Monday 4 October 2010

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Certainly look forward to Jeremy v Boris Johnson tonight :o)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

FROM LATE 1990's-2010 THE ROYAL NAVY HAD ITS SURFACE COMBATANTS' STRIPPED OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS AND AIRCRAFT


1) DURING THE LATE 1990's THE ROYAL NAVY's AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WERE STRIPPED OF ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT WEAPONS SYSTEMS & PERSONNEL:

In 1998, the Royal Navy's (then 3) 2 remaining aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' 'outer layer' anti airborne threat weapons systems removed.

Contradicting standard protocols, no replacement for Sea Dart was fitted to these two most-integral-to-the-RN's-capabilities-and roles-throughout-the-world warships.

This, although many technologically up-to-date anti airborne threat missile-based weapons systems existed then (and throughout the 2000-2010 period) that could easily and cheaply have been fitted to Lusty and Ark Royal...

Despite the resulting severe risks to Illustrious and Ark Royal and their service personnel, removing Sea Dart- and the weapons officers/technicians responsible for its operation- from Illustrious and Ark Royal doubtless saved the MoD considerable funds...
============

2) DURING 2002-2008 RN DESTROYERS & FRIGATES WERE STRIPPED OF CLOSE IN WEAPONS SYSTEMS (CIWS's) & WEAPONS OFFICERS

Between 2002-2008, RN Frigates- that did not have 'outer layer' anti airborne threat defence systems- had their 'Phalanx' 'inner layer' anti airborne threat radar guided machine-gun defence systems removed and sent to Basra, southern Iraq to provide protection against home-made rockets, artillery and mortars for British troops deployed there....

This left front line Frigates that were already egregiously vulnerable- due to their not having up-to-date outer layer (missile-based) defences- effectively defenceless to modern airborne threats such as sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles...

Adding to the damage caused by this highly dangerous armed forces funding policy, during this period, Royal Navy ship-board personnel were sent to Iraq to support the Army in operating these 'land based' Phalanx systems...

This, instead of the Labour govt approving funding to buy new 'land-based' Phalanx systems for use in Iraq, and training Army personnel to operate them:

https://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/day3/phalanx-defender-of-the-r.shtml
===========

3) BETWEEN 2002-2008 RN Type-42 Destroyers had their Sea Dart anti airborne threat missile systems removed without any- let alone an up-to-date system being fitted as a replacement...

When the carriers' and Type-42 Destroyers' Sea dart systems were removed, the Weapons Officers and support technicians responsible for Sea Dart also went... enabling the Labour govt to redirect associated costs...

Mirroring the Aircraft Carriers' example- Type-42 Destroyers that had their Sea Dart systems removed were kept in active service by a Labour govt that appears to have ignored the egregious risks that putting dis-armed warships on patrol places Royal Navy service personnel under:

"HMS Defenceless: Two destroyers sail minus missiles to save cash"-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025299/HMS-Defenceless-Two-destroyers-sail-minus-missiles-save-cash.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025254/Two-Navy-destroyers-unable-missiles--theyve-removed-save-cash.html

"Navy destroyers sail without missiles":

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/2104716/Navy-destroyers-sail-without-missiles.html

===================

4) DURING 2002-2009 ROYAL NAVY AIR ARM 'DESTROYED' BY PREVIOUS LABOUR GOVT:

For the better part of 1/2 a decade: 2003-2009, the Royal Navy's 2 operational aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their entire supply of fixed-wing aircraft (Harriers) plus their pilots and maintenance personnel 'hijacked' and sent to British bases in Landlocked Afghanistan...

This has so severely damaged the Royal Navy, that it has lost the ability to operate an Air Arm:

"Back on board: regenerating UK carrier strike capability", 04_09-2009:

https://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw090904_1_n.shtml

"... there is no disguising that the extended commitment of (Royal Navy Harriers) to the Afghanistan theatre has over the same period significantly curtailed the availability of the UK's ground attack Harrier force - particularly its maritime-oriented Naval Strike Wing (NSW) - to exercise in the carrier-borne strike role...."

"... As a result, HMS Illustrious, currently the UK's high readiness strike carrier (CVS), has frequently found its hangar and flight deck empty of fixed-wing aircraft over the past three years..."

"... This is not good news at a time when the RN is attempting to practice and hone the strike potential of its existing carriers in the run up to the introduction of the two new 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class vessels from the middle of the next decade...."

"... The impact of this lack of sea time has been keenly felt in (Royal Navy air wings) and on board Illustrious."

"... Pilots have not been able to maintain (skills) in the art of operating from the cramped and moving flight deck of (an aircraft carrier)..."

"...Meanwhile, the lack of fixed-wing aircraft on board Illustrious has led to a skill fade in both flight deck crews and the ship's air management organization..."

"... Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff (Carrier Strike), Navy Command Headquarters, Captain Jock Alexander: '... it is a fact that given the tempo of operations in Afghanistan, a lot of Harrier pilots have seen little or nothing of a carrier in four years.

"'... The same goes for the air engineers...'"

"... '(today) there is a need for the (Harrier pilots/support personnel/engineers) to understand and appreciate how the ship works...'

FROM LATE 1990's-2010 THE ROYAL NAVY HAD ITS SURFACE COMBATANTS' STRIPPED OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS AND AIRCRAFT


1) DURING THE LATE 1990's THE ROYAL NAVY's AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WERE STRIPPED OF ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT WEAPONS SYSTEMS & PERSONNEL:

In 1998, the Royal Navy's (then 3) 2 remaining aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' 'outer layer' anti airborne threat weapons systems removed.

Contradicting standard protocols, no replacement for Sea Dart was fitted to these two most-integral-to-the-RN's-capabilities-and roles-throughout-the-world warships.

This, although many technologically up-to-date anti airborne threat missile-based weapons systems existed then (and throughout the 2000-2010 period) that could easily and cheaply have been fitted to Lusty and Ark Royal...

Despite the resulting severe risks to Illustrious and Ark Royal and their service personnel, removing Sea Dart- and the weapons officers/technicians responsible for its operation- from Illustrious and Ark Royal doubtless saved the MoD considerable funds...
============

2) DURING 2002-2008 RN DESTROYERS & FRIGATES WERE STRIPPED OF CLOSE IN WEAPONS SYSTEMS (CIWS's) & WEAPONS OFFICERS

Between 2002-2008, RN Frigates- that did not have 'outer layer' anti airborne threat defence systems- had their 'Phalanx' 'inner layer' anti airborne threat radar guided machine-gun defence systems removed and sent to Basra, southern Iraq to provide protection against home-made rockets, artillery and mortars for British troops deployed there....

This left front line Frigates that were already egregiously vulnerable- due to their not having up-to-date outer layer (missile-based) defences- effectively defenceless to modern airborne threats such as sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles...

Adding to the damage caused by this highly dangerous armed forces funding policy, during this period, Royal Navy ship-board personnel were sent to Iraq to support the Army in operating these 'land based' Phalanx systems...

This, instead of the Labour govt approving funding to buy new 'land-based' Phalanx systems for use in Iraq, and training Army personnel to operate them:

https://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/day3/phalanx-defender-of-the-r.shtml
===========

3) BETWEEN 2002-2008 RN Type-42 Destroyers had their Sea Dart anti airborne threat missile systems removed without any- let alone an up-to-date system being fitted as a replacement...

When the carriers' and Type-42 Destroyers' Sea dart systems were removed, the Weapons Officers and support technicians responsible for Sea Dart also went... enabling the Labour govt to redirect associated costs...

