Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[Cigarz]

...de SAS is werelds beste special force in de wereld...

says who...?

[Elzenga]

Voor hen die interesse hebben: 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190458901355

Het gevaar van onderzeeboten neemt toe en men doet belangrijke ASW capaciteit weg..mmhhh...merkwaardig.. :crazy:

[Lex]

Voor hen die interesse hebben: 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190458901355

[Elzenga]

• 14 mine counter-measures vessels, based on existing Hunt and Sandown class ships with a replacement programme which will also have the flexibility to be used for other roles such as hydrography or offshore patrol. This capability provides a significant level of security and protection of the UK's nuclear deterrent

(pag. 21)
Daar had Nederland mooi bij kunnen aansluiten...mogelijk met de Denen...geen OPVs maar mijnenjagers die ook patrouille-taak kunnen uitvoeren..

• place at extended readiness a landing and command ship. Either HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious will be decommissioned following a short study of which provides the most effective helicopter platform capability.
A Bay-class amphibious support ship will be decommissioned.

(pag.21)
Niet alleen de HMS Ark Royal gaat er dus uit maar ook een deel van de amfibische capaciteit wordt afgebouwd. Er komen standaard maar 12 gevechtsvliegtuigen op de enkele operationele nieuwe carrier (max 36), als ook 12 transporthelikopters en 8 Apaches. Door plaatsing van catapults en kabels komt de HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier pas in 2020 ipv 2016 in dienst. Er wordt niet uitgesloten dat 1 van de nieuwe carriers wordt verkocht.

[Elzenga]

Hier is ie dan:

Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty:
The Strategic Defence
and Security Review

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

"2.2 Afghanistan remains the main effort of Defence." (pg.15)... a waist of money and resources... en mede met Irak de basis voor de economische malaise in de UK..waar nu diep en hard moet worden gesneden in de uitgaven...
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668/Buitenland/article/detail/1035542/2010/10/20/Groot-Brittannie-schrapt-490-duizend-overheidsbanen.dhtml

[ARM-WAP]

Hier is ie dan:

Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty:
The Strategic Defence
and Security Review

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

[KapiteinRob]

Zij hebben zo'n 10.000 man in Afghanistan en irak, op een defensie van 120.000 man is dat zo'n 8%. Dat haalden wij, net aan, niet.

Net aan niet?? Volgens mij klopt er iets niet aan je cijfertjes. Zelfs als je doelt op 120.000 militairen, is dat ongeveer 3 keer zoveel als Nederland. Als dit het totaalcijfer is (dus inclusief burgers), is het maar 2x zo veel als NL. Dan zouden wij met rond de 2000 pax in Uruzgan de afgelopen jaren aan de 5% zitten van het militair personeel en als je het op het gehele defensiebestand legt ergens rond de 3%.

[andré herc]

Door: Novum, Vernieuwd: 19-10-2010
Cameron zet defensiebezuinigingen uiteen
(Novum/AP) - Het moderniseren van het Britse nucleaire arsenaal wordt in de ijskast gezet, het aantal militairen wordt verlaagd en er worden minder militairen uitgezonden voor gevechtsmissies. De Britse premier David Cameron kondigde dinsdag de langverwachte stevige bezuinigingen in het Britse leger aan.

Cameron zette dinsdag de eerste herziening van de Britse defensie sinds 1998 uiteen, bedoeld om het begrotingstekort terug te dringen en de Britse militaire strategie, uitgedacht in de tijd voor de aanslagen in de Verenigde Staten in 2001, te wijzigen. In totaal moeten zeventienduizend militairen, een hele vloot gevechtsvliegtuigen en een verouderd vliegdekschip verdwijnen.

Op de defensiebegroting van 37 miljard pond (42 miljard euro) moet acht procent bezuinigd worden. De Britse defensieuitgaven blijven wel boven de twee procent van het bruto nationaal product, een eis van de NAVO.

