 208th, perhaps.

[Previous]

hidetheelephants said:

CoolHands said:

I would ask why it’s going to be 2030 before we manage it. Get on it now

Mainly because there's little that can be bought quickly that UK forces need, it's all long lead time stuff or things to fix recruitment and retention which lack sexiness, no Secretary of State for Defence dreams of cutting the ribbon to open a Single Living Accommodation block, despite people leaving early because heating doesn't work or there's no hot water out of the taps. Retention bonus payments are also not sexy, nor are pay increases.

There are plenty of ways of buying things that UK forces need more quickly than current defence acquisition process provide, oft at better VFM too.

Cultural changes in acquisition required for that though....

[isaldiri]

standards said:

CoolHands said:

I would ask why it’s going to be 2030 before we manage it. Get on it now

My thoughts exactly.

What do you think should be cut now in order to get to that target then?

[CoolHands]

Less support for Israel?

[borcy]

CoolHands said:

Less support for Israel?

That wouldn't save much at all.

[isaldiri]

CoolHands said:

Less support for Israel?

You want to check how much that actually is and whether it’s being paid for rather than given?

[CoolHands]

isaldiri said:

CoolHands said:

Less support for Israel?

You want to check how much that actually is and whether it’s being paid for rather than given?

If we gave, we must have had it to give. I presume we paid to have it.

[Ridgemont]

CoolHands said:

isaldiri said:

CoolHands said:

Less support for Israel?

You want to check how much that actually is and whether it’s being paid for rather than given?

If we gave, we must have had it to give. I presume we paid to have it.

I can’t see with my GoogleFu any examples of the UK ‘giving’ anything to Israel. I can see UK companies arms sales to Israel being around the £57m mark a year.

Do you have an example of this ‘giving’?

[hidetheelephants]

Previous said:

Cultural changes in acquisition required for that though....

Good luck with that!
MoD seem to have much the same chronic procurement problems that they had 30 years ago, UOR "hair on fire order the whizzo shiny things now" aside it's still st. UOR is useful but no substitute for properly managed procurement.

[dukeboy749r]

The procurement process is a joke but then so is recruitment and retention.

Giving Capita the job of recruiting folks has been an abysmal failure.

There are huge pressures on those in (for example) the army. Yet, I’m not sure one infantry battalion is actually at full strength.

The Ranger battalions are a fudge, with soldiers with lots of Gucci kit and yet no real remit and are just draining people from other units.

Unless we reverse the downward trend, in a land battle war we really are borked at present.