Mirroring the Aircraft Carriers' example- Type-42 Destroyers that had their Sea Dart systems removed were kept in active service by a Labour govt that appears to have ignored the egregious risks that putting dis-armed warships on patrol places Royal Navy service personnel under:

"HMS Defenceless: Two destroyers sail minus missiles to save cash"-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025299/HMS-Defenceless-Two-destroyers-sail-minus-missiles-save-cash.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025254/Two-Navy-destroyers-unable-missiles--theyve-removed-save-cash.html

"Navy destroyers sail without missiles":

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/2104716/Navy-destroyers-sail-without-missiles.html

===================

4) DURING 2002-2009 ROYAL NAVY AIR ARM 'DESTROYED' BY PREVIOUS LABOUR GOVT:

For the better part of 1/2 a decade: 2003-2009, the Royal Navy's 2 operational aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their entire supply of fixed-wing aircraft (Harriers) plus their pilots and maintenance personnel 'hijacked' and sent to British bases in Landlocked Afghanistan...

This has so severely damaged the Royal Navy, that it has lost the ability to operate an Air Arm:

"Back on board: regenerating UK carrier strike capability", 04_09-2009:

https://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw090904_1_n.shtml

"... there is no disguising that the extended commitment of (Royal Navy Harriers) to the Afghanistan theatre has over the same period significantly curtailed the availability of the UK's ground attack Harrier force - particularly its maritime-oriented Naval Strike Wing (NSW) - to exercise in the carrier-borne strike role...."

"... As a result, HMS Illustrious, currently the UK's high readiness strike carrier (CVS), has frequently found its hangar and flight deck empty of fixed-wing aircraft over the past three years..."

"... This is not good news at a time when the RN is attempting to practice and hone the strike potential of its existing carriers in the run up to the introduction of the two new 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class vessels from the middle of the next decade...."

"... The impact of this lack of sea time has been keenly felt in (Royal Navy air wings) and on board Illustrious."

"... Pilots have not been able to maintain (skills) in the art of operating from the cramped and moving flight deck of (an aircraft carrier)..."

"...Meanwhile, the lack of fixed-wing aircraft on board Illustrious has led to a skill fade in both flight deck crews and the ship's air management organization..."

"... Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff (Carrier Strike), Navy Command Headquarters, Captain Jock Alexander: '... it is a fact that given the tempo of operations in Afghanistan, a lot of Harrier pilots have seen little or nothing of a carrier in four years.

"'... The same goes for the air engineers...'"

"... '(today) there is a need for the (Harrier pilots/support personnel/engineers) to understand and appreciate how the ship works...'

5) AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT: politically driven:

If built, the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers are to be in service for 1/2 a century...

The realities of modern naval warfare require that aircraft carriers can not operate in isolation from other supporting surface & sub-surface combatants... especially in complex threat environments...

Supporting vessels- would normally include TECHNOLOGICALLY UP-TO-DATE, MULTI-MISSION/MULTI-ROLE Destroyers & Frigates as well as submarines...

Properly functioning navies term grouped-together, jointly tasked aircraft carriers and their escorts as aircraft carrier battle groups...

The facts are that the entire RN surface fleet is in such a degenerated, obsolescent, egregiously vulnerable state today, that it does not possess sufficiently capable vessels- let alone adequate numbers of them- to produce one, let alone two aircraft carrier battle groups...

Would the US Navy entrust one of their supercarriers to be sent on missions 'protected' and escorted by Royal Navy vessels alone- without any backup from US Navy surface and subsurface combatants??

Until the answer to the above question is yes, proponents of the UK continuing with the current 'big deck' aircraft carrier project- in its current design- will be living an intellectually dishonest and highly dangerous-for-the-United Kingdom & its citizens lie!!

Other than the new Type-45 Destroyers, EVERY ONE OF THE RN's SURFACE COMBATANTS today** is BADLY VULNERABLE to common, very widely proliferated airborne threats such as ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILES (ASCMs)***...

This has been the case for over 10-years and has been well understood by MoD officials during this time... who- for a variety of apparently politically-driven- Treasury motivated- reasons, have not taken remedial steps..

Making matters worse, due to foolish economizing by the previous Labour govt, the grievously insufficient six Type-45s that have been built/are undergoing construction are missing the majority of the weapons, sensors and communications systems that their designers originally intended.... in effect, 25% complete warships!!

Until the blatant and highly dangerous build-deficiencies of the new Type-45 Destroyers are rectified and until the RN receives- or is in the process of receiving- at least 14-18 more Type-45 Destroyers- fitted to operate as MULTI-MISSION/MULTI-ROLE Destroyers (or until the RN receives/is in the process of receiving 14-18 equivalent to Type-45 Destroyer vessels): then there is no operational purpose in the RN having aircraft carriers!!!

Any country- such as the UK- with a better-part-of-2-centuries long history occupying leading positions on the world's most powerful and influential political, legal, trade, financial and military bodies needs to be seen to be structuring its military capabilities and high-tech/industrial competencies as though it intends to retain these positions...

If the UK builds- or becomes known to be intending to build- less than half the operationally-required numbers of integral to national defence & 'world roles' classes of military vessels during a 2-decade span- and only 25% equipping the ones it does build- as has been the situation during 2001-2010- the UK can expect to be viewed by other countries as weak and ambitionless- possessing misguided and incompetent leadership, and not worthy of retaining its long-held positions of leadership on the world's most powerful and influential political, legal, trade, financial and military bodies...

Lack of adequate funding has caused great damages to be inflicted upon the Royal Navy 2001-2010...

How will reducing funding further lead to rectification of these damages and- now ongoing- related problems??

The United States govt has put in place legislation- IE: explicit laws- stipulating that their navy must at all times have no less than 11 aircraft carriers in service (including aircraft, supporting equipment and crews)...

Why could the UK not take the same.approach to aircraft carriers with the Royal Navy??? ... this in order to head off the current and future govts copying their Labour predecessors- by emaciating and cannibalizing the RN for short term gains/to divert funding to other programmes/parts of the UK's armed forces....

If Britain wants to remain a part of the upper echelons of the global community, it will need a capable Navy THAT IS BUILT AROUND A 20-30 YEAR LONG-TERM CAPABILITIES PLAN: a plan that is predicated upon the establishment of & maintenance of a force structure that is equipped to deal with known and reasonably-expected threats and duties during the coming 2-3 decades

If and when such a '30-year Royal Navy force structure and capabilities plan' is put together, it would be incumbent upon the govt of the day to- via passage of relevant legislation- simultaneously commit future govts and future Parliamentary Defence committees to ensuring that a formal annual review of the plan takes place along with an annual evaluation of whether particular objectives have been met...

An in-depth assessment of such a plan ought to occur no less than every 4-years, based upon known, newly identified and reasonably expected in the coming 3-decades threats as well as anticipated Royal Navy duties during the coming 30-years...

An obvious question is: will the new coalition govt be any better than their predecessors in funding the RN sufficiently so as to enable the ALREADY EXISTING HUGELY DANGEROUS INADAQUACIES of its PRESENTLY EXISTING vessels to be rectified??

Does the UK want to remain an active & leading participant in world-affairs and a valued and 'respected by other countries'' world player??



______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

** this includes the newly built LPDs & even the RFA's 'Bay Class' LSDs...

***"Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles":
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html
https://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/Concealed-carriage-Club-K-changes-cruise-missile-rules.html

https://defense-update.com/wp/20100920_yakhont_in_syria.html
https://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100920/160652217.html

**** based on the P800 Yakhont...

https://video.wbtube.com/2010/10/james-delingpole-on-alex-jones-tv-15-after-climategate-pachaurigate-glaciergate-amazongate/

"Is this the end of universal benefits?"


Let's hope so - it's about time but these proposals don't go anywhere far enough.

In an over-populated, resource-drained, environmentally degraded world it is now time to cut all child benefit, maternity / paternity pay and abolish all state provided education as it only serves to encourage the very worst form of open-ended irresponsibility that no society can ever possibly afford or hope to keep up with.

