>> tinyurl.com/3nlscg7
>>
>> A Cut Too Far?
No. The sooner we give over the Falklands/Malvinas to the rightful owners, the better. It is going to happen, so why not stop wasting money on them now.
|
We ARE the rightful owners and blood was spilt to keep it so.
Are you an Argentinian, by any chance?
|
>> We ARE the rightful owners and blood was spilt to keep it so.
>> Are you an Argentinian, by any chance?
>>
Maybe I am. Maybe I am not.
You are living in the past. Just look at Britain today, it is no longer the Britain that won the 2nd world war against Germany, or the Falklands war of 1982 against Argentina. Try walking through Middlesex (Hounslow, Southall, Wembley, Harrow) or Leicester, or Bradford, and you will know. To paraphrase Sting: "I'm an Englishman in England, I'm an alien, I'm a legal alien in England".
As with all colonial conquests, sooner or later, these far off places (as well as near off places such as Ireland) will revert to those who can afford to fight to keep them in their possession. Alas, the days when Britain could afford to continue these wars/fights against "terrorists/freedom-fighters" (who wish to claim their land as their own) are history.
It is just a matter of finding the right moment of political expediency to hand the Malvinas to their people and then whoever is Britain's PM or King/Queen will issue an apology for our past misdeeds.
|
Spain has a far better claim than Argentina, as they occupied the islands first.
By the time Argentina existed as a separate country, we were already in the Falklands. Early history saw quite a lot of changes in ownership as the islands are very remote without coal or oil powered shipping.
|
>> Early history saw quite a lot of changes in ownership as the islands are very
>> remote without coal or oil powered shipping.
>>
>>
I believe one of our main interests in the Falklands during the days of a coal powered navy was as a refueling point.
|
>> No. The sooner we give over the Falklands/Malvinas to the rightful owners, the better. It
>> is going to happen, so why not stop wasting money on them now.
>>
It won't happen while there is a chance of oil in the area.
|
>> tinyurl.com/3nlscg7
Anyone know how much it would have cost to do the same with one of the Navy ships that was scrapped?
|
|
we could have just swopped it for Torres! - they`d be 10mill in pocket!
|
|
Probably less than the rental, for which there is nothing to show for the outlay. Like the difference between rental or purchase of a house plus the crew would have been in work and paying taxes and NI (not much but a bit!) A bit like the vast loss we are incurring for example with PFI hospitals
|
>> Probably less than the rental, for which there is nothing to show for the outlay.
>> Like the difference between rental or purchase of a house plus the crew would have
>> been in work and paying taxes and NI (not much but a bit!) A bit
>> like the vast loss we are incurring for example with PFI hospitals
>>
Where do you get the "Probably less than the rental" from? Looks like man-maths going on here.
Rental is perfectly fine for short term projects, particularly as the British armed forces have a history of making a complete mess of their procurement needs and finances.
"vast loss we are incurring for example with PFI hospitals" - who says?
|
|
Reading an MoD press release a few months ago, I think they may intend to keep it. The previous Endurance was bought under a similar deal.
|
>> Reading an MoD press release a few months ago, I think they may intend to
>> keep it. The previous Endurance was bought under a similar deal.
>>
Yes, but that would spoil the story that some people want to tell here. They will ignore these facts in the linked Daily mail article:
"will replace the ice patrol ship Endurance, which nearly sank in a disastrous incident in 2008. The engine room flooded and the 138 crew and passengers had to abandon ship off the coast of Chile.
Endurance was brought home on a transport ship and has been at Portsmouth since. It would cost about £30million to repair the stricken ship, or approximately ten times that to replace her.
An MoD spokesman confirmed: ‘G C Rieber Shipping has been chosen as the preferred bidder to provide the vessel that will become the Royal Navy’s HMS Protector for an initial period of three years.
‘This follows the SDSR decision to maintain the ice patrol capability and will be a temporary measure until a decision is made about the future of HMS Endurance.’
The MoD said HMS Endurance was also leased from the Norwegians."
|
. They
>> will ignore these facts in the linked Daily mail article:
>> "will replace the ice patrol ship Endurance, which nearly sank in a disastrous incident in 2008. The engine room flooded and the 138 crew and passengers had to abandon ship
Well, they didn't have to abandon ship, but facts and the Daily Mail aren't usually mentioned in the same breath.
Endurance is/was a survey ship. It's not a warship. As for 'returning the Islands to their people', I think you'll find they all speak English, drink pints and definitely don't consider themselves Argentinian.
|
|
But it is a colony MLC, exactly how that fits in the 21st Century world I'm not sure, I agree with Maggie T's point of view that they are entitled to self-determination though.
|
>> Endurance is/was a survey ship. It's not a warship.
It was a survey ship and a Navy patrol vessel It had a detachment of Royal Marines with guns, It was commaned by a Royal Navy officer, had an armament 2 × 7.62mm Mk.44 Miniguns,
6 × 7.62mm L7 GPMGs, and two Lynx HAS 3 helicopters with some ASW capability.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 1 Jun 11 at 20:05
|
Endurance proved her worth as a warship in the Falklands War, maybe someone forgot to tell her and her crew that they weren't a warship.....
"The Wasp from Plymouth as well as two other Wasps launched from HMS Endurance fired AS-12 ASM antiship missiles at the submarine, scoring hits. Santa Fe was damaged badly enough to prevent her from submerging. The crew abandoned the submarine at the jetty at King Edward Point on South Georgia."
Sinking a submarine is definitely a little bit warlike.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 1 Jun 11 at 20:09
|
>> Sinking a submarine is definitely a little bit warlike.
But the HMS Endurance in the Falklands conflict was not the same one that had a flooded engine room.
