Fitaloon at MicroShaft

Gordon Brown’s statement that the Defence Budget has gone up every year is Fiction. That is the fact. Cathy Newman also describes Brown’s use of  “near cash” terms as “Fiscally Illiterate“.

So during PMQ’s Gordon Brown has uttered yet more Brownies and yet again he will get away with them unless both Cameron and Clegg hammer him again and again at PMQ’s about this.

It is time to get the gloves off and call a Liar a Liar, none of the pissing about, some direct straightforward words that any Tommy, Dick and Harry will understand, no more disingenuous, no more being  economical with the actualité, no more revelation of a totally fissured and dysfunctional government, no more Brownies, call them what they are in reality LIES.

Only then will the public begin to understand what this man has done to Britain, He has turned this one geat nation into Broken Britain, and he wants, by any means, to have Five more years to destroy it totally. He tried to tell us this morning that he wouldn’t let us down, sadly this is yet another of his reworked phrases, he told us this back in 2007 at his first Labour Conference as Prime Minister, and even more sadly he has not just let us down, he has totally bankrupted this Country, to try and say he won’t let us down down  is beyond belief.

This is no time for a Broken and Discredited Prime Minister and his Broken and Discredited Government.

Let’s just look at a it more of what Cathy Newman tell us about Gordon’s Lies:

The analysis
In real terms – i.e. taking account of inflation – Gordon Brown is wrong. Figures given to us by the Ministry of Defence (see table below) 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.

Worse, the defence budget also fell below 1997 levels (again in real terms) on four occasions – 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002.

“Near cash”
The MoD says Gordon Brown wasn’t talking about real terms growth, but was instead referring to “near cash” rises in the defence budget. “Near cash” is the simplest form of the military budget, the most basic cash figure – without inflation or depreciation taken into account.

According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, inflation has to be factored in to make spending comparisons meaningful. So Brown was at the very least playing fast and loose with the figures by ignoring inflation.

Wrong again?
However, Gordon Brown also stated today in the Commons that the “expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been rising in real terms under this government”. Taking him absolutely literally, “this government” was elected in 2005. But here he is also wrong. As we’ve seen just now, spending fell in real terms in 2007.

FactCheck likes a belt and braces approach, so we called several experts – including Mark Stoker, a military economist at the International Institute For Strategic Studies.

He pointed out NATO also provide accounts on defence budgets, and he reckons these numbers are more accurate.

Still falling
Looking at the NATO figures, the defence budget fell from £34.4bn in 2007 to £32.8bn in 2008.

“If you look at Nato’s figures Gordon Brown’s statement is incorrect,” says Stoker. “Either way, both sets of data indicate that the budget has not risen every year.”

Cathy Newman’s verdict
Defence spending has gone up in “near cash” terms, but it’s fiscally illiterate to use this measure, and the former chancellor knows it. The government is on firmer ground when it points out that the departmental budget is 10 per cent higher this year than in 1997, but FactCheck has established that Gordon Brown’s central claim that the defence budget has gone up every year is fiction.

This is Cathy Newman checking the facts, what she doesn’t mention that these are using figures compared against standard inflation, Sadly Defence Industry Inflation is much higher (5-10%) than normal inflation.

Vote for Change.

via The FactCheck Blog – Brown gets defensive about budgets.

Do listen to this

“Imagine a Tory donor who’d bought a company, run its pension fund into the ground, bought the assets back for pennies in the pound, who became a privy counsellor even though he wasn’t qualified while personally funding the leader’s leadership bid – they (sic) would be a massive story and yet somehow the BBC runs day after day on Lord Ashcroft, who as far as I can see has done nothing wrong, and gives Labour an easy ride. It takes me back to the tales we had of the champagne bottles in 1997 and I’m afraid the BBC remains biased and fails to ask the proper questions of those who are currently in power.”

Source HERE (scroll in 12 mins)

Iain Dale’s Diary: Quote of the Day: Graham Stuart MP on Lord Paul.

Reuters has this.

Britain’s goods trade deficit with the rest of the world unexpectedly widened to its biggest since August 2008 in January, after the sharpest drop in exports in over three years, official data showed on Tuesday.

The Office for National Statistics said that Britain’s goods trade gap widened to 7.987 billion pounds from a downwardly revised 7.010 billion in December, and well above the 7 billion pounds forecast by economists.

The goods trade gap with non-EU countries also widened unexpectedly to 4.834 billion pounds from 3.428 billion, the biggest deficit since January 2009.

The deterioration in the global trade balance was a result of a 6.9 percent fall in exports, the biggest fall since July 2006. Imports were down just 1.6 percent.

January was an unusually icy month in Britain, which may have disrupted the transport of goods for export to ports, though the ONS said that Tuesday’s data in itself did not provide firm evidence of that.

