dark light

Springheel

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Naval use of commercial technologies #2062639
    Springheel
    Participant

    By all means carry on along this line (because it’s just as interesting as my point) but please note that I raised the issue of incorporating commercial technologies, not necessarily of building vessels to commercial standards. The two don’t have to go together. 🙂

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066510
    Springheel
    Participant

    Some Interesting gossip – and no more than gossip – I have been hearing for the last couple of days. I work in the public sector (nothing to do with defence) and some quite sensible people (we do have them) have been muttering that the hole that the bank rescue is knocking in public borrowing limits may (paradoxically) be good news because the Government “may as well” borrow bit more, ease pressure on spend, and get some money moving around the UK.

    What is driving this is the suspicion that the medium term problem is the recession, not the financial crisis, and the Government may be mulling over a serious spending programme, funded by borrowing, to try to kick-start the economy: Good, old-fashioned keynsian stuff. And today Robert Peston relates this line in his blog on the BBC.

    Now, if this were true, my current gloom will be shown to be completely mistaken and I will happily admit to having been utterly wrong – because the fleet could benefit mightily. This is because naval shipbuilding generates jobs and income and can be exempted from EU competition requirements. In other words, we can ensure that the business stays in the UK. So if a Keynsian spending programme was planned, then there would be a very good case to be made for a fleet expansion programme because it ticks so many Keynsian boxes – combining retention of heavy industry and high technology capacity, UK skills retention (in depressed areas), possible export orders as unit costs reduce etc etc. Even naval manpower expansion has upsides as it involves skills training.

    Obviously this requires a 180 degree turn by both Treasury and Government. But if that was ever to happen, now would be the time. And if it happened, every possible effort should be made to make the case for more and better ships. Because the chance will not come again.

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066612
    Springheel
    Participant

    Swerve’s response is a completely reasonable one to what I actually wrote, which will teach me to post in a hurry. At the risk of wandering off into a discussion on public finance:

    1. It is not necessarily unrealistic to assume that the special liquidity provision is absorbed. It could turn into real cash expenditure (and quickly too) given current conditions. Banks are sucking up that Govt capital at present.

    2. Loan guarantees aren’t spending unless they are called on – but they require financial provisions to enable them to be honoured if necessary – They are on the books. The trouble with this sort of thing is that whilst it can be a very good deal for the taxpayer over time, it can hurt in the short term because of the cashflow implications if they are called on.

    3. I think you are mistaken about the bank recapitalisation because it is a quasi commercial transaction – shares are being sold by the banks to raise capital and the Government will actually buy some (not all) of those shares (with borrowed money) transferring capital to the bank. If it were simply a paper transaction I’m not sure it would work. But it certainly is true that the Govt is only committing to buy a number of preference shares. The remaining recapitalisation will be through an issue of ordinary shares which govt underwrites – and may not need to pay up for if (big if) the issue is popular. But again, a provision must be made.

    So the problem is the government has a liability of around (probably) £40m and a contingent liability of £550m – and must plan on the basis that it may crystallise…And it is what this does to future spending assumptions that worries me.

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066624
    Springheel
    Participant

    Sounds like a damn good time to dump the ID card scheme, any idea what the cost projections for that one are currently running at?

    This time last year it was estimated that cost for operating system for 10 years would be £5.6bn (the proposed Government database of all telephone calls and internet activity in the UK is not, so far as I know, costed). Which does make one think, rather, about opportunity costs and so on.

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2066641
    Springheel
    Participant

    I agree with Mr Beedall’s analysis. The Navy is at the end of a long queue and the Government has just taken on a potentially collossal burden. Remember the total cost of the Bank bail out may be in the order of £600 billion (i.e. recapitalisation funding of c.£40bn, £250 bn of loan guarantees and £200bn of special liquidity). Our total public expenditure budget this year was expected to be c £585bn. So the bill just doubled. Whilst the defence budget at £38bn is not huge (pensions, welfare and healthcare are all about 3x larger) it is not a favourite of this Government. So perhaps my 15% assumption was optimistic?

    in reply to: Royal Navy – Austerity version #2067578
    Springheel
    Participant

    It’s interesting to see this forum addressing such unpalateable possibilities. I thought you’d try to save the subs and it makes sense. Heartbreaking to lose naval aviation but…what can you do.

    But what interest me is that you all cut future programmes. Assuming we needed to make an immediate cut of 15% to this year’s naval budget, what would you do to the fleet we have operating now?

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)