In de missie in Afghanistan wordt niet gesnoeid, beloofde Cameron. Wel staat er in de toekomst met dertigduizend man een kleiner contingent militairen gereed voor missies in het buitenland. In 2003 werden er nog 45 duizend militairen naar Irak gestuurd.

Bij de landmacht moeten zevenduizend mensen verdwijnen, bij de luchtmacht en de marine elk vijfduizend. Daarnaast is er niet langer plek voor 25 duizend man burgerpersoneel. Plannen om de vier Britse kernonderzeeërs te vervangen worden uitgesteld tot 2016.

Toch zijn er wel sectoren waar extra in geïnvesteerd gaat worden. Om een rol te blijven spelen op het wereldtoneel wil Groot-Brittannië de beveiliging tegen cyberaanvallen vergroten en meer geld besteden aan inlichtingendiensten.

msn.com

[Elzenga]

HIGHLIGHTS-Cameron's statement on UK defence review
Oct 19 (Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron set out the conclusions on Tuesday of Britain's first review of its armed forces since 1998.

Following are some of the highlights of his statement to parliament:

ON NUCLEAR DETERRENT

"We will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy, our independent nuclear deterrent. This guards our country round the clock every day of the year.

"We can extend the life of the Vanguard class so the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028. We can reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to 8. We can reduce the number of warheads on our submarines at sea from 48 to 40 and we can reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from less than 160, to fewer than 120.

"The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent, the so called 'initial gate', will start by the end of this year but as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need now not be taken until around 2016.

"We will save around 1.2 billion pounds and defer a further 2 billion pounds of spending from the next 10 years."

OVERALL LEVEL OF DEFENCE CUTS

"Over four years the defence budget will rise in cash terms and fall by only 8 percent in real terms and it will meet the NATO 2 percent of GDP target for defence spending throughout the next four years."

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

"We will build both carriers but hold one in extended readiness. We will fit the 'cats and traps' - the catapults and arrestor gear to the operational carrier. This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier and it will allow us to buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons. We will also aim to bring the planes and the carriers in at the same time."

TROOP NUMBERS

"Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large well-equipped army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015 that is 7,000 less than today."

"Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015."

"RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015."

HARRIER AIRCRAFT

"We have decided to retire the Harrier which has served this country so well for 40 years."

"The Harrier is a remarkably flexible aircraft but the military advice is that we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan."

NIMROD CANCELLED

"Take the Nimrod programme for example. It has cost the British taxpayer over 3 billion pounds, the number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine, the cost per aircraft has increased by 200 percent and it is over eight years late. Today we are announcing its cancellation."

CYBER SECURITY

"Over the next four years, we will invest over half a billion pounds of new money in a national cyber security programme."

AIR FORCE TRANSPORT FLEET

"The A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C17 aircraft and the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world."

HELICOPTERS

"The introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters, new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before."

UK SHIP FLEET

"By 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19."

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CUTS

"The MoD will cut its estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry and cuts its management overheads including reducing civilian numbers in the MoD by 25,000 by 2015."

RETURN OF TROOPS FROM GERMANY

"We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances. The new higher operational allowance stays but there will be difficult decisions although these will be made easier by the return of the army from Germany."

"Together all these changes in the Ministry of Defence will save 4.7 billion pounds over the spending review period."

"In terms of return from Germany, half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020."

(Compiled by Estelle Shirbon, Adrian Croft and Kylie MacLellan)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69I1W420101019?pageNumber=1

[Mourning]

En dan zitten ze met deze bezuinigingen nog steeds boven 2% van het BNP blijkbaar. Konden wij dat ook maar zeggen... zucht... 

[Elzenga]

Defence review: Cameron confirms 8% spending cuts
19 October 2010 Last updated at 14:51 GMT

David Cameron has confirmed defence spending is to be cut by 8% in real terms over four years, as he unveils the strategic defence review.

He denied it was simply a "cost saving exercise" as he opened his statement and said there would be no cuts to support for troops in Afghanistan.

He confirmed HMS Ark Royal will be decommissioned four years early and the UK's Harrier jump jets will be axed.