Exports to non-EU countries suffered their sharpest fall since January 2009, dropping by 12.5 percent on the month, while imports rose by 1.6 percent.

The figures are likely to further raise policymakers’ concern that the sharp fall in sterling over the past two years has not led to the expected boost in exports — a point reiterated by Bank of England policymaker Kate Barker on Monday.

The ONS said there was a broadbased fall in exports.

January trade gap widest since August 2008 | Reuters.

Bruce Anderson takes Brown to pieces for his utter contempt for the Army.

His final paragraph is on the money sadly

As a result of Mr Brown’s malfeasance – abetted by Mr Blair’s cowardice – men have died who should have lived: men have been crippled who could have escaped with minor injuries. All war leads to a butcher’s bill. Even with the best equipment, there comes the moment when discipline, training, group-bonding, patriotism and courage must inspire flesh and blood to stand up to lead and high explosive. Flesh and blood do not always win. The gods of battles choose the best and the bravest to dine with them in Valhalla. War means heart-rending sacrifices. It is the duty of prime ministers to minimise those sacrifices: few duties more solemn. This one has treated that duty with contempt. “You’ve ruined my life” he once yelled at Tony Blair. What nonsense, what pathetic nonsense. But lives have been lost, because Mr Brown would not do his duty and Tony Blair would not make him.

There is an error in the column when he says 1000 personnel were to be returned from Afghanistan, It should be Iraq, hopefully it will be corrected, but it takes no sting out of his correct and damning indictment of Gordon Brown.

We need to see more like this on other subjects in all the Nationals. Exposing the Brown Lies or Brownies between now and the General Election is essential in ensuring this man cane never again come anywhere near to power.

Vote for Change.

Bruce Anderson: Nothing incriminates Mr Brown like his contempt for the Army – Bruce Anderson, Commentators – The Independent.

The Guardian has this on Gordon Brown’s fabled 100 million pounds for the replacement of Snatch Land Rovers.

The government is to urgently order new armoured vehicles to replace the army’s fleet of thinly protected Snatch Land Rovers, the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, will announce later this week.

Years after soldiers first complained about the lack of protection offered by the adapted soft-skinned vehiclesagainst increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ainsworth will tell MPs that the MoD has ordered some 200 “light-protected patrol vehicles” at an estimated cost of £100m, officials said.

Yet if we have a look at history we find this tender from 17th February 2009, more than a year ago. It talks about up to 400 LPPV’s

Title attributed to the contract by the contracting authority: Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV).

The Specialist and Utility Vehicles (SUV) IPT has a potential future requirement for the supply of up to 400 Light Protected Patrol Vehicles (LPPV) to be production ready in 2010 and delivery into service in 2011. SUV IPT would welcome information from Industry on current products available now or under development that could meet this demanding requirement.

The LPPV will be a wheeled vehicle with an estimated gross vehicle weight of around 6 to 7 tonnes, capable of carrying up to 6 crew (2+4), integrated with a range of communication and electronic equipment providing protected mobility. LPPV will replace in-service light legacy platforms based on the Land Rover based SNATCH vehicle. Additionally, the platform may be used as the basis for the replacement to Land Rover WMIK.

The vehicle must provide the optimum levels of protection against a number of known and emerging threats of a varied nature including Ballistic, Blast, Mine and Fragmentation. As a guide the requirements for protection should be a minimum of level 2 ballistic and level 2 blast as detailed in STANAG 4569.

LPPVs are principally required for a wide range of patrol tasks and are normally expected to operate on roads and rough tracks and trails in urban, semi-urban and rural environments; they need to be sufficiently agile to provide high cross country mobility. To achieve the desired levels of urban manoeuvrability the vehicle will ideally have a width less than 2m and a turning circle less than 12m.

A pre-qualification questionnaire including draft requirements document will be made available to Industry following an initial down selection activity, which will provide more details of the requirement. Certain details within the document will be protectively marked (e.g equipment to be integrated into the vehicle) and will therefore only be available to potential contractors or their sub-contractors who hold, or are prepared and able to obtain, appropriate UK or equivalent national security accreditation.

The LPPV programme is currently funded to identify and develop solutions that have a potential to meet an Urgent Operational Requirement in mid 2010.

Depending on the technical feasibility of responses to this advert a programme will be formalised under normal UOR procurement procedures.

This advert is a risk reduction measure to investigate the possible options available to replace in-service legacy vehicles.

Expressions of interest may be submitted in writing and should include comprehensive vehicle technical specifications.

So whilst the order may now be urgent,  they have taken over a year to finalise the tender and select a vehicle.

Government to place £100m order to replace maligned Snatch Land Rovers | UK news | guardian.co.uk.