Anyone who voluntarily chooses to make the personal life style decision to introduce an actual human being into existence should be solely responsible for that decision and they alone should be forced to pay for that themselves.

If people want to have children they that is their decision and their decision only - it is not only unfair but completely impractical and entirely unsustainable to expect everyone else in society (especially if they are childless or pay for their children already) to pay for other people's irresponsible behaviour.

Any system that rewards or incentivises people to bring unwanted babies into an already over-congested world needs to be abolished immediately - how many more Baby Peters or Shannon Matthews do we need to see before we all finally understand that this form of welfare dependency needs to be brought to an immediate end.

Now that Bankrupt Britain is completely bust and run out of all that money it has borrowed this is the perfect opportunity for the government to save the tax payer an absolute fortune by finally doing the right thing.

IF THE ROYAL NAVY's FLEET-WIDE, EGREGIOUS VULNERABILITIES TO ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILES (ASCMs) & IF THE RN's SURFACE VESSELS' + AIRCRAFT's LACK OF 'COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY' (CEC) ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE SDSR- IS THIS 'TAKING RISKS ON DEFENCE'??

Lack of adequate funding together with operating for over a decade without a specific, long-term, time-lined force-structure & capabilities plan have caused great damages to be inflicted upon the Royal Navy under the previous Labour govt...

How will reducing funding further lead to rectification of these damages and- now ongoing- related problems??

Since the mid 1990s the US. Defense Dept, Congress and its 'Govt Accountability Office' (GAO) have been FORMALLY evaluating- ON A SCHEDULED BASIS- the US Navy's INDIVIDUAL ships' abilities to conduct 'Ship Self Defense' (SDS) against Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) AND appropriating BILLIONS of dollars to upgrade (almost ALL) existing and fit ALL new US Navy surface vessels* with technologically advanced, capable anti airborne threat/ anti-ship cruise missile defensive systems...

* such as Destroyers, Frigates, Amphibious Assault ships, LHA's, LHD's, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS and the like...

The United Kingdom on the other hand has, during the late 1990s up to 2010, systematically disarmed its front-line surface combatants** IE removed these vessels' obsolescent anti airborne threat 'Sea Dart' systems... leaving these ships defenceless to anti-ship cruise missiles...

** such as Type-42 Destroyers and Invincible class Aircraft Carriers...

Other RN surface vessels have not fared much better:

due to the age and/or inadequate-technology of their anti-airborne threat weapons systems- especially their combat management system (CMS), types of AAW missiles & radars- ('Sea Wolf' and similar AAW weapons fitted to Type-22 and Type-23 Frigates) they're no better able to cope with ASCMs than the disarmed Type-42s & Invincible class carriers...

During the last 12-years, other than the scandalously abbreviated Type-45 Destroyer programme and its resulting 6 virtually un-armed ships, nearly a dozen new RN and RFA ships/combatants have been built & then commissioned into service with, in most cases, ZERO anti anti-airborne threat weapons systems:

- such as the 'Bay class' Landing Ship Dock (LSD) vessels...

In other cases, vitally important, central to fleet-function & UK 'power projection' roles ships have been built & commissioned into service 'with' anti airborne threat weapons systems- BUT with incompetent systems that have negligible capabilities against even 1990's-technology ASCMs... (HMS Ocean and the Landing Platform Dock (LPD) vessels)...

The planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers have been designed- due to previous Labour govt interference- WITHOUT 'missile-based' ASCM/anti-airborne threat defences AND without the high-technology weapons-targeting radars that would be required by missile based ASCM defensive systems....

Below are links to reference documents showing that, since the mid 1990's the U.S. has been making planned, scheduled efforts to afford ALL of its Navy's surface vessels with 'Ship Self Defense' (SDS) capabilities against ASCMs and other types of airborne threats that are known to exist today and expected in the near, mid and far term future:

- why doesn't the UK media ask a few in the MoD/RN/Admiralty/Naval design firms why the UK has not done the same???

Why doesn't the UK media contact a few in the upper eschelons of the U.S. Navy, its War College https://www.usnwc.edu/, Government Accountability Office (GAO) https://www.gao.gov/ , 'Congressional Research Service https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/divwork/dirwork.html , https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/divwork/commwork.html , and/or representatives of prominent U.S. naval design firms such as Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, the 'Integrated Defense Systems' department of Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin... and ask these people:

- why does their country/the U.S. Navy place so much importance on regularly assessing INDIVIDUAL classes of U.S. Navy vessels' capabilities to defend against ASCMs- and have/has put policies AND funding in place to deal with ASCM defensive-systems' deficiencies & the threats that this class of weapons present to surface vessels of ALL countries navy's world-wide??

1) 02-2010 U.S. APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY RECORDS FOR NAVY 'SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEMS' (SSDS) PROJECTS:

https://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2011/Navy/0604755N_PB_2011.pdf

PAGE 1:

"This program consolidates... efforts related to Detect & Control aspects of Ship Self Defense (SSD)...

"Analysis and demonstration have established that surface SSD based on single-sensor detection point-to-point control architecture performs marginally against current and projected Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) threats.

"The supersonic seaskimming ASCM reduces the effective battle space to the horizon and the available reaction time-line to less than 30 seconds from first opportunity to detect until the ASCM impacts its target ship.

"Against such a threat, multi-sensor integration is required for effective detection, and parallel processing is essential to reduce reaction time to acceptable levels and to provide vital coordination/integration of hardkill and softkill assets...

"These SSD projects address and coordinate the detect and control functions necessary to meet the rigorous SSD requirements within a development structure dedicated to systems engineering.."

PAGE 11:

"(Ship Self Defense System) SSDS MK2 facilitates... implementation of modifications...

"SSDS MK2 is in development and integrates other ship self defense elements, such as AN/SPQ-9B radar, Sea-sparrow (missile) system, (Cooperative Engagement Capability) CEC and Tactical Data Links for joint (vessel/aircraft platform) interoperability.

"SSDS MK2 provides enhanced capabilities for (individual ship) Self Defense against air and surface threats using both ownship and remote data to address AAW Capstone requirements. SSDS MK2 becomes the integrated, coherent real time Command and Control System for Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious ships."

2) 05-2009 U.S. APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY RECORDS FOR NAVY 'SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEMS' (SSDS) PROJECTS::

https://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/Navy/0604755N.pdf
===================

PART 2:

3) 07-2000 U.S. Govt Accountability Office special Defence Acquisitions Report: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile Defense::

https://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00149.pdf :

PAGE 3:

"Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has shifted its focus from preparing for warfare...

"However, the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles threatens the ability of Navy ships to operate and survive...

"In response to this threat, the Chief of Naval Operations directed a comprehensive review of ship selfdefense requirements...

"Completed in fiscal year 1996, this study formally identified the capabilities needed by each ship class to defend against cruise missile threats in the near, mid-, and far term.

"Since then, the Navy has spent $3.8 billion to improve its ship self-defense capabilities against cruise missile attacks, and it plans to spend another $5.1 billion over the next 6 years...

"This report responds to your request that we (1) assess the Navy’s progress since 1996 in improving the self-defense capability of surface ships against cruise missiles and (2) evaluate Navy plans for meeting future anti-cruise missile self-defense requirements..."

4) 03-2004 GAO report on Cruise Missile and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology proliferation:

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04493t.pdf :

PAGE 2:

"Conventional anti-ship cruise missiles pose an immediate threat to U.S. naval vessels because of the widespread availability of these weapons worldwide.

"... At least 70 nations currently possess some type of anti-ship missiles armed with conventional, high explosive warheads, and at least 32 nations are developing or manufacturing more than 250 models of UAVs.."