The future of RAF Kinloss is in doubt as nine Nimrod planes are being axed.

The Army will lose 7,000 personnel, the RAF 5,000, the Navy 5,000 and the MoD 25,000 civilian staff over the next five years.

BBC Scotland correspondent James Cook said it had come as a big blow for the base - which employs 1,500 people and could now close as an RAF base although the Ministry of Defence is likely to retain the site and may eventually use it as a barracks for soldiers returning from Germany.

The future of nearby RAF Lossiemouth remains uncertain.

Opening his statement, Mr Cameron said the defence budget would fall by 8% over four years but will meet the Nato target of spending 2% of GDP on defence.

He said a "large well-equipped" Army would remain - that would amount to 95,500 personnel by 2015 - 7,000 less than today.

Tanks and heavy artillery would be reduced by 405 - but there would be more Chinooks and communications equipment, he said.

He also said naval manpower would fall to 30,000 by 2015 and the total number of frigates and destroyers would drop from 23 to 19 by 2020.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the decision to decommission the Ark Royal and axe the UK's force of Harrier jump jets meant that, until at least 2019, no planes would be able to fly from the new aircraft carriers.

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy described the arrangement as "peculiar" and "driven by finance".

He told the BBC: "What's the purpose of an aircraft carrier if not to carry aircraft? And I think to leave our country without a single fixed-wing aircraft able to fly off our aircraft carriers for a decade is a very worrying decision.

"It can't be driven by security needs or strategic needs. No-one based on the security needs of our country would come to the decision that a decade without an aeroplane on an aircraft carrier is the right decision."

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the fleet had to modernise and have the "correct balance for the next 30 to 40 years".

He said there had been periods in the past - before the Harriers came on stream - when the UK had aircraft carriers with no planes to fly on them. Dr Fox said there would be a range of helicopters and unmanned aircraft which would still be able to fly from them.

The BBC has learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.

Dr Fox said that there would be "interoperability" so strike fighter aircraft from allies such as France could land on UK aircraft carriers, and vice versa.

The last strategic defence review in 1998 took more than a year, while this one has been carried out in five months, leading to accusations that the government has rushed the process.

It has been undertaken at the same time as the Spending Review - due to be published on Wednesday - which is expected to see huge cuts to departmental spending across Whitehall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

[Elzenga]

Defence review: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped
19 October 2010 Last updated at 11:08 GMT
Share this page

The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review.

meer..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

Om 15:30 BST vandaag zal David Cameron de nieuwe strategic defence and security review uiteenzetten.

[Reinier]

Zeer dom van de Britten om praktisch hun gehele defensie te ontmantelen voor 2 carriers en 40 JSF's (ipv 138).
Ik hoop ten zeerste dat ze in Den Haag op tijd inzien dat de JSF ook voor ons een molensteen om de nek van defensie kan worden.
Straks wordt bij ons ook alles wegbezuinigd voor 40(?) JSF toestellen.

Royal Navy straks met nog maar 16 fregatten.... Nog niet zo heel lang geleden was onze vloot nog groter. Onze marine, naar mijn inziens, schiet al te kort met 6 fregatten, laat staan de Royal Navy met maar 16 fregatten..... Zeer, zeer trieste ontwikkelingen. 

[hudinie]

Er wordt wel fors ingezet op de SAS met allemaal aan te schaffen high tech equipment, de SAS is werelds beste special force in de wereld
en de UK zet duidelijk hierop in. Maar dat er zo 2 carriers rondvaren zonder gevechtsvliegtuigen dat kan gewoon niet, begrijp niet waarom ze
niet overschalkelen op gebruikte ex US-Navy F-18's ? die zijn toch zo aangeschaft ? dat als tussen oplossing tot de JSF er is...

