Sold To The Lowest Bidder

It's common knowledge the Ministry of Defence have to save money and now they've dealt with sacking members of the military, changing military personnel terms and conditions and cancelling orders for equipment badly needed, what was left?

How about Britain's nuclear bomb base at Coulport on the Clyde?

The SNP is opposed to a nuclear fleet and I concur with their policy, however I understand Angus Robertson's concern when it was announced the running of Coulport is to be handed over to a consortium of multinational private firms led by the controversial Lockheed Martin.  That's the same US based Lockheed Martin which analysed the data of the recent Census and which was the recent target of a 'significant and tenacious' hack.

Another multinational involved is Jacobs Engineering which purchased the Gloucestershire based Sula Systems last year although the company website states 'Sula is an independent consultancy with no vested interests'. There is no mention on the website that Sula is no longer a British company but owned by a US business.

Also involved in the managing of more than 200 Trident nuclear warheads will be Serco - the British government's favoured destination for outsourcing - which is unable to keep Scottish hospitals clean.

Despite official reports which have highlighted the dangers of outsourcing vital safety posts such as Coulport, the MoD plan to have the contract finalised in August and for the newly formed company ABL to take over in February 2012.

The MoD insists it will remain in overall charge, with Naval Base Commander (Clyde) retaining overall responsibility for nuclear activities, explosive safety policy, security and emergency management planning although it's highly questionable if they will have enough people to carry out this role as up to 200 Coulport workers have been told that they will be seconded to the newly formed private sector consortium.

Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesman in Westminster said:

“Weapons of mass destruction are the most sensitive areas of military technology and should not be put in private hands,”


William Hartung from the Centre for International Policy in New York and author of a book on the Lockheed Martin said:

"A nuclear weapons depot was much too sensitive to be handed over to a private firm. This is particularly true in the case of Lockheed Martin".

Furthermore, Peter Burt from the Nuclear Information Service in Reading urged the Scottish Government to ensure that the new operational and safety arrangements at Coulport are subject to the highest standards of independent scrutiny and regulation.

As Defence is not a devolved issue I fail to see what influence the Scottish Government can have, particularly when Peter Burt remarked:

“As with virtually every aspect of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, this decision has been taken in secret and we have no idea of the costs or risks associated with it.”


Secret decisions?  No surprise there.  The sooner Scotland can rid itself of these weapons the better.

Tweet

Saved By The Cost

Artist's impressed of carriers 

being built on the Clyde

Yesterday George Osborne ended the speculation that both of the aircraft carriers, presently being part-built by Clyde shipbuilders, will escape the budget cuts.  Good news for the west coast indeed as jobs will be saved for the near future.

However on Channel 4 News last night, William Hague made two astonishing comments.  Firstly, the decision to go ahead with the project was influenced by the fact that it would be far more expensive to cancel it.  The last labour government had tied up contracts to the extent that cancellation was impossible unless the government was prepared to lose many millions.

Secondly, the design doesn't allow for allied planes to land on the craft admitted William Hague.  Therefore US and French aircraft will be unable to utilise them and there will be no new fast jets for sometime after they come into service.

The aircraft carrier project has been on the cards since 2003 and yet we're still years away from a delivery date, although 2014 and 2016 have recently been suggested.  I know nothing about ship building but in the early 1900s it only took 3 years for Harland and Wolf, Belfast, to build the Titanic.  Ok, perhaps that's not a good example (I am watching the programme), but surely we can produce a warship in less than 13 years.

The Telegraph is reporting that, although the two carriers will enter service, one will be mothballed as soon as possible. Also said is that the first of the carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will come into service in2016 configured to carry helicopters, not jets. 'The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales,will arrive in 2019. At that point HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into "extended readiness", effectively mothballed indefinitely'.  It could well be sold to another country in an attempt to recoup some of the building costs.

Alex Salmond led the protests to the Westminster government with regard to axing the carriers.  If he'd been told, before he put all that effort in, that they would cost far more to cancel than produce, I can imagine his saying, "Dinnae be daft."  Then again, he's an astute politician with a thorough knowledge of the workings of Westminster, so perhaps he have said, "That disnae surprise me".

It certainly shines some light on how badly this one project was managed by the last Labour government and how money was poured down the drain.  What else will come to light in the near future?