PAGE 5:

" ... anti-ship cruise missiles threaten U.S. naval forces deployed globally

(by extension, and considering the continued regular deployment of ships fitted with obsolecsent AAW systems and the continued regular deployment of surface combatants that are fitted with known-to-be-incompetent AAW systems: does this statement also not include UK naval forces??? )

"We reported in 2000 that the next generation of anti-ship cruise missiles- most of which are now expected to be fielded by 2007- will be equipped with advanced target seekers and stealthy design.

"These features will make them more difficult to detect and defeat.

"At least 70 nations possess some type of cruise missile, mostly short-range, anti-ship missiles armed with conventional, high-explosive warheads, according to a U.S. government study.

"Countries that export cruise missiles currently include China, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States. China and Russia have sold cruise missiles to Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria.

"Nations that manufacture but do not yet export cruise missiles currently include Brazil, India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan. None of these nonexporting manufacturing countries is a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement, and only Brazil and South Africa are in the MTCR... "

5) 03-2007 GAO Annual Report on selected U.S. Weapons Systems' progress & funding::

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf

"LHA 6 (50,000 tonne 'Aircraft Carrier') Program

"Technology Maturity

"In August 2005, the Navy concluded that all LHA 6 components and technologies are fully mature...

"The... Ship Self Defense System (SSDS); Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC); Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM); and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) are all mature technologies used on numerous Navy ships.

"According to program officials, these technologies will not be modified for LHA 6 and further development will not be required for ship integration..."
===================

If Britain wants to remain a part of the upper echelons of the global community, it will need a capable Navy THAT IS BUILT AROUND A 20-30 YEAR LONG-TERM CAPABILITIES PLAN: a plan that is predicated upon the establishment of & maintenance of a force structure that is equipped to deal with known and reasonably-expected threats and duties during the coming 2-3 decades

If and when such a '30-year Royal Navy force structure and capabilities plan' is put together, it would be incumbent upon the govt of the day to- via passage of relevant legislation- simultaneously commit future govts and future Parliamentary Defence committees to ensuring that a formal annual review of the plan takes place along with an annual evaluation of whether particular objectives have been met...

An in-depth assessment of such a plan ought to occur no less than every 4-years, based upon known, newly identified and reasonably expected in the coming 3-decades threats as well as anticipated Royal Navy duties during the coming 30-years...

An obvious question is: will the new coalition govt be any better than their predecessors in funding the RN sufficiently so as to enable the ALREADY EXISTING HUGELY DANGEROUS INADAQUACIES of its PRESENTLY EXISTING vessels to be rectified??

Does the UK want to remain an active & leading participant in world-affairs and a valued and 'respected by other countries'' world player???



______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

PROJECTED COSTS TO COMPLETE THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT HAVE DOUBLED SINCE COMMENCEMENT IN 2003!!

1) The UK's 'big deck' aircraft carrier project's costs have risen by nearly 100% since formal commencement in January-2003: £2.9bn - £4.9bn (or £2.6bn- £5.2bn according to other references):

>> 14_07-2003- "Carrier costs 'could escalate (above £2.9bn)":
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3063621.stm

>> 19_10-2005-"MoD puts off decision on new (£3.5bn) warships": :
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d8f51fb8-403d-11da-8394-00000e2511c8.html

>> 03_07-2008- "£3.2bn giant carrier deals signed":
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7486683.stm

>> 29_06-2009- "Aircraft carriers' costs soar £1bn", (to £4.9bn) :
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/06/aircraft_carriers_costs_soar_1.html

£4.9bn equals roughly $7.6bn: half what the US spends for just 1 carrier (without aircraft):

- https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10388sp.pdf (pg 53);
- https://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS20643_20100610.pdf (pg 2)-

In 2008, the then Labour govt approved (highly inadequate) funding for and ham-fistedly went ahead with the aircraft carrier (aka CVF) project, albeit a project that was plainly poorly thought out from a deliverables perspective, and one driven mainly by objectives to procure votes and support for the political party then-in-power in the lead-up to and during the, then imminent, national election (via thousands of new jobs & 100s of millions of pounds in govt-distributed domestic-funding resulting from the CVF project), than a project driven mainly by objectives to build appropriately functional, capable warships...

... As a consequence the UK is getting crappy vessels- IE: no armour, no armoured bulkheads; no catapults- dangerously limiting the types of aircraft that can be deployed; no missile-based anti-airborne threat defenses; no proper radars; no 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC)*** sensors and communications equipment making the new carriers useless- floating targets- if deployed as part of a multi-national squadron/fleet made up of current-technology vessels...

Because they are being built without aircraft launch-catapults , the RN's (planned) new, 'big deck' aircraft carriers will be restricted to embarking and deploying Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate- even remotely- the functions & capabilities of modern, fixed-wing 'conventional take off & land' (CTOL) Airborne early Warning And Control (AWACS) aircraft...

https://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml
https://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

"... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support...

"The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."

E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy's New AWACS-
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

*** Amplifying an already horrendous situation, the UK's planned new aircraft carriers are planned to NOT be equipped with the sensors, communications, computer & Combat Management System kit required for 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC)...

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

https://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091201_1_n.shtml :

"... The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will decide in 2010 whether to acquire the US Navy's 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) for integration into selected Royal Navy (RN) surface ships after concluding a third tranche of Assessment Phase (AP3) studies.

"This comes five years after initial plans to integrate the UK CEC system into Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers were brought to a sudden halt as a result of budget pressure...."

Without CEC, and without the ability to deploy CEC-equipped AWACS aircraft the UK's planned big deck aircraft carriers are, individually, going to be restricted to operating within line of sight naval battle theatres, IE: the distance from the respective carrier to the horizon- about 20 miles...

These vessels' planned, cheap radars can not 'see over the horizon' targets/threats that are at sea level and/or incoming at up to about 60 or 70 feet in altitude...

As a result of the planned carriers not being equipped with Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and not capable of deploying CEC-equipped AWACS aircraft, these vessels will be hugely vulnerable to this century's most widely proliferated- AND LIKELY TO BE ENCOUNTERED- naval threat: sea skimming Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)

.... consequently, the astonishingly badly planned carriers will be unable to react to incoming ASCMs**** and the airborne platforms carrying them (IE aircraft)- until ASCM's & ASCM armed aircraft are too close for fighter interception &- in the case of ASCMs- less than 40 seconds from potential impact (about 18 miles out)...

... which might not make much of a difference to the planned vessels' outrageous and unnecessary extreme vulnerabilities to airborne (and other) threats- considering that, as a cost-cutting measure- apparently dictated by the previous Labour govt- the planned carriers are to NOT be equipped with industry-standard ship self-defence systems (SSDS), such as missile-based anti airborne threat warfare (AAW) weapons and NOT equipped with the advanced technology radar systems required to operate SSDS systems...

Defense Industry Daily, The US's Dual Band Radar programmes:
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-Band-Radar-05682/

https://www.thalesgroup.com/apar/

APAR PDF 'fact sheet':
https://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10204&LangType=2057 (opens in new window...)

https://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-SEA-4000-AWD.html :

"... This class of radar will track the incoming missiles, provide midcourse guidance for outbound SAMs, and terminal illumination to SAM impact..."

**** such as the Russian SS-N-27 'sizzler' and clones:

"Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles":
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html
https://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/Concealed-carriage-Club-K-changes-cruise-missile-rules.html

For the UK to continue with the absurdly badly-planned 'big deck' aircraft carrier project without a substantial redesign is foolish and would be highly dangerous for the UK's future foreign policy interests as well as for the UK's armed services' personnel...

_____________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

UK ECONOMIC RECOVERY STRATEGIES & EXPORT EFFORTS: SHAMEFULLY NOT PART OF UNIONS' 'AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT CALCULUS'!!

