Spending Review 19% average cuts

As my readers will know I'm in favour of a slower payment of the debt. However even thought the spending review had plenty of bad news for many. I was pleased to see that there will be an increase of £2 billion in capital spending from Labours plans. As I blogged in Alan Johnson is right on capital spending.

 

I was also pleased that the average departmental cuts is 19% rather than the 25% expected. Less than the 20% cuts that Labour planned. This will of course be used as political capital. It's worth bearing in mind that this is not all at once but spread over the four and a half years.

 

The worse cuts for my political beliefs were the cuts in the Local budgets. I'm glad councils can borrow against future spending but this will only help to a certain extend. Good luck Bracknell Forest Council your going to need it.

Cutting the Ark Royal is a strategic mistake.

Defence. It is more important than some would have you believe. I have to admit that in these times I don't think Britain can afford and even pretend anymore to be a world power. Nor should it.

 

However scrapping the Ark Royal earlier than the planned 2014 date could be a strategic mistake. I am no expert other than the usual boy hood interest in military power and a family tradition (from my mums side) of being involved in the Royal Navy. I also agree with the concerns of Sharkey with regards to his thinking on axing the Harrier and the loss of skilled airmen (see Paul Waugh blog Cameron's Sharron Storer moment)

 

Aircraft carriers are by definition a very multi purpose asset to the Royal Navy and in turn Britain. It is not only a good way of protecting far-off islands from attack but it can be used as a base for rescue operations, essential airlifts of equipment or suppliers and of course evacuations anti drug and pirate operations. It also gives Britain more independence and more options.

 

Sharing carriers with France (who have had their own problems with the timings and cost of jet deployment) would make sense but is politically sensitive. Britain and France have similar requirements from their navies and they both need to be independent of the US. I suspect their will be some arrangement between Britain and France down the line.

 

I'm pleased that their will still be a helicopter platform to carry out some operations but we are in trouble if we need to get involved in a conflict that requires naval air power. I personally believe that this particular military cut is a risky mistake.

 

 

 

For full plan as taken from the Scotsman is;

 

 

October 2010 - Ark Royal, the last of the current carriers in service to be mothballed with immediate effect. HMS Ocean, the helicopter carrier, will also be mothballed - the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious will be brought back as a helicopter carrier.

 

2014 - Crew of Illustrious transfer to new super carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth for sea trials and Illustrious will be decommissioned. HMS Ocean will be brought back into service.

2016 - HMS Queen Elizabeth brought into service as a helicopter carrier and HMS Ocean decommissioned.

2017 - HMS Ocean crew transferred to new super carrier HMS Prince of Wales for sea trials

2019 - HMS Prince of Wales launched as a helicopter carrier and HMS Queen Elizabeth mothballed after four years and never carrying a strike fighter

2020 - HMS Prince of Wales becomes an aircraft carrier with a scaled-down cheaper version of the new joint strike fighters. Its catapult launch system design will also be adapted to allow US and French strike fighters to be launched from it.

Speculation is not reality

Recently there has been claims of cuts to pensions, child benefit or winter fuel allowance and other so called middle class benefits (really universal benefits). I would just like to remind the frenzied media that this is all speculation.

Yes these benefits are part of the discussions but you don't know what the conclusion are and nor will we for months. Perhaps some of these benefits will be means tested or perhaps those cuts won't happen. Who knows I don't and nor do you (the media). I agreed with Iain Dale (see Middle Class Benefits: Luxuries We Cannot Afford) in that 'Middle Class Benefits' should be means tested.

Speculation is not very helpful when it's discussed as if it has become reality. It is not yet or may not ever be reality. Do we have to put up with this continued non new's story until the spending review on 20th October.  I expect we do but I would prefer not argue about something that has not happened.

Stitch up on cuts?‏

On Thursday there were some claims that a prearranged clandestinely was left in the government spending plans by Labour. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told the commons that certain recently planned projects will be cancelled. This list can be viewed on the BBC website here.

The argument goes that Labour was expecting to lose and left extra spending plans which they knew the New Government would have to cut, thereby making the new government look bad.

I like to think that this is not the case. I like to think that politicians don't do that sort of things. So I'm giving Labour the benefit of the doubt. Personally I would argue that these are not cuts because these projects have not yet begun. I would argue that these are spending proposals which will now not come to pass (although some are under review and may still happen).

Chris Huhne on BBC Question Time last night had the best sum up quote on Labours planned spending "No existence outside of the imaginations of Labour ministers". I don't know what Labour would of done with regards to cutting spending other than delay the plan to cut spending thereby risking our credit rating and interest rate payments. But could Labour if in power, go back and cut these plans while blaming their Lib Dems coalition partners? I do wonder.

When it comes to spending cuts I'm not a big fan but I do really understand that this country can't keep on spending beyond its means and will have to cut things we would prefer to keep and indeed raise taxes. I wish Labour would provide some alternatives to the government and then argue the case for these. That would put Labour in a stronger position and would in effect improve their arguments.