Tweet

Gordon Brown Exposed as 'Playing Fast and Loose'

For those of you who missed Channel 4 News last night, there was an excellent report from Cathy Newman regarding Gordon Brown's comments on defence spending.

Gordon Brown insists, both at his Iraq inquiry evidence and yesterday at PMQs, that defence spending rose year on year since labour came to power, yet just this week Sir Bill Jeffrey, the most senior civil servant at the MoD, told the Chilcot Inquiry the forces were kept short of funds when Brown was Chancellor.

Factcheck proves that, in real terms ie taking account of inflation, Gordon Brown is wrong. The figures in the video were given to Factcheck by the MoD and show the defence budget fell year-on-year in real terms on four occasions since 1997 when labour came to power - in 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2007.

According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, inflation has to be factored in to make spending comparisons meaningful. So Gordon Brown was, at the very least, playing fast and loose with the figures by ignoring inflation. Nato also provide figures for each country including defence expenditure's share of GDP.

So Gordon Brown lies again. He thinks if he throws figures around nobody will bother investigating them. Thankfully we have the power of the internet and a news programme like Channel 4 to expose him.

Tweet

Ainsworth on the Podium Again

Bob Ainsworth, the unfit Defence Secretary was spouting another lecture on the day two more British soldiers have died after they were wounded in separate explosions in Southern Afghanistan. One was from 2nd Battalion The Rifles and was killed yesterday afternoon and the other, from 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, died in hospital in the UK from wounds received on Saturday. The latest deaths bring the total to 216.

Meanwhile Bob Ainsworth took to the podium at King's College, London to deliver news on the present and future challenges facing the defence of the UK and to promote his Green Paper on Defence Strategy.

A couple of points caught my eye (the emphasis is mine):

"Failure in Afghanistan would have profound consequences for our national security. It would embolden those who preach extremist violence and increase the threat of terrorist attacks here at home. It would undermine the NATO alliance which has been the bedrock of Britain’s defence for the last 60 years. It would leave the UK and her Armed Forces with diminished support for action in the future and a tarnished reputation.

"I have made it clear to all personnel in the Ministry of Defence that success in Afghanistan is our main effort, and will remain our principal commitment for as long as it takes. Our approach at this time must be - and is - Afghanistan First."

So this week it appears our Armed Forces are in Afghanistan without any timeline for withdrawal in sight.

"If conflict is to be avoided, we will need more effective international institutions. The UK will need to remain globally influential and engaged to shape those institutions and their actions. Our defence capability will need to reflect that global role."

Ainsworth and his fellow dreamers continue to think we are major players on the world stage, convinced that if they repeat a statement often enough the public will believe it.

"It is widely held that one of the greatest long term challenges to international stability is likely to be the results of climate change. (A whiff of Al Gore rhetoric there)

Now it's climate change and he states that competition for resources may trigger or exacerbate conflict.

We could see mass migration as a result of rapid change in fragile societies. Regions which already suffer from insecurity are likely to feel the impact of climate change harder than in stable societies.

"Over the next few decades, Asia will rival the US and Europe as a centre of global economic and political power.

"It is currently predicted that by 2030 the world's four largest single economies will be the US, China, Japan and India. Some estimate that the size of China's economy could overhaul that of the United States by 2040.

"Over this period, the United States is likely to remain the only military power with the ability to support a global presence. The UK relationship with the United States, in the context of NATO and our membership of the EU, will therefore remain critical for our security."

Now the final sentence deserves some attention. Afghanistan and Iraq are all to do with the obsession the UK has with the US, nothing more, nothing less. This government is quite determined Britain becomes the 51th state.

An article in yesterday's Telegraph 'Bob Ainsworth: voters won't back higher defence spending' leaves me wondering which voters.

Ainsworth tries hard to substantiate the cuts that he intends to make to the defence budget by saying there is little public appetite for higher defence spending. The Telegraph quotes a YouGov survey in June which showed that 51% of voters named defence as the first area of Government spending they would cut, more than any other department. So 49% of us didn't name the MoD in June for cuts.

'There is no intention on this Government's part of moving our position on Trident,' he said. Well there should be - such an utter waste of money but of course nothing to do with the safety of the UK - it's what the US want isn't it?

Tweet