Instead of short-sightedly treating the 'big deck' aircraft carrier programme as a 'make work project'- with very little, if not zero revenue generation capability- why couldn't the UK attempt to head-off France and that country's aggressive marketing of what are, arguably- UK-owned aircraft carrier designs- & market aircraft carriers for export??

- "Australia must act to help protect the Pacific from Chinese dominance", 17_09-2010:
https://australianconservative.com/2010/09/australia-must-act-to-help-protect-the-pacific-from-chinese-dominance/ -

"Assuming that the British defence cuts cannot be avoided, the US and UK should strongly encourage Australia to purchase one of the carriers for the Royal Australian Navy...

"Australia, with its booming commodity and agricultural exports, was largely unaffected by the global downturn.

"Australia has the resources to invest in its defence...

"Because its economy is export-driven, Australia, more than most nations, depends on the freedom of the seas to protect its economic welfare.. "

- "BAE Systems seeks partnership in Brazil's surface fleet procurement", 16_09-2020:
https://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100916_1_n.shtml

- "Joint UK Government And BAE Systems Offer Set To Boost Trade With Brazil", 14_09-2010: https://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_110814162825.html

- "Brazil defence deal raises BAE contract hopes", 13_09-2010:
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d6adeb4-bf6a-11df-965a-00144feab49a,s01=1.html?ftcamp=rss

Countries such as Brazil, India & S. Korea are actively shopping for aircraft carrier(s) for their respective fleets...

The UK could sell both of its planned/partially completed, impractically-designed 'big deck' aircraft carriers to reliable countries such as India, S. Korea or Brazil; work with the buyer(s) to 'custom fit' these vessels with UK-manufactured/designed radars, communications, armaments, etc; and could commit future years' Defence Ministry funding to a 're-design' of the botched-by-the-previous-Labour-govt' big deck' aircraft carrier programme...

What would be worse for the UK- continuing with the badly planned and deficiently designed aircraft carriers- or cancelling the project- and temporarily- putting people involved with project out of work, until work availabilities in other parts of the defence sector present themselves??

The French are attempting to export the aircraft carrier model- PA2*- that resulted from that country's participation in the 2006-2008 UK/France aircraft carrier project**:

* - https://www.dcnsgroup.com/files/dossier_presse/microsoft_word_-_press_kit_euronaval_2008_-_english_version.pdf (pages 16-20)

- https://www.dcnsgroup.com/files/naval_expert/gb_bd.pdf - page #4:

"Crisis management

"DCNS's product portfolio includes...

"- Mistral 210 LHD
- Mistral 140 LHD
- PA 2 aircraft carrier"

**- https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4780630.stm
- https://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw080708_1_n.shtml

Instead of treating the carrier programme as a 'make work project'- with very little, if not negative- revenue generation capability for the country- why couldn't the UK do the same as France- & market aircraft carriers for export??


______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWKZPoXjIcU&feature=related

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Our Political editor Michael Crick is also there and he'll be examining Chancellor George Osborne's plans to axe child benefits for higher rate taxpayers from 2013. Is this the end of universal benefits?"

Ironic isn't it? When the Fabian Society inspired Beveridge Report (which resulted in our muddled Welfare State after the war) was written, the plan was to give the more able, greater benefits so they would have children, not increase the birth rate amongst the less able.
That was because figures had shown that there was a dearth of birth amongst the more able and a surfeit amongst the less able! This is the way of the world alas (see Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria etc). The Old Fabian Labour plan was to improve (or at least stop the decline of) the nation's genetic stock and thus protect if not improve the economy. What happened through opposition resulted in universal benefits! This effectively led to a deterioration in the population as one would expect, making the population a burden on the state, which has since led to its demise as too costly!. Now how did that ever come about? Surely it wasn't through Libertarians after more consumers?

People. Stupid.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"10. At 1:29pm on 04 Oct 2010, ChaosMagick wrote:

Any system that rewards or incentivises people to bring unwanted babies into an already over-congested world needs to be abolished immediately -"

Who would disagree with that? Not me. But........ look more closely.

Some questions for you to help that process:

1) What is the Birth rate of the UK and what does that mean with respect to overpopulation?

2) What is the birth rate of the better well off relative to the less well off?

3) What was the original idea of benefits (not implemented - see Beveridge/Fabians).

"how many more Baby Peters or Shannon Matthews do we need to see before we all finally understand that this form of welfare dependency needs to be brought to an immediate end."

These are sensational examples. They were political examples. Why?

That was the idea of the original Welfare State before and after the war? Who scuppered it? Why?

"Now that Bankrupt Britain is completely bust and run out of all that money it has borrowed this is the perfect opportunity for the government to save the tax payer an absolute fortune by finally doing the right thing."

Big question: if it's gone bust precisely because it never implemented the above will making the country more like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria improve matters (here we are talking just about the birth rate pattern).

People have ideas, and sometimes these seem to make a lot of sense, but when one looks more self-critically, they really don't.

6. At 12:48pm on 04 Oct 2010, MrRoderickVLouis wrote:

Many laments about the erosion of the UK's means of defence (do we even still have a UK?).

Here's Murray Rothbard of the Austrian School (allegedly) writing in the mid 1950s which may go some way towards why, if one thinks one needs no state, one thinks one needs no defence.......

"The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.

Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: "Well, I believe in a limited government, the government being limited to the defense of the person or property or the individual against invasion by force or fraud." I have tried to show in my article, "The Real Aggressor" in the April 1954 Faith and Freedom that this leaves the conservative helpless before the argument "necessary for defense," when it is used for gigantic measures of statism and bloodshed. There are other consequences equally or more grave. The statist can pursue the matter further: "If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service — "defense" — why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services — such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom."

https://mises.org/daily/2801

Some people eh?

#141

You raise a very good point about Jeremy by asking the question whether he presents or creates news, mr educating table. The versatile a man that Paxo is, he does both, though not necessarily at the same time. Sometimes he presents the news as, I should imagine, agreed during the day by the Newsnight team and sometimes he creates the news which was the case with M&S pants and socks although I'm not entirely sure whether the e-mail he'd sent to Sir Stuart Rose was leaked or not. After the 'incident' I checked on the quality of their female underwear by buying quite a few bits and pieces from their range and am happy to report that they wear well and last much longer than from other stores.

Is this a satisfactory answer for you or are you going to tear it apart again, tb01?

#21 addendum

Odd associations, me? Never.

!****

Though yes, my associations may indeed seem odd to quite a few people but I don't like to indulge in oddness. However, I've been working on the absurd and almost enjoying doing so. When I get back home later on, I'll check up on the writers and artists exploring this area and, if allowed, report back to Newsnight website readers.

"Michael Crick is also there and he'll be examining"

it seems so

Maybe he can do something about this recent blog attack of Mr RoderickVLouis I'm itching all over.

blog hemorrhoids away
lets make hay

##141 re: socksgate agate

I do like theatre, tb01, as long as it's not vulgar and I definitely do not consider Paxo vulgar. He may at times be playful but I do not think he actually 'played' a conjuring trick on myself specifically. As you are aware, I'm sure, Paxo and I have met on 4 occasions and he kindly has not forbidden to send him e-mails which I do quite regularly for this or that reason.

Plus, today I'm wearing bright pink socks and am now curious what colours he and his guests are going to wear. I am also very curious to see who his guests will be tonight and whether I've met them face to face.

If I have, I shall also report back on that with possibly more general thoughts about today's events.

@ Tabblenabble #141- Here's a look at what Jeremy and the Newsnight Crew do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR40oDEuPPg

"Is this a satisfactory answer for you or are you going to tear it apart again, tb01?"

It's a more reasonable answer than many that you have sent my way, but I don't think so much weight should be given to either Paxman as a person or to his underpants.

