Aircraft Carriers: Conspiracy or Cock-Up? - #royalnavy #nspw

Much has been said recently, in the media and by politicians, about the idiotic nature of entering into a contract which means it will cost more to cancel the two new Royal Navy carriers, than to continue building them.    This implies that those in the MoD and military responsible for these contracts have been naive at best, and incompetent at worst.    I actually don't think they are either naive or incompetent.    On the contrary, I think they have been extremely clever.
We have a long history in this country, going back over many decades, of commissioning grand projects only to cancel them later when the bills start coming in.    This has been especially true of military projects.    The record of the last Labour government with regard to the military was shameful, repeatedly increasing the demands put upon our forces while constantly starving them of the resources adequately to meet their needs.

When the idea of replacing the carrier fleet was first voiced, I have little doubt that Navy chiefs and their MoD counterparts would have viewed it with more than a little cynicism.    They will have known that the chances of the carriers actually being built, had history followed its usual course, was extremely low.    They will have known that there would be an election early on in the process, and that once the electoral advantages of the project in the shipyard constituencies had been exhausted, there was a good chance of the project being cancelled whichever party gained power, especially if the economy took a downturn which, even then, looked likely.

So in order actually to get their new carriers, the Navy would have to be extremely clever and pull off something quite exceptional and unprecedented.    Money talks, and that is especially true in government, so they needed to create a situation where the financial case for cancellation was unattractive.    What better way to do that than to write punative penalty clauses into the contract.    They weren't put there by accident, nor were they the act of a greedy armaments industry taking advantage of a weaker public sector.    I believe they were deliberately placed there by the MoD and Navy to ensure that, whichever party was in government, and whatever the economic consideration, those carriers definitely would be built.    And fair play to them, I say.    Desperate times require desperate measures!

Whether they actually get their two carriers though, is less certain, and more of a gamble.    Yesterday, the captain of HMS Ark Royal was very upbeat about the likelihood of both new carriers joining the fleet, which either indicates he's woefully out of touch with recent announcements, or that he knows something we don't.    But considering they won't enter service until 2020 at the earliest that's a long time for things to change.    We all know that what governments say and what governments do are two very different things, so by the time the ships are built I'd say they have a fair chance of both going to sea.    The Navy's gamble may well pay off.    It will be interesting to see if they can pull of this trick again, or whether future governments wise up to it.

Lay off the BBC, Mr Cameron (#nspw)

I read in the press that David Cameron has been gloating over the six year licence fee deal/stitch-up with the BBC.    Not content with this, he even pointed fun at Auntie for sending three reporters to cover his Brussels press conference.    He should remember, before any more such undignified display, that he needs such coverage, and without it he would be severly inconvenienced.    Maybe the BBC should consider a boycot of government press conferences, etc., to make the point, in the event of any future such displays.

Tinkering with the EU budget is missing the point #nspw

The problem with the EU is that it has no clearly undisputed leadership.    Or rather that it has too many centres of power, each of which thinks it ought to be the dominant one.    There are the national Heads of Government, the European Commission, The European Parliament, the new President.    And in the interests of 'democracy' opinions vary widely, and there is no concensus about which is pre-eminent.

Back in the days of the Common Market, when there were only 6 nations involved and it was only a trading unit, this didn't matter too much.    Now that it is far bigger what has happened is that the least democratic element of the EU, the Commission, is calling the shots.    This cannot be right.

We need the EU.    We need it to ensure that each european country doesn't become totally irrelevant in an increasingly global world.    But we don't need the EU in its present form.    The EU is in desperate need of radical reform to make it genuinely democratic.    Tinkering around the edges will solve nothing, it is just papering over the cracks.

Can this be done?    I don't know.    I do know it will take a hugely gifted and talented politician to make it happen.    The trouble is, I can't think of any!

Professionalism in Politics: A Recipe for Disaster!

I remember, back in the 1990s or whenever, people saying it was desirable to have professional politicians.    In those days parliament was dominated by people who had spent many years working in very different careers, be it as Trade Unionists, businessmen, teachers, soldiers, etc., etc.    Now such people are in a tiny minority, having been replaced very largely by 'professional politicians'.

One thing these 'professional politicians' have in common is that they all look so very much the same.    They are all 30-something, and either upper or upper-middle class.    Very few have ever done a 'proper job', most having risen through party ranks as researchers or advisors.    Of those who have, an alarmingly high proportion have either been lawyers or PR consulants.    What all this adds up to is that none of them have any real experience of 'life'.

Surely it is life experience which is needed in abundance in our national leaders and legislaters.    Yet that is the very thing which the party machines have ruthlessly expunged from parliament.    Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Balls, the Millibands, etc.,:   none of them are in any way qualified to represent a constituency, let alone run the country, because none of them know anything about the lives of ordinary people!

The long term consequences for the nation can only be negative, and it is difficult to see any way of reversing this trend.    In the old days, those of us who have been around the block a few times and gained life experience, stood a reasonable chance of being selected as parliamentary candidates if they put their minds to it.    Now, with candidate lists being controlled centrally, there is no chance of that any more.

Consequently, parliament has become an increadibly undemocratic institution.    The parties ensure that only cardboard cutout candidates that they can tightly control will be elected, and the party whips make sure they do as their masters bid them.    Time is running out for democracy in this country unless we can once again make parliament the last bastion of amateurism.

Labour support the cuts, but they dare not say so!

I was struck, in the aftermath of George Osborne’s announcement of the biggest public spending cuts singe the 1970s, at just how out of his depth Alan Johnson seemed in making his response.    In an interview on the BBC he was reduced to platitudes and slogans, and looked decidedly uneasy, almost scared.    Not surprising I suppose, as I doubt he’s has time yet to get beyond Chapter 1 of ‘Economics for Dummies’!

Now call me cynical if you like, but I can’t help wonder if Red Ed Milliband’s choice of Johnson for Shadow Chancellor was deliberate for this very reason.    Could it be that in his heart he knows that cuts of this severity are not only unavoidable, but also actually a good thing?    Who better to ‘oppose’ them than an economically ignorant postman?    On the other hand, if he had chosen deficit denying Balls 1 or 2 for the job, he’d have had the embarrassment of a Shadow Chancellor who actually sounded the part and might have been able to put forward a credible opposition.

For this reason I predict that there will be no coherent opposition to the cuts, certainly none from the Labour Party.

'This country is going to the dogs!'

I remember my grandfather saying that back in the 1960s, and I guess every generation reaches a point when it apppears to be true.    I would contend now that the country has not only already gone to the dogs, but that they have already gorged on its flesh and are even now gnawing at the bones.    The wounds are deep, and the scars they leave will be ugly, but I honestly believe that if those of us who care about the future of this country stand up and be counted, it can recover with at least some of it's dignity intact.