[Lex]

Defence cuts latest: Two carriers but no jet fighters as the iconic Harrier is axed

Two new aircraft carriers will be deployed ¬without jet fighters after the iconic Harrier
jump jet is axed in defence cuts this week.
The ships, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, will ¬operate with no jets until 2018, leaving a ¬gaping hole in Britain's military firepower and potentially putting the Falkland Islands at the mercy of a fresh Argentinian invasion.
Instead the Royal Navy will be forced to use helicopters on the £2.5 billion super-carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
The decision has caused anger among defence chiefs. 'It will make us an international laughing stock,' said one. 'Who the hell has ever heard of an aircraft carrier with no jets?'
Former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West said last night it would be 'nonsensical' to scrap the Harriers before their replacements, US-built Joint Strike Fighters, were delivered.
Lord West said: 'If, God forbid, the Argentinians invade the Falklands, it would be totally impossible for this country, even if we had an Army of ten million, to do anything about it.'
The Harriers, the only jet fighters capable of vertical take-off and landing, played a vital part in retaking the Falklands in 1982.
The Ministry of Defence denied that scrapping them would render the new carriers useless.
An official said it was 'not viable' for the RAF to maintain four jet fighters – Harriers, Tornados, Typhoons and the Joint Strike Fighter.
The decision will be announced by David ¬Cameron on Tuesday as part of the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review. It will come as a major blow to RAF Cottesmore in Leicestershire and RAF Wittering in Cambridgeshire, where the fleet of 72 Harriers is based.
The cuts follow bitter wrangling between Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox and Chancellor George Osborne, who wanted the £37 billion defence budget slashed by up to ten per cent.
Dr Fox argued for a four per cent cut. Mr ¬Cameron was forced to intervene, and they agreed on a cut of around seven per cent.
At one point, Dr Fox feared he would be forced to scrap one of the two super-carriers. He saved them both, but the Navy will lose a large part of its surface fleet, with a reduction in the number of bigger ships, such as frigates, from 24 to 16.
And when the Joint Strike Fighters finally arrive in 2018, there will be far fewer of them. The initial order for 138 has been cut to just 40.
Cuts in Army troop numbers have been scaled back after a personal plea to Mr Cameron by the head of the Army, General Sir Peter Wall. Now 5,000 will go by 2015 and a further 15,000 before 2020, leaving five brigades of 6,000 troops each.
Mr Cameron has vowed to maintain Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent. But he has not ruled out reducing the Trident submarine fleet from four to three, which would mean Britain could no longer have one submarine at sea on alert at all times.
A National Security Review, to be published tomorrow, says the greatest threat to the UK is not war with another country but terrorist attacks and cyber attacks on computer networks.
...WHILE THE SAS GETS A HUGE CASH INJECTION
Britain's Special Forces have emerged as winners of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
A senior source has revealed that the Special Air Service and the Special Boat Service will be given tens of millions of pounds to spend on high-tech gear currently being tested by their US counterparts.
Hundreds of technical support troops will be recruited to operate the state-of-the art equipment. The new kit is understood to include a classified US weapon system fitted to rifles, which uses satellites to pinpoint enemy snipers in mountainous terrain such as that in Afghanistan.
The so-called No-miss Sniper system is so accurate that it can almost guarantee a 'kill'.
Another innovation is a lightweight medical pack, which diagnoses and automatically delivers medication to soldiers if they are shot. It not only measures the dose of the relevant drug, but also injects it.
There will also be upgraded laser 'target acquisition' systems, which pinpoint enemy troops for advancing ground forces or help aircraft with precision bombing.
The SAS is also expected to use more Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to track insurgents. Some UAVs take photographs and film footage, while others drop bombs.
A senior source said last night: 'Our Special Forces will be getting a significant uplift in spending.
The extra money and additional manpower is on a scale that can only have been dreamed of previously.'