It did interest me to see Stuart Rise next to David Cameron at the Conference today as Osborne gave his selective Child Benefit cutting speech. Presumably he's no fan of Old Labour, and likes the idea of more non discerning consumers/shoppers? Do you see why I say that and why I think this puts M&S in an unflattering light?

"15. The plan is based on a diagnosis of want. It starts from facts, from the condition of the people as revealed by social surveys between the two wars. It takes account of two other facts about the British community, arising out of past movements of the birth rate and the death rate, which should dominate planning for its future; the main effects of these movements in determining the present and future of the British people are shown by Table XI in para. 234. The first of the two facts is the age constitution of the population, making it certain that persons past the age that is now regarded as the end of working life will be a much larger proportion of the whole community than at any time in the past. The second fact is the low reproduction rate of the British community today: unless this rate is raised very materially in the near future, a rapid and continuous decline of the population cannot be prevented. The first fact makes it necessary to seek ways of postponing the age of retirement from work rather than of hastening It. The second fact makes it imperative to give first place in social expenditure to the care of childhood and to the safeguarding of maternity."

From an Executive Summary of the 1942 wartime Beveridge Report.
https://www.sochealth.co.uk/history/beveridge.htm

The population problem was not because of the war I hasten to add.
Look up 'The Plan', and look up the cartoon (The Road to Serfdom) which had it in for 'The Plan' wherever it might turn up (was Hayek's and GM's target Russia, or was these British Fabian ideas which Russia had already implemented by the 1930s?). The idea of the Welfare State itself was essentially German, Bismarkian in fact. But why the population problem and are why are we seeing history repeat itself? Why didn't we learn? is it because we are too collectively dumb?

Your Math Test for today!

All questions should be attempted. Please answer all parts of each question.
Higher marks will be given for answering the less difficult questions.


1A.

Ms Di-varsity proclaims how many friends she has. She states three naming, Mr Binsness, Mr Bem and, from Woking, Mr C Lars.

What percentage of the total if only one answer were actually correct?


1B.

Ms Di-varsity is a business person. If she were to offer potential employees a living wage, as opposed to the minimum wage, would she ....

a. Find it easier to recruit?
b. Seek extra licenses to recruit from outside of the `EU?
c. Increase retail price to cover the increased wages bill?
d. Absorb the increased costs?
e. Increase retail price and make staff redundant?
f. Increase retail price further to cover the increased wages bill and increased margins?
g. Make staff redundant, increase productivity,raise the retail price and double her annual bonus?
h. Be dismissed for raising production costs?




2A.

Mr O’spawn earns £43,999 pa. He lives with his partner, Ms Guyded, whom earns £24.880pa.

What percentage increase would Ms Guyded need to be in receipt of equal pay?


2B.

Mr O’spawn and Ms Guyded’s neighbour is Phil Therich. Both households have children. Mr Therich pays tax at the highest rate as he earns £68,879pa.

What is the percentage difference in earnings between Mr Therich and his neighbours?
Were Mr Therich’s Child Benefit to be cut how many silk ties less would he buy per annum given the price of a silk tie equates to Jobseeker’s Allowance times one point five?
Were Mr O’spawn and Ms Guyded’s Child Benefit to be cut would they find it necessary to stop the english language lessons for their Au pairs?
In the event of Child Benefit being cut for either household would their children’s private school fees be reduced proportionately?



3

Mr T Opcon is a millionaire. His wife works for a up-market company and receives an undisclosed salary. They have three children.

What percentage of the total Child Benefit goes toward their children’s nanny’s monthly mileage allowance??


4A

Mr Al Wright earns £77,000pa which is the given average for people paying Higher Rate Tax.

If he stops receiving Child Benefit for his one child, what is the loss of income in percentage terms?

4B

Mr B Ottomrungman has lived in the UK for ten years. He lives with his mother and has no children.

What is the loss of income in percentage terms if he loses his job at Ms Di-varsity’s factory as a result of a cost cutting exercise?



5A

Ms Amy Herenow, a single mother of one, unwittingly pays £100 each for six fake east european birth certificates.

In percentage terms what is the annual rate of return from her investment?


5B

Given the cost of £600 per ticket. how many weeks would she have be in receipt of claimed Child Benefit to be able to afford a First Class return to go home at Christmas and. secondly, how long would it take to save only using her legal entitlement upon release from prison?


End.


When you have attempted all questions please pass your answers to the person on your right.

Good Luck!
.

You may begin.

MrRoderickVLouis (numerous)

I guess it's not a lot of use having a few on board ship defences on your Carrier or support vessels if some of these come at you at Mach 10 having been launched thousands of km away from China or Russia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21
llistic_missile

#26

Tb01

The fact that you do not think so much weight shouldn't be given to Jeremy Paxman doesn't mean that others shouldn't and that obviously includes myself.

As far as his pants go, I haven't seen or held any in my hands so I can't possibly comment on their 'weight'.

"The fact that you do not think so much weight shouldn't be given to Jeremy Paxman doesn't mean that others shouldn't and that obviously includes myself."

But surely that just shows that you really don't understand what the function of Newsnight is, even from their own brief.

An analogy: If you were being taught how to fly an aeroplane but whilst in training keep remarking upon how pretty the dials were or how comfy the seat was etc, someone would quickly ask how you ever got onto the course, or if some medical disorder has befallen you since being accepted. Either way, you'd be told you were unfit to continue. When you, Mistress76uk or Flcks2 etc go off one these irrelevant tangents, that's what most sensible people are going to think, or that you are here to undermine the blog, draw attention to yourself personally etc.

"15. The plan is based on a diagnosis of want. It starts from facts, from the condition of the people as revealed by social surveys between the two wars. It takes account of two other facts about the British community, arising out of past movements of the birth rate and the death rate, which should dominate planning for its future; the main effects of these movements in determining the present and future of the British people are shown by Table XI in para. 234. The first of the two facts is the age constitution of the population, making it certain that persons past the age that is now regarded as the end of working life will be a much larger proportion of the whole community than at any time in the past. The second fact is the low reproduction rate of the British community today: unless this rate is raised very materially in the near future, a rapid and continuous decline of the population cannot be prevented. The first fact makes it necessary to seek ways of postponing the age of retirement from work rather than of hastening It. The second fact makes it imperative to give first place in social expenditure to the care of childhood and to the safeguarding of maternity."

From an Executive Summary of the 1942 wartime Beveridge Report.
https://www.sochealth.co.uk/history/beveridge.htm

This pertains to George Osborne's cutting of Child Benefit today (it began with the Beveridge Report).

The population problem is reported in 1942 was not because of the war I hasten to add (look up 'The Plan', and look up the youtube or Mises site cartoon "The Road to Serfdom" which had it in for 'The Plan' wherever it might turn up (was Hayek's and GM's target Russia after the war, or were these the domestic British Fabian ideas which Russia had already implemented by the 1930s?). The idea of the Welfare State itself was essentially German, Bismarkian in fact. But why the population problem back then, and are why are we today seeing history repeat itself? Why didn't we learn? We had a temporary baby boom after the war, and then it stalled, which we then tried to address via immigration. But, how smart was that? Why do we think all groups the same? Looking across the world today, have we not made a mighty false assumption that it is all down to money and environment rather that what money can make some people biologically do and not do reproductively?

#31

So you think that I think that Paxo is a pretty pilot? I don't know whether he"s tried to learn how to fly realaeoroplanes, have you? But, I like the way he navigates through the huge variety of Victorian artists and their works, for example. The same applies i'n all his other books regarding politicians, the Royalty and fish and fishermen.

