SNP MP reveals massive £1.35 BILLION waste of tax-payers money by UK Government

Image: US Marine photographer Joe O’Donnell

I guess most readers here might have even more to say about the horrific waste of human life that nuclear weapons cause but, accepting that, this Government is probably more sensitive to attack on it’s budgeting, so this is a story worth exposing and sharing.

Here’s what Peter Grant MP had to say about the £1.35 BILLION waste:

22 thoughts on “SNP MP reveals massive £1.35 BILLION waste of tax-payers money by UK Government”

  1. It’s absolutely terrible that such huge amounts of money are spent on nuclear weapons and worse still that there is huge waste and error especially so at this time when we see that money is not being spent on preparing for prevention of epidemic pandemic diseases, it’s truly staggering that Westminster can basically do ass it pleases , do the most awful things have MPs who do the most awful things and there is nobody nothing to stop them.
    Are we really so powerless ?
    Is there no honourable caring trustworthy person out there that can put an end to this corruption and lead us forward caring and helping everyone towards an improved healthy happy life.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The ‘press’ – the fifth estate – is supposed to be the backstop to holding government to account in any open society.

      IT HAS FAILED, FAILED, FAILED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

  2. And here’s another beauty. Remember our £4bn aircraft carriers which were specially designed to operate with only one type of aeroplane, the US designed and built 5th generation F-35C?

    Well, here’s some information from:

    https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/

    “WASHINGTON — An issue that risks damage to the F-35’s tail section if the aircraft needs to maintain supersonic speeds is not worth fixing and will instead be addressed by changing the operating parameters, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News in a statement Friday.

    The deficiency, first reported by Defense News in 2019, means that at extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability.

    The problem may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

    “This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the U.S. services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct,’ which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix.”

    I hope someone in the UK press corps will be asking questions………………

    Liked by 2 people

    1. With regards the Aircraft carriers
      I bring to attention what China’s response was in response to both US&UK Carriers
      Intially they commenced on a program of having at least 22 nr
      But then. Re evaluated their thinking and came to the conclusion it is not about building them but sinking them
      All based on the facts of WW2 where Japan started and during the war with 29 no. But come the end had only 1 nr.
      So they converted some of their most up
      To date ICBM ,s by. replacing the nuclear warhead with high explosives
      These Millisle,s are highly accurate but the killer blow is down to their impact speed of 4800 mph
      To which no western naval forces currently posses a defence to counteract
      The MOD were well aware of such even before the keels of UK carriers were laid
      And further more China soon to commission the J31 stealth fighter almost a match for F 35
      But more importantly J31 can be produced quickly in large nrs. And at a fraction of the cost of the F35
      Our carriers are nothing other than a Gross Vanity Project
      In fact if you care to study strategic global defence it soon becomes apparent that both China & Russia have utterly out smarted the West by clever thinking such as the Chinese deployed in Response to
      US & UK carrier threat
      E.G.Russia has a Main Battle Tank that has a command control system to identify targets with a hyper sonic projectile
      Comment from head of NATO
      It would be suicidal for us to deploy our most up to date MBT onto the battlefield
      By the way the Swiss Army has more MBT,s than the British Army and the UK
      One,s are a not fit for purpose outdated Challenger tank
      Further more UK cannot build tanks any more
      So do NOT believe all the GUFF you hear re UK armed forces being the best in the World
      Such is delusional exceptional ism on their behalf

      Liked by 2 people

  3. The information from Peter Grant MP is notable and damning. But although he is I’m sure an ‘honourable man’ reporting accurately, there may be – I hope there are – people who visit this site that may not support Peter’s party, the SNP and may be wary of, on the look-out for, anti-Westminster political spin.

    If so I strongly urge them to go to source, namely the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Report published 13 May and entitled: ‘Defence Nuclear Infrastructure’.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/1057/documents/8763/default/

    This Committee of MPs has 16 members has no less than nine Tory members. There is no minority report: they all signed off on this one.

