So we need to spend billions on the F35 fighter because...?

The news from the BBC is that 'Defence' minister Phil Hammond has just jetted off to Texas to see one of the new F35 fighter planes we've ordered be taken for a test drive.  At 100M each, they're certainly not cheap, although as always, it's not clear what is included in this cost.  Does it, for example, just cover the initial purchase of the aircraft, or are there additional costs rolled in, like the training of test pilots and maintenance personnel and support for their introduction into operational use.

For a bit of context, the RAF's Tornado aircraft cost around 15-17M each when introduced almost exactly thirty years ago.

Most interesting though were Hammond's words paraphrased by the BBC's Jonathan Beale: 'He said it would give the RAF and Royal Navy "a world class fighting capability" with the ability to "project power" off the two new aircraft carriers now under construction, anywhere in the world.'

In doing this, Mr Hammond is articulating our de facto defence doctrine, which, like the US is based on a degree of global power projection.  Obviously, this isn't in the same league as the US with it's numerous carrier battle groups, thousands of combat aircraft and asprirations to 'full spectrum dominance', but it is effectively a US-lite policy, albeit very, very lite in comparison.

All this raised some questions in my mind because, to my knowledge, defence policy hardly ever gets any real discussion in the media and certainly very little public debate, apart from the pros and cons of being in the nuclear club.  Although that's important for all sorts of reason, it is but one specific issue in what should be a wider debate about how our defence needs are met.

Perhaps more importantly, there is a debate to be had about where our actual defence needs start and finish and where the needs of our political masters to enhance their own importance and give themselves international political leverage start and finish, and whether the costs of maintaining the latter can be justified.  And I mean justified at all in a modern, post colonial world, and not only justified in the current financial climate - although does exert additional pressure.

Now I'm no defence expert, but my view as a citizen is that our defence needs should be based on a systematic assessment of the following:

1. Any known threats we face and any future threats we have evidence for;
2. The defence needs for mainland UK and overseas territorial posessions we have a duty to provide for the defence of
3. The economic benefits to UK Plc of defence spending in terms of supporting employment, hi-tec industry and maintaining strategic industrial capacity

Now I'd be very surprised if a genuine review of that came out in favour of buying into the next generation of US nuclear weapons systems, but it might just about support the purchase of F35s. Although it might equally support the development of less elaborate, indiginously produced military technology. 

But if nothing else, we ought to have some debate about whether, decades after the end of the British Empire, we really want or need to spend vast amounts of money on global power projection to prop up ministerial egos.

Ever decreasing circles

In its infinite wisdom, the DH has published what it calls an 'infographic' which purports to depict the new structure of the NHS. It's available at https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/healthandcare/files/2012/06/system-graphic.pdf.

For some reason, policy people love this sort of thing because they think it encapsulates the important high-level concepts at work in the re-disorganisation of the NHS.  It's also loaded with some fairly obvious symbolism: patients are placed right in the middle of seven concentric circles (ie patients are 'at the heart' of the reforms), whilst the DH and Lansley form a crust on the outside, perhaps holding everything together (I migth be reading too much into that).

But what does it really show? In practice, it illustrates the vast array of disjointed organisations - and entire solar system of quangos and layers of management than now surround patients and the 'real NHS' (ie the bit that the public actually use) and form an enormous buffer between the public and the secretary of state.

And whe all know what that huge layer of flab is really there for don't we?  Yes, to insulate Mr Lansley's ears from the sound
of falling bedpans.