Perhaps any company sponsoring alleged green groups is by association an eco-fascist Corporate Nazi organisation working against the interest and human rights of its consumers !

https://greenhellblog.com/2010/10/04/sony-kyocera-bail-out-of-violent-climate-video-outfit/

#28 I know it's got nothing to do with NNs angle on life, but thanks very much for the hearty laugh you've just given me JAperson. : D

#33 addendum

I can think of a few flying associations with Jeremy though. One is obviously fly fishing. Another one, for example, is verbal. Although his books are on the whole written rather soberly, I have heard him 'flying' away spontaneously with words. That's a sign of creativity, as far as I'm concerned. One could also, I suppose, call it a flight of fancy which is probably one of the reasons so many people find it interesting and even exciting to watch him doing Newsnight.

And one other thing regarding your #31. Do you think that flick2 is a real supporter of Jeremy? I haven't noticed that myself.

Paxo likes art that is not up my street but its good art, that's good enough for me. He, Kirsty and a number of other celeb news people make sure they keep their private life private - I like that. But I still want the BBC forced payment of the public ended. So within the context of blab propaganda media, I kinda like Paxman. He is a celeb, I pretty much hate all that so that says something for him, kirsty as well. Maybe he will be visiting Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery and all their pre - raphaelites :-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Brown_last_of_england.jpg

Today while varnishing a painting I was musing what might have been if a number of Dutch 17th Century painters of exquisite ability had left out the "little doggie". Thankfully Vermeer left out the little doggie or thought better of it and painted it out.

https://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/mieris.html

See what I mean about those Dutch painters :-

https://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/mieris_b.html

With all the media bluster over Osborne's plan to cut child benefit for potential fat cats, the Tory conference environment debate has been completely obscured. Not much new thinking unfortunately, basically a retread of the investment scams outlined by Clark last conference. At least Spellman claims to be doing something about flood defences, but it was obvious that the question and answer section was stage managed. They might have got away with it except one key questioner perhaps got dirty underpants and failed to appear, perhaps her question was offside the line of the thought police who were obviously controlling the agenda.

Fair enough there is potential for generating methane from animal waste on an industrial scale, even from not even mentioned raw human sewage. However, I suspect that various potentially corrupt local authorities will propose kerbside collection for household food waste. It is patently obvious than any such service is not going to save one single ounce of CO2 by the time you take into account the fuel used for regular collection. It would appear that household waste recycling is nothing more than a scam to force all council taxpayers to pay the equivalent of a medieval religious indulgence in order to espouse the guilt of the profligate who throw loads of good food away in a world full of the starving millions. But then being " environmental group prescribed " alleged eco friendly has now become a " quasi-religion " in itself over the past 30 years.

Little wonder Oliver Letwin could hardly muster any enthusiasm delivering his speech, lots of very glum looking delegates clapping supreme Soviet style on cue, especially at the end.

Is this behaviour:

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11444657

as recently displayed by hazel Blears. becoming more common and even de rigueur? Is it more common amongst females than males these days?

How can one believe anything that these people say after having been shown episodes such as this and the way that they try to get out of them? Do they not see how fatal to their credibility is? This is classic. I'll let someone else point out what it is a sign of.

33. At 7:57pm on 04 Oct 2010, mimpromptu wrote:
#31

"I like the way he navigates through the huge variety of Victorian artists and their works, for example. The same applies i'n all his other books regarding politicians, the Royalty and fish and fishermen."

I guess it takes all sorts to bring a once great nation down?

Let's hope there are some interesting questions put to politicians regarding the original purposes of the Beveridge Report/benefits system after the war, the baby boomlet etc (if the moderators' behaviour is anything to go by). Let's hope so, as things can't get much worse.

Tonight's Newsnight deserves an nomination for the BAFTA comedy awards, best programme in ages, keep up the good work !

I find it hard to accept Osbournes comments and explanations on Child benefit and the implications that people on lower incomes are somehow supporting higher income families.
By the very fact that higher income families contribute more tax basically due to the fact that they earn more money and invariably will have fewer children, the actual contribution per head per family for higher income familes is far in excess of that of lower income families both in real terms and on any percentage basis.
I believe it would be far easier to accept a basic flat rate of income tax for all which would only be adjusted to a higher level based on the number of children within each family whether born in or out of wedlock and actually scrap any child benefit altogether.
This may actually encourage individuals and families alike to be far more responsible in their attitudes to having large families when they can ill afford to support them without the help of the State.

Fantastic Jeremy tonight particularly with Boris Johnson :o)
Even Jeremy was in stitches at one point!
:p to be accused of ignoratio elenchi indeed.....

:D Oh but Jeremy asking if it was a good use of public money to heat Polly Toynebee was hillarious.

#41

Are you trying to suggest, tb01, that it's the Royalty and the fishermen who will bring this nation down or Jeremy or the totality of Westminster politicians who were the subject of Paxo's book 'The Political Animal', or worse still all the English and their spirit which the author navigated through in another of his books?

Or, perhaps, you are 'planning' to put all the blame on me for refusing to obey you? You did threaten me quite specifically, didn't you, not all that long ago?

IS PAXMAN AS GRATE AS PARKINSON?

If one took the trouble to actually study Parkinson, in action, he was rather poor at interviewing - he just had 'the name'.
Tonight Paxman (arms folded awkwardly - as so often; not unlike Parkinson) stared sulkily at the floor and delivered: "I thought you were the party of the family." Paxo deserves his status no more than Parkinson did. In media, exposure is nine tenths of the myth.

In passing, has anyone noticed that the Conservative 'stylised Oak', has become a broken light-bulb, in Union Jack livery? Britain is often presented as an 'ideas nation', and the light-bulb is the universal symbol of the idea. Hence: Broken Ideas-Britain? That is almost as ingenious as 'New Generation'.

Oh - it's all going wonderfully well.

#29

Is that what you're into, tb01? Serving yourself to Russian and Chinese 'missiles'? Thanks for the info, it's useful to know where the high frequency 'shakers' come from.

#25

Thanks for the link, Mistress76uk, in which a fragment of one of your own posts features as well. It's really good to see the faces of the actual people working for Newsnight though I suspect that many of them have moved on. Peter did anyway, to Google, didn't he?

mim

#24 update

Just to say, that apart from Boris, I don't think I've met any of tonight's guests.

Earlier on, at #24, I said that I might post something on the absurd which ties very well with quite a few of my responses to the Newsnight 'scientist' blogger. The actual ABSURDISM deals with the the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible," but rather "humanly impossible."

Here's the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

#50 addendum

As far as writers who used the absurd in their work are concerned, there were/are quite a few of them. The interesting thing that the author who developed the idea into a coherent theory, Esslin, cites William Shakespeare as one of the inspirations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_the_Absurd

#37 & #38

Flicks2

I have not opened your 'essential' links but 'funnily' enough the weather man was told to use the word in his weather forecast. Adding to it table's comment 'it takes all sorts' at #41, this is how one of the versions of my extended essay on the wisdom of relativitistic perception originally dedicated to an 'educator' started and finished, the weather and all sorts, though it's only perhaps a 'coincidence', or is it?

#46

Singie, what are you talking about?

Jeremy was sulky and awkward tonight? Quite the contrary, I thought. With you in charge Great Britain would certainly go to the dogs but I shouldn't think you'll be allowed to do much further damage.

The talk between Jeremy and Boris seemed to go much more smoothly than the one last year. They didn't 'argue' about how much Paxo earns like they did last year, but rather spoke about Boris' ideas about the percentage of union member votes required for a strike to go ahead legally which does seem to make sense.

With regard to the planned changes to the universal child benefits, it does seem to be somewhat controversial even among the Conservative members. Cuts are obviously necessary and wherever the Government introduces them, they will unfortunately be 'painful' to a proportion of the British taxpayers. As I'm not an economist, I don't feel I can make any sensible suggestions in this area.

