SDSR 2015 General News & Discussion

[Geoff_B]

I suppose this should really be in politics as its governmet led based on the ploicy of the next govt in power, its financial backing and our defensive stance.

I have a feeling this next SDSR will be rather different, it won't have Afghanistan hanging round its neck anymore, it should fine tune matters for Force 2020 and it will reflect the shifting threat potental from both islamist terrorism to cold war II.

One aspect i think we will see is more general policy terms and less specific statements about specific platforms, to avoid clangers like the 2nd QEC, the sentinels etc, but we'll have to see what flavour it is based on who or what actually gain power this week (or next)

[Phil R]

I hope (and wish) that SDSR15 will assess the potential threats faced by the UK, our overseas territories, crown dependencies and friendly countrys with which we have treaty obligations and state the capabilities required to meet these requirements and challenge the Treasury to fully fund them.
Sadly I suspect that the SDSR15 will 'determine' capabilites required and they will miraculously match the pre-determined budget as set by the Treasury.

Phil R

[marktigger]

hopefully it won't be a "Progressive" budget

[WhitestElephant]

Personally I am getting a rather different feeling about defence this time around than back in 2010 - it feels much less dark and gloomy for defence.

Whereas both parties in 2010 were very candid about the fact defence would have to be cut, in 2015 we have the Tory triple lock guaranteeing* no further cuts to the regular forces, firm on trident and a 1% real terms increase in the equipment budget. Even Labour is talking unusually robust on defence (which is odd for them).

So I really think SDSR 2015 will fine-tune things, with cuts coming primarily from the MoD to keep personnel expenditure affordable for the next parliament (as only the equipment budget is -sorta- protected).

*I use the word loosely, I am very aware they could bin the triple lock post election.

[S M H]

Hopefully the SDDR will be not treasury driven as per 2010. That the review is driven by need balanced by the risk. The review is though measured and financed. The finances left for head room, reserves and underspend on a contracts in the year end but committed to a longer contracts .be retained by the MOD not clawed back(stopping the previous practice of speed it or lose it.)

[The Armchair Soldier]

Tory Backbenchers Threaten to Block David Cameron's Defence Cuts Ahead of Meeting

Prime Minister warned that his rebellious backbench will not agree to dropping below two per cent defence spend ahead of 1922 Committee meeting.

David Cameron has been warned by Tory backbenchers that they can block key legislation if he does not accept their demands for defence spending to sharply rise.

Conservatives want the Prime Minister to make defence the “highest priority” in the next parliament and have threatened to rebel against any proposed cuts.

[...]

Despite the Conservatives’ unexpected election victory, Mr Cameron now has a working majority of just eight – far smaller than under the Coalition – and will need constant support from his rebellious backbench to pass legislation.

However Conservative backbenchers have already discussed using their parliamentary power to ensure Mr Cameron commits to the Nato obligation of 2 per cent defence spending – a promise repeatedly dodged during the campaign.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister under Mr Cameron, told The Telegraph there is “strong feeling” against defence cuts in the party which will soon surface.

“There can be now no excuse because we are not in any way beholden to the Liberals. It is part of Tory DNA to put the defence of the realm as the highest priority in government,” he said.

Peter Bone, one of the most rebellious MPs of the last parliament, said the “overwhelming majority” of Tory MPs will vote against dropping defence spending below the Nato obligation.

“I would be very, very surprised if we did not maintain at least 2 per cent in line with Nato’s requirement. That would be extraordinary. I think the prime minister will know the strength of feeling on this,” Mr Bone said.

“As we get through the spring and things begin to get more unstable in Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East we can then use real events and real threats to argue that we need more funding,” the MP said.

Defence spending was left unprotected in the Conservative manifesto despite warnings from senior American and Nato figures that Russia and Islamist extremists would be emboldened by British defence cuts. The Prime Minister did promise not to “reduce the army to below 82,000”.

Should Mr Cameron attempt to push through defence cuts – a move that would help the Tories balance the books by 2018 as promised – Tory MPs could withhold support for other flagship policies.

Read More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eting.html

[jonas]

According to the news, Cameron was meeting with the 1922 committee this morning. So perhaps he is taking this seriously.

[RichardIC]

I'm really beginning to feel like 2% is becoming a bit of a bloody millstone.

We simply don't know what 2% will look like in five years time. Hopefully it will be massive, but it could be less than now. If I were Cameron I wouldn't want to sign any blank cheques either.

What defense needs is guarantees, preferably based on incremental increases .

[Happyslapper]

The pesky back benchers could well be our saviour in the next 5 years.

On Daily Politics this morning, there was some concensus that the MoD is the department most likely to get hammered in the coming few months.

[downsizer]

I think we are in for a veeeeeeery rough ride. More cuts will come soon.

