Tuesday, 16 July 2013

Isn't it funny, in a not-funny-at-all way, how

politico's sometimes disparage suggestions that "Y" be done because "doing Y will only save £x millions" so what they are suggesting basically a complete waste of time; and yet at other times insist that "doing Z is vital and necessary because it will save one tenth of the £x millions that it wasn't worth bothering with under proposal Y" but which saving is suddenly unarguable and incontrovertible evidence for going ahead with Z...

Exhibit One

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, attacked the Lib Dem plan as "either naïve or reckless". He said "a 'two boats' policy would save only about £50m to £60m a year for the 30-year life of the new boats. In the context of the overall defence budget that's about 0.17 per cent, that's a tiny saving..."

Exhibit Two

The benefits cap applies to people receiving jobseeker's allowance, child benefit, child tax credits, housing benefits and other key support from the government. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates about 40,000 households will be affected...

About £95bn a year is currently paid out in benefits to families of working age. The government hopes the cap will save about £110m in the first year, and £300m over the next two years.


JimS said...

If we wish to continue to design and build our own hunter/killer SSNs then there is a strategic requirement to provide continuity of work at Barrow.
This is best achieved by designing and building a new class of SSBN following on from the Astute SSN.
The design costs for two boats are pretty much the same as for four. The idea that a two boat fleet could provide a continuous at-sea deterrent is laughable. In other words we spend nearly as much money but we don't get the capability that we seek.
Welfare payments are a different matter and can and should be 'chipped' away, as long as they are real savings not just a cause to move to a different benefit.