Many artists were and are bonkers; I would say it maybe important for someone into personality disorders to study art and so called creative thinking. Partly or mostly of course it may well be the near impossibility of getting any recognition; the art world is totally feudal. And then of course before acrylic paint we had the oil lead white, never bettered in its qualities and very toxic. Maybe it sent some of um bonkers ?

A pair of genius killers of the brush :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dadd

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Caravaggio_-_David_con_la_testa_di_Golia.jpg

Boris is a real blabber who seemed to just brush aside the significance of the bankers. Its because they are all just puppets to them. Until the bankers and politicians responsible are locked up we will be in depression and maybe go to hyperinflation which could lead to war even a civil class war. Of course they talk up the financial services sector, exactly what for ? money. Well Boris its not money has most know it, is it. Exactly what good are credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations ? What good is fiat money ? Why dont you speak to the virtues of all this and fractional reserve banking Boris ? Tell us all why debt is oh so every where ? Did you lot criticise any of that while in opposition ? Did you criticise none regulation of the financial sector ?

No No No so I brush you aside.

So, by capping benefits at £500 per week (the not so smart group) and scrapping child benefit for those in the 40% tax bracket (the smarter group) the nation's birth-rate is kept skewed towards growth of the relatively dumb part of the population which will make financial services and the retail sector happy as they get more mindless consumers. It's like breeding junkies.

:o) Jeremy's University Challenge now in book form too!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3164613/Take-brainbox-quiz-challenge.html

#56 No it's alright tab01, the Polish will still be doing very nicely from us along with other eastern europeans. 40,000 children living in Poland get our child benefit, I suppose along with their own countries benefits. They will soon be getting something like 2.5 billion in benefits a year, under new EU proposals, not bad for their children not even living here. Lets hope they are all intelligent, they must be to have worked this little ruse out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/8042308/Child-benefit-theres-plenty-of-welfare-on-offer-to-the-Poles.html

Flicks2’s brush is in a flush, flush
One ought to take notice of the blogger’s strokes
And why he carries on about stocks,
Big stacks of silver and gold
Seem to be a dream of his.
What’s ‘essentially’ the ‘brush’s’ bizz?
Flicks2’s brush is in a flush, flush
One ought to take notice of the blogger’s strokes
And why he carries on about stocks,
Big stacks of silver and gold
Seem to be a dream of his.
What’s ‘essentially’ the ‘brush’s’ bizz?
Flicks2’s brush is in a flush, flush
One ought to take notice of the blogger’s strokes
And why he carries on about stocks,
Big stacks of silver and gold
Seem to be a dream of his.
What’s ‘essentially’ the ‘brush’s’ bizz??

mim

#58

Fraud, Ecolizzy, needs to be sorted out, wherever it comes from. Cheats and deceivers are everywhere, as are beauty, talent, brightness and honesty.

mim

The prospect of a democratically and openly sorted out solution? with the help from journos and media readers/watchers?:

https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1740345/improved-scheme-offer-bbc-strike-called

Monika

POLAND - THE UK STUD FARM? (#58)

I think you might have cracked it Lizzy. The Coalition should hire Saachi to get the Poles breeding freely and teaching their kids English to the Scandinavian proficiency.

Then they can all work here, and we will tax them to support our old folk.

Sorted.

Banker trader Jerome Kerviel banged up :-

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEA095820101005


That's one

how many more to go ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8042534/Roman-Abramovichs-Millhouse-warns-Ireland-of-legal-action-over-Irish-Nationwide-bail-out.html

The sharks go into shock and start lashing out at each other

unable to see the error of their ways.

Expect a lot more

Over decades Ive refused to engage with banks ever since my jobbing jeweller uncle explained the issues with fiat money and fractional reserve banking. He has passed on but the advice was sound - "Its gold and silver and nowt else". Let the loonies delude themselves with printed paper. A knife a fork a bottle and a cork is how they spell money.

@ Ecolizzy #58 - this is the one of the many reasons why Britain should get out of the EU.

"That's one

how many more to go ?"

-----------------------

He's just the patsy!

#67

Do you mean table number 1 has gone? Goodie.


Super, the UK will not have to face another October 'Revolution' then.

(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)

do fishing rods and red caps come with those stools JP etc were sitting or 'gnome-ing' on?

Was it Polly's experience of the media class the reason why she thinks higher tax payers are on drink and drugs?

how can THE big society be a positive given the hayekism behind it has led to the all the great disasters in the uk?

given it is the core of the govt thinking how come hayek hasn't been mentioned even if only to make senior tories flounder about like fish on the beach?

child benefit tax cut looks harder to sell when mainly millionaire landowners get 4 billion a year merely for owning land? clearly the benefit to millionaires is 'harder' to cut than the child benefit to mothers? which is curious?

Notice Boris Johnson's to the camera threat about Paxman's salary yet again? They do this (tu quoque) in order to stop people like Paxman pressing home what matters, here it was Boris' friends the bankers still doing very nicely. That;s why BBC executives are paid so highly. It keeps them quiet. It's the same in the NHS and others public funded bodies. Meanwhile th4ese bodies are attacked in all sorts of ways to get rid of them.

Question: If the BBC News team is so eager to expose facts which many people don't want exposed, why does it censor these blogs?

"62. At 09:43am on 05 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

I think you might have cracked it Lizzy. The Coalition should hire Saachi to get the Poles breeding freely and teaching their kids English to the Scandinavian proficiency.

Then they can all work here, and we will tax them to support our old folk. "

Then, one day, Poland can declare that parts of Britain are de facto Polish by population and threaten to annex them If the remnants the British armed forces try to do anything about it, Poland will probably invade to protect its people, calling on its allies Russia etc.

Over in the Editors Blog there is a topic on bias and the BBC. I tried appropriating, and deploying, some of the better lines which were once posted to this blog in order to enlighten one their more highly motivated posters. It didn't work any better than the original poster's efforts here ever did. Still, I guess it may illustrate something about the nature of human bias and prejudice? Even Christopher Hitchens is now trying to get in on this game. Note how, as with Boris' hopeless tu quoque last night with Paxman over salary, he makes efforts to distract which have nothing to do with the empirical facts (other than to try to hide them). Is that politics?

https://www.slate.com/id/2269846/pagenum/all/

"67. At 11:29am on 05 Oct 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:

He's just the patsy!"

Maybe if more starting yelling "LOOK BEHIND YOU!!" others might catch on, however, I don't recommend that, as it might be argued by some that such behaviour would be in breach of the PUBLIC ORDER ACT and associated New Labour legislation.

What a (clever) stitch up by the Libertarians.

#67

A 'stud farm', singie, with horses of all colours and shades?

#71

You really excel at stitching up your own future, table, even if you've been doing it with a speed of a turtle, table.

#73 addendum

Dragging with you the hapless boy.

It's awfully sad to realise how depraved 'supposedly human beings' can get.

"72. At 12:27pm on 05 Oct 2010, mimpromptu wrote:
#67

A 'stud farm', singie, with horses of all colours and shades?"

Try to think about the following. When an idea pops into your head, ask what or who put it there. If you just stop at the point that it seems to be your idea because it's in your head, ask if that might be a failure of analysis. Perhaps other people look into the sources of what they think and question whether the propositions which occur to hem are true or false, whilst also trying to work out how those propositions came about, i.e how they fit in with the rest of the world's knowledge.

Looking at the way that you post here, it seems to me that you don't think or analyse deeply/carefully/extensively enough. This is not good for you. It's what a lot of psychotics do. Try to learn from others how to do so more self-critically and responsibly, or just don't bother doing it at all, is my kind advice. Leave it to those who do have more discipline, and just show them some respect for the effort they put in that you either can't or won't. Your behaviour is coming across as child-like, and 'cheeky'. If mine comes across as paternalistic, it should, as I really do know what I'm talking about and if you look more widely beyond this blog, you'll see I am in good professional company.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.