But granted both are armed and commanded by the navy so definitely warships that have a wider role in that region.
|
|
I know that, but the general spec for warlike behaviour was similar...:-)
|
The 1982 HMS Endurance was a survey ship, that carried some weapons for its Wasp
The most recent Endurance was a survey ship, that may or may not have carried some weapons for its Lynx.
Neither were 'war fighting' ships.
However, the ships may not be warships, but the people who crew them are Royal Navy and will make do with what they've got. (Not that I'm biased)
|
Join the Army - Be a man
Join the RAF - Think like a man
Join the Navy - Feel a man
.
|
>> Join the Army - Be a man
>>
>> Join the RAF - Think like a man
>>
>> Join the Navy - Feel a man
>>
>> .
OI, watch it sunshine. :-)
|
>> OI, watch it sunshine. :-)
Hello Sailor!
Heh heh... nice to see you are still about (see other thread about attrition).
|
tinyurl.com/3jou4m8 throws some light on the hospital PFI position
Three years rental of a vessel for £40 million looks pricey to me.
Charlotte Linacre of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘It’s surprising that £40million of taxpayers’ money is going to rent a ship.
‘After the rental is up, there will be nothing so show for it, so taxpayers will question whether this is the best use of their money.’
Who now owns the wrecked Endurance and who paid to get it back from the South Atlantic?
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 31 May 11 at 16:52
|
I thought the main protection for the Falklands these days were the aircraft stationed there. This ship is for more than 'protection' and I doubt any old naval vessel would do. Aren't these designed with strong hulls to break through ice etc. It's on patrol in and around Antarctica too isn't it? It's an ice patrol ship.
Endurance will probably get written off and this will replace it. But until someone decides how much the flooding of Endurance is likely to write it off I guess renting an ice-breaker is necessary.
|
|
Endurance was, is and always will be primarily a symbolic extension of power to the Antarctic, its fortuitous location at the time of the '82 conflict was by chance. It was a key ship in the area until the Task Force could get there. And why do we want/need this symbolic ship patrolling in the Antarctic ? To protect our interests there - whether we as the taxpayers want it or not...£40m quid is nothing over three years really.
|
>> interests there - whether we as the taxpayers want it or not...£40m quid is nothing
>> over three years really.
>>
Agreed. It is but a drop in the Antarctic Ocean in the grand scheme of military spending.
|
>> tinyurl.com/3jou4m8 throws some light on the hospital PFI position
>>
Quotes from that article:
"PFI contractors struggling to raise credit.
PFI is a way for the state to commission major infrastructure projects without paying the bill immediately. Private firms meet the up-front costs of constructing and running new facilities then receive annual fees from the Government over a long period, typically 25 years.
However, the shortage of credit has left many contractors struggling to borrow the money they use to finance construction.
Scores more public sector construction projects are effectively in limbo because contractors cannot get bank loans to fund their work.
Officials had hoped that alternative investors including local council pension funds could be persuaded to start lending to PFI firms.
But pension fund managers have largely rejected the suggestion."
So, if those PFI contracts are that lucrative, why are the banks refusing to lend money to the private companies?
|
The fact is that it costs more for the private sector to raise the money to build a hospital, or anything else, than it costs Central Government.
Customer feedback includes, (Courtesy of the DT)
Doctors have told the BMA that because the consortium also runs the building, it can be incredibly difficult to get anything done; one noted it took weeks to get a notice-board hung, another said that reconfiguring a colonoscopy clinic to meet patients’ needs took years.
This “straitjacket of provision” – the day-to-day control that consortiums build in to their contracts – disturbs Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb. He was horrified to discover that his local hospital – Norfolk and Norwich NHS Hospital, another early PFI build – was negotiated on such poor rates that the local Trust was deep in the red trying to pay for it. When the rates were reconfigured in 2003, two years after it opened, the NHS hardly benefited, but the consortium did, by about £70 million.
The problems, he warns, don’t end with the initial negotiations. “The next 30 years are going to show a revolution in health care – yet we will be committed to services designed in the Nineties and early Noughties. These will become redundant. And at the end of the leases, we don’t even end up with the buildings as the consortiums retain ownership.”
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 31 May 11 at 18:02
|
Its probably wrong but I was told that PFI initiatives are a feature of public finance seen in most of the developed world. The reasoning behind it is that if the Govts borrowed to build all the hospitals it needed for example the cost would be £xbillion, and therefore ruin the country's balance sheet. PFI lets the country pay for the hospital over a number of years.
I suppose its like leasing a car or renting a house. Its never going to be as cheap as buying it.
It seems that those negotiating the contracts did not build in any revison terms so that if interest rates changed then the cost of the project should as well. Also service level agreements should be included so if the operator does not perform then they are kicked!
|
>>
>> So, if those PFI contracts are that lucrative, why are the banks refusing to lend
>> money to the private companies?
>>
>>
>>
The people who make money from PFI are the overall contact managers: the Big companies like Bovis (name as an example only) who employ lots of small subcontractors to do the work.
You don't think for one minute that the Contractor lets his subcontractor make bigger profits because it's PFI? Nope.. the contractor just ensures - as normal - he gets the cheapest and best rate for the job . Period.
life for the subcontractors: the steelworkers, piling works, roofers, electricians etc goes on as before.. And with a squeeze on new buildings, competition is getting fiercer.. so more will go bust so banks will not lend.
Simple.
|
Govts love PFI/PPP because it lets the elected scumbags be seen to build loads of new facilities, safe in the knowledge that the next 7 or so parliaments will be paying (over the odds) for it (typically 35 yr term) rather than increasing taxation at the point of construction.
Sound financial planning it is most certainly not.
A route to having your kids foot the bill for our mistakes it is.
Welcome to political economics.
|
A Cut Too Far? - John H