    And the conclusions in the report are EXACTLY as Peter Grant sets out. If anything reading the details makes it even more damning! This is a major public scandal that, as far as I can see, appears nowhere on the BBC News website (yet?). (Many will recall the outrage over weeks about, by contrast, a wee ferry contract going wrong in Scotland.)

    The sum of £1.35 billion has been wasted. Scotland’s taxpayers will have contributed c. 10% of this on a population basis. Because the UK’s public finances are in debt and run a deficit, spending this sum will have contributed to the debt: Scotland pays towards meeting the interest (currently at a low rate) on the borrowing.

    And if the portion of all this being taken from the Scotland’s taxpayers had been spent in Scotland instead not only could it have been spent on an ethical activity, not in support of weapons of mass destruction, but in practical terms it would have created a demand in Scotland’s economy that in turn would have had beneficial multipliers in terms of additional output and employment.

    And finally in this rant, we know that even if every single voter in Scotland opposed spending money our tax on ‘Defence Nuclear Infrastructure’ – I suspect there is a majority – it would make no difference. Westminster could (and will) proceed regardless.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. This Public Accounts Committee report on Defence Nuclear Infrastructure looks likely to be a source of endless revelations. Here is one that I was not aware of.

    Para 9. “The Department told us that its nuclear budget is around 18–19% of the total UK defence budget, whereas the nuclear component of the defence budget of the United States is about 6% or 7%. …. It was keen to place some form of ring-fence around the nuclear budget given that IT IS THE DEPARTMENT’S TOP PRIORITY and must be funded. ”

    So keep this in mind when the UK boasts about how it meets its NATO obligations on defence spend as a % of GDP (or whatever). Keep this in mind when Tory MPs demand more of your taxes go to increase the UK defence budget!

    Like

  5. Think of this
    Scotland contributes 11% of all UK taxes
    And therefore by deduction 11% of MOD
    costs
    But in real spend terms within the Scottish economy in return receives less than 3%
    Now factor such into the Andrex figs.
    Oh sorry I mean GERS

    Like

  6. There is a revealing section of the Public Accounts Committee report entitled: ‘Commercial management – Operating in a monopolistic environment’

    Here are some telling extracts:

    Para 12. ‘The defence nuclear field is a monopolistic commercial environment and very few companies are able to carry out such work; in 2018 four contractors held 97% by value of the Nuclear Enterprise contracts.’

    ‘… , it (the MOD) was very reliant on BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and Babcock, as only a small number of contractors can design and construct buildings for the nuclear enterprise. The 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement with the United States also meant that only Rolls Royce has the capacity to design and manufacture nuclear propulsion systems.’

    So why is an agreement with the USA in 1958 constraining the UK’s capacity to design and deliver key aspects of the UK’s independent defence capability?

    But there is more. Para 13. ‘The contracts the Department prepared did not allow it to share the financial risk, which meant that it bore the full impact of cost increases, including those of its sub-contractors. For example, at Barrow, BAE Systems received a £65 million increase in claims from its subcontractor, which were passed on to the Department.”

    So BAE has a sub-contractor which issues an invoice to its client, BAE for a larger sum than originally agreed. BAE passes this directly on to the MOD, for the taxpayer, to pick up the extra.

    This gets worse: ‘Under the contract, BAE Systems also got an INCREASE in its management fee, which ROSE ALONG WITH the costs incurred. We (the Committee) pointed out that our predecessors had criticised the Department for cost-plus based contracts almost thirty years ago.’

    That’s some incentive for tight contract management and cost control!

    As an aside: it’s 1430 and I’m still struggling to find this matter on the BBC News website. Help me out – I must be looking on the wrong page!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. That is nowhere near as much Sturgeon has wasted on ignoring the uk’s central government by creeping to the EU over Brexit,referendum dribble & on bad decisions to local council s,schools,Scottish nhs,policing,fire services

    Like

    1. Dear Mr & Mrs Mcdonald – your contribution, referring to EU, Brexit and six other individual policy issues in four lines of text, looks to be a heroic attempt at a ‘Gish Gallop’ . Have you been studying closely the debating/communication style of people like Ruth Davidson and Jim Murphy? Classic exponents of the art in the modern era in my judgement!

