h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

I posted this question inside another thread, but in view of the arguements on Tory spending commitments it is more relevant.

How much has the war cost so far, and what is the expected cost of the current commitment?.

Novo

Are you counting the cost in Billions of Pounds, Thousands of Human Lives...

...or just integrity and credibility?

Hi W R

I was thinking in terms of pounds Sterling...as in where did we 'find' the cash, because it wasn't budgeted for...

I think we know the cost in term of human misery, even if we don't know the numbers of lives lost.

I have posted before on the integrity / humanity aspect.

Money is just money...there's always more where that came from.
I know, I work in Government, and the attitude is entrenched in the channels of power.

The real cost is in lost opportunities. Money diverted from Education, Health Care, Social services, etc., etc. PERMANENTLY robs innocent citizens of opportunites that could have made a difference. Perhaps the child who had the mental abilities to find a cure for AIDS, or a non-polluting propulsion system for cars will now be forced to be a motor mechanic because there isn't enough to pay for their further education.

That's what I mean. In my country, two thousand pounds will give a family of five a permanent home on their own patch of land, complete with water, sanitation and basic electricity - a place to nuture a family and establish a community. One air to air missile may cost two million pounds and so a thousand families won't get a house...ever!

I was trying to allude to the foolishness of Labour's attempt today to 'rubbish' the Tory spending plans/savings/cuts. When the Chancellor prepared his pre-war budget, was a sum set aside for that? Some sort of contingency fund perhaps?

Since the overnment could clearly find vast sums in order to fight a war they insisted was necessary, why waste time picking holes inan opponents financial plans.

Presumably a diversion strategy because in reality they ( Tory & Labour) are not too different. The Tories propose to spend a bit less, cut waste, and reduce taxes.....in the longer term. The arguments about where the money comes from is pure rhetoric, since without doubt the money was there to fight a war!

The question also becomes ~ where did they find the money?
After the terrible events in Asia at the new year ~ the government eventually stumped up a large sum of money after much public pressure.
Many people thought this was "new money" possibly taken from some kind of reserve fund ~ however most of it came from existing aid budgets which meant that other desperately needy people in places like Somalia did not get aid.
Governments love to rob Peter to pay Paul and it is the people who can least afford it who tend to suffer as a result.

Precisely Pixel,

If TB can lay his hands on enough money to fight a war, precisely where did he get it from?

Given that the Govt. found the cash I am a bit surprised that the Tories haven't asked the question too. Clearly if a contingency fund exists it could be relevant to their accounting alsp.

Novo

A contingency fund would have to exist under Tory plans too
Their plans are being criticised because they're promising to cut costs without affecting services
Those of us who remember the last Tory government don't believe them

Think about it - military forces don't wait for a war before they start spending money. If they did, all countries would be broke and defenceless as they would not find all the money in any one year. Instead, strategic military stockpiles of armament and ammunition are purchased in times of peace using many years of budget allocations.

Permanent military staff are salaried and they get paid - peace or war. Reserve members train part time and get called up for service if needed - so some additional spending takes place. For the rest of the cost, it will be borne by many future years of military spending...if there isn't another war. How long did Britain take to pay back the USA for the cost of the 'Lend-lease' military equipment it used during World War 2 - fifty years?

Tighten your belts for the next twenty years or so - your kids will have to pay for 'your' war...!

Morning all, and to SGG

We seem to be getting near to the point.

All governments have been able to lay their hands on loads of dosh if they want to fight a war. Maggie did, and TB did.

The point is well made that arms expnditure goes on all the time and is budgeted for. but actually fighting one, sending ships , tanks ,men and materiel into battle, and firing missiles etc. adds staggering amounts to the cost.

My point all along has been ( as Pixel spotted ) where did the money come from , and what did it NOT get spent on as a result. It just seems so nitpicky to harp on about what another party will or won't spend when the gap between them is about £20B, in the face of the massive, and I mean MASSIVE amounts of money used to finance something never mentioned in Labour's spending plans BEFORE Iraq

I am NOT commenting on the Tories plans, I am merely saying that two days of attacks on them have not removed Iraq from my memory. In the minutest way it has cost Labour my vote....and perhaps a few more besides.

Novo

We in the United States allow for the unexpected cost of many things including armed conflict by allowing a principle known as Deficit Spending to occur. The previous posts which state the steady build-up of forces and equipment during peace times only accounted for half the overall cost.

Yes, deficit spending does allow for greater wartime expenditures without a significant loss to social programmes, however the long term cost can be expected over the course of generations as higher taxation rates or lower federal budget allowances. As governments have no fiscal control, one can expect higher taxation rates.

You also have to factor in the long term costs of ensuring stability and redevelopement in Iraq.
This is a very long term financial commitment no matter who wins in the election.
We will be paying for this decision for years and the money will be taken from somewhere.Someone ~ whether its other needy countries or our public services ~ will lose out.

Either that or higher taxes
However money for one-off expenditures is not money that is taken from other spending programs in the short-term
Also seeing this as a reason to vote Tory who would also have gone to war does not make sense IMO

I don't think its a reason to change my vote ~ just commenting on how the government ( any government ) always seems to find money for wars no matter how much they plead poverty at other times.
Whoever winds up in charge next month will have to find the money for the longterm rebuilding of Iraq.
Who will pay for it ? ~ us probably

>My point all along has been ( as Pixel spotted ) where did the money come from , and what did it NOT get spent on as a result.<

It was a contigency fund. Every government has one. It would be criminally irresponsible NOT to have one, frankly. Besides, part of the military budget is going to be based on the contingency that they are going to actually do something.

Who lost out? Probably TB and GB, who couldn't use it as an election sweetener in the last budget. I'd certainly be surprised to see any proof that it tok money away from other projects.

If I were not an outsider who does not vote in UK, I would be asking myself:
'Which leader of which party will NOT be led by the nose by an American president into another costly war?'

If you can't answer that question, you may as well sleep in on Election Day - your vote won't make any difference to your countries future...

While you may be right about the short term military spending in Iraq coming from a contingency fund ~ the long term financial commitments will not just be military and the money will have to be found.

Yes indeed, by whichever party gets elected. Lets not pretend the Tories are going to bring the troops home.

>your vote won't make any difference to your countries future...<

Not unless it does something to disrupt the power of the City and business, no. Pretending that MH wouldn't have gone into Iraq is a little...shortsighted.