[marktigger]

1922 comittee IE camerons backbenchers want defence spending to stay at least at 2%

[S M H]

The problem is that our career politicians have been someone's special adviser, assistant or lobbyist having little experience outside Westminster bubble. Therefore defence is a low priority. Our political masters priority it to get re-elected this means N.H.S pensions education. The 1922 committee members are the exception. They could be effective stopping the severity of the departmental cuts coming to none protected departments hammering the defence budget..
The SSDR that is under way will properly get the parliamentary scrutiny that the 2010 did not. I suspect that the treasury driven SSDR will have a small headline cut.While clawing back money from headroom, underspend and reserves rather than cut the budget by 5 to 10 % allowing the government to clam that we are 5th or 6th largest spenders in defence in budgetary terms.
The equipment budget should be safe but the claw back by the treasury could impact badly especially if contract a slips(delivery after year end) and funding that was committed for the contracts is not protected from claw back.
The best outcome for SSDR would be if our politicians could put the defence country above their party shenanigans and base it on true SSDR

[Phil R]

I am now very confident that SDSR-15 will address the lack of MPA in a meaningful rather than token way.
Radio 4 have just broadcast a five minute segment on a NATO ASW exersize in the North Sea.
It is very rare for them to discuss the gaping holes in our defences, the need to rely on NATO partners for MPA and the increasing Russian threat unless someone has told them about a big up coming change in defence policy that will be addressed in the next SDSR.

Phil R

[Retired]

Past records show that no UK government of whatever political persuasion can be trusted with defence. It was Labour that ordered the two carriers and Cameron's first defence sec. is quoted as saying 'Bloody carriers if it didn't cost us so much we would scrap them'. However I do now feel that the new conservative government having been backed into a corner over defence will now be more pro-defence. But even if MOD was given unlimited money it would still be a decade before any noticable increase in defence capability would occur due to run down in trained manpower and defence infrastructure

[WhitestElephant]

Some much needed feel good.

Defence and the Election Outcome | Professor Malcolm Chalmers | RUSI | 12 May 2015

"... the clear commitments made by the Conservative Party in its election manifesto point to an end to the defence-budget cuts of the last five years. On reasonable assumptions, it is estimated that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) might get a real-terms increase in its total budget of up to 1 per cent per year over the next Spending Review period."

Rather bullish analysis by Chalmers on defence. He believes it reasonable to assume the MoD could receive a 1% increase above inflation year on year for the entire MoD budget, not just the equipment budget. He expects the Tories will do good on their manifesto commitment to maintain the size of the armed forces (not just the army) and that the SDSR will prioritise carrier strike, MPA and moving to the next stage on Trident replacement.

Stark contrast to this time back in 2010 when RUSI was making the assumption defence would be cut by 15% and all the doom and gloom that went with it.

[jonas]

SDSR 2015 kicks off already :- It appears that defence seems to be a priority. will it be good news or bad we now wait and see.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/d ... 439469.ece

[shark bait]

interesting, the manifesto seemed to be very pro intelligence.
And intelligence is one of the UK's strong points, so good the Americans help fund it. Perhaps the Americans will put up some more cash for us since its becoming more difficult for them to legally monitor communications. Remind me of one of my favorite quotes:

"We have the brains. They have the money. It's a collaboration that's worked very well."

[WhitestElephant]

George Osborne plans new Budget on 8 July |BBC News | 16 May 2015

"[Osborne] admitted it was "unusual" to have two Budgets in the same year, but said he wanted to turn "promises made in the election into a reality"."

Interesting. I wonder how this will effect defence? Will we see the election promise of 1% above inflation for the equipment budget? This budget should give us an indication of what to expect for defence in the SDSR and indeed this parliament.

[WhitestElephant]

I just noticed that this thread is present in the General Discussion section and the Political Discussion section. Is this meant is be the case?

[The Armchair Soldier]

I just noticed that this thread is present in the General Discussion section and the Political Discussion section. Is this meant is be the case?

The one in the Political Discussion section is what's known as a "shadow topic". It's where the topic was posted originally before I moved it here.

[WhitestElephant]

Cheers Armchair Soldier, appreciate the response.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon: My key defence priorities | gov.uk-MoD | 18 May 2015

"It was a great honour to be asked by the Prime Minister to accept again the role of Defence Secretary. Continuity is important, but make no mistake: this is a new Government, elected with a clear mandate to implement the Conservative manifesto."

For Michael Fallon to be reiterating the manifesto commitments post election, and identifying them as his key priorities, then surely this is yet another positive indicator the SDSR wont be as painful as we think it might.

[downsizer]

Cool story bro.

You know politicians are lying when they speak right?

[jonas]

Cheers Armchair Soldier, appreciate the response.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon: My key defence priorities | gov.uk-MoD | 18 May 2015

"It was a great honour to be asked by the Prime Minister to accept again the role of Defence Secretary. Continuity is important, but make no mistake: this is a new Government, elected with a clear mandate to implement the Conservative manifesto."

For Michael Fallon to be reiterating the manifesto commitments post election, and identifying them as his key priorities, then surely this is yet another positive indicator the SDSR wont be as painful as we think it might.

Having watched 'Big Angus' in his first statement to Parliament, already bleating on about opposing Trident. I would say Fallons remark was to clearly state the governments determination in forging ahead with the UK's CASD programme. They have Labour onside on this, so in the long run the SNP cannot as far as I can see, do sweet F.A. about it.

Though also in the long term, it is obvious that the SNP will not abide by the referedum, and will not rest until they have another go, on and on ad nauseam.
So I do hope despite all the denials, that the government will be looking at options in regards to re-basing our nuclear deterent, should the worse come to the worse.

[IrishT]

Cool story bro.

You know politicians are lying when they speak right?

You can take the blue pill or the red pill. Everything else is a lie, trust no one. After all, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you...


Add whatever other quotes you can think of to the above

[WhitestElephant]

Cool story bro.

You know politicians are lying when they speak right?

Surely though, if they had no intention of sticking to their manifestos commitments, then they would quietly drop all mention of it now the election is over and have nothing to gain?