      If you’ve crafted your contribution intentionally in this way – I think you could refine the technique and do better. If done without prior knowledge of the Gish Gallop method it’s, candidly a cracking first attempt!

      Just a pity that most people that have come, through careful and reasoned consideration, to support self- determination for Scotland have along the way come to recognise only too well the method you are using. We recognise it for what it is so, so easily.

      As a result you will have IMHO zero impact here by sticking with this technique . Sorry! But do come back – you will I’m confident be made welcome – but bring evidence and cogent argument with you next time. Then we can all benefit from serious, informed and mutually respectful debate!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Just out of curiosity, I’d like to ask two things if I may – 1. Does anybody think it would be a good idea and would improve the world in which we all live, if Putin and Xi Jinping were the only two people on the planet with nuclear weapons? 2. Do any of you ever consider stepping outside your echo chamber?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Ok, I note you didn’t answer question 2 so I’ll take that, unsurprisingly, as a no. If your answer ‘You’ was an attempt to ask the same of me, I don’t suppose it occurred to you that my being on here reading this blogger’s largely inane, woeful, warped drivel may have already answered that for you. However, more importantly, turning to question numero uno, you answered no. I’ll ask a follow up then, again, if I may. If you don’t want Putin and Jinping to be the only two punters on planet earth with the big bomb, what would you suggest in terms of the UK getting rid of it’s own nuclear weapons and where that might leave things?

        Like

      2. Mr Pringle, I cannot for the life of me see how the defence of the UK – or of any country on Earth – is advanced by the defence ministry of that country WASTING £1.35 billion and delaying the development of what the country regards as crucial defence infrastructure. Pray tell!

        Note that the evidence of the incompetence has been gathered and published by a committee of the House of Commons that has a majority of Tory (i.e. government and pro-nuclear) members.

        The report they contributed to and endorsed is there for all to read – including you, should you choose to!.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Mr Pringle, you refer to an ‘echo chamber’. Let me tell you it’s now a pretty big and global ‘chamber’ of peoples and 122 countries all in agreement of the need for change, for safety!

      No resource just now to give you a complete up-to-date account of this but for starters:

      The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by a UN Conference (by a vote of 122 States in favour with one vote against and one abstention). This occurred at the United Nations on 7 July 2017, and opened for signature by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 September 2017. It will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession has been deposited.

      You may have missed this: I seem to remember that much of the UK corporate media missed it too. Did the BBC cover it – could we check? My understanding is that the UK chose not to engage in any serious way in the discussions/consultations/negotiations associated with this UN initiative.

      For more see: http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tpnw

      It is widely acknowledged that the world today has nine countries with nuclear weapons: the US, UK, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The number of nuclear weapons in the world is around 14,000 today. Is that enough, to many, too few do you think for the destructive threat?

      Moreover, total number of warheads may over decades be reducing in number overall but nuclear weapon-owning countries are still investing in enhancing (even more) death and destructive power.

      Reassuring isn’t it to see the progress the UK – with its spend on nuclear defence already c. 3 times the proportion of the defence budget allocated to nuclear in the USA – has been making internationally to constrain or reverse, never mind remove, this threat to us all? Remind me – when and what were the last substantive achievements?

      Like

    1. Ms Gemmell, I can’t speak for all who contribute to the Talking Up Scotland Collective (TuSC) but from me, this one time, welcome! Actually I suspect many, maybe all, will join with me, this one time.

      Your contribution suggests to me that the TuSC is indeed achieving an increasing reach and impact. Thanks for confirming this, even if inadvertently.

      Come back again soon but bring your evidence and especially your cogent arguments with you next time. I look forward to this. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the cut and thrust of serious but respectful, evidence rich debate!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.