The boost to UK Special Forces was described in Whitehall last night as a 'step change' in the level of support given to Britain's most elite soldiers.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox last night faced astonishing claims by ¬senior Tory sources concerning his drinking habits – and a suggestion that he could be sacked for alleged disloyalty to David Cameron.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that Dr Fox's conduct has been discussed at a senior level of the Government – and in some quarters of the Ministry of Defence – where there is said to be a concern about his 'partying' lifestyle.
The claims came after Mr Cameron was forced to intervene in a bitter feud between Dr Fox and Chancellor George Osborne, and reduced proposed defence cuts by £1 billion.
But Dr Fox's provocative tactics in the battle – which saw the leak of a ¬private letter from him to Mr Cameron attacking the 'draconian' cuts – have led some to question his judgment and his Cabinet future. An insider said: 'Liam can be a bit embarrassing at times.
'Some people are saying you cannot go on having a Defence Secretary who is not in full control of his department, or at times, it seems, himself. If you drew up a list of Ministers likely to be moved at the first major Cabinet reshuffle, Liam has put himself firmly in pole position.'
The most shocking aspect of the claims against Dr Fox concerns his drinking. He enjoys the occasional social drink and one source said: 'When Liam has a drink he tends to get very carried away and becomes very chatty, a bit more chatty than is sensible for a Defence Sec¬retary. It is a job which requires great discretion at all times.'
The claims were dismissed by friends of Dr Fox last night as a 'baseless smear'.
One said: ¬'Whoever is putting this kind of thing around should be ashamed and doesn't know what they are talking about. Liam's integrity is beyond doubt. He commands wide respect in the Ministry and in the Tory Party.'
The row comes as tension builds between Dr Fox and Mr Cameron over plans to slash the £37 billion defence budget, and a series of snubs by the Prime Minister.
First, Mr Cameron took over the public announcement about defence cuts to be unveiled on Tuesday. Then he asked Foreign Secretary William Hague to make a Commons announcement tomorrow about Britain's strat¬egic defence and foreign policy aims – leaving Dr Fox on the sidelines again.
To add insult to injury, Mr Cameron recruited his own ¬military adviser, Colonel Jim Morris, a battle-hardened Royal Marine honoured for leading 45 Commando during a bloody six-month tour of duty of Afghan¬istan in 2008.
One of Dr Fox's junior Def¬ence Ministers said: 'Liam has taken Morris's appointment very badly.'
Well-placed observers have also questioned Dr Fox's standing with defence chiefs.
'They like Liam but they do not take him very seriously,' said one.
'He would much rather have been Foreign Secretary than Defence Secretary because he knew it could be a poisoned chalice. He is more interested in hanging out with friends in the US talking about bombing Iran than the nuts and bolts of the MoD, such as whether Army homes are properly maintained.'
Another senior MP said: 'Liam's reputation for going out partying and clubbing does not win him friends in the MoD. His decision to take on Cameron and Osborne in a media war is high-risk. If you go public against No 10 and 11 they will screw you in the end. Liam and Cameron have never really got on and Osborne derides him intellectually.'
Dr Fox stood against Mr Cameron in the 2005 Tory leadership contest but came third.
IS IT FAIR?
It is if you're a politician and 'fair' is your new buzzword. JILL KIRBY gives her analysis...
It's not fair!' They are the words of every child denied a treat or left out of a game, a shrill complaint echoing through the playground.
Today it is our adult politicians who have taken up the cry.
'Fairness' seems to have become a universal nostrum.
All three main parties laced their Election manifestos with the words 'fair' and 'fairness'. Last week's report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission told us 'fairness is as British as fish and chips'.
Radio 4's Today programme devoted a week of special features to the concept. David Cameron, meanwhile, has used it to justify removing child benefit from families on £43,875 and yet another raid on the pensions of high earners.
When parties from all sides embrace the same jargon, it is time to get suspicious – particularly when the idea in question is fast becoming the most slippery in today's political lexicon.
Who could object to 'fairness'?
Well, I, for one, am profoundly uneasy. Look a little more closely and I think you will conclude that the language of the playground is a smokescreen to avoid grown-up political debate.
Mr Cameron was not the first to see the charm of 'fairness', nor Nick Clegg. It was New Labour's spin doctors, particularly those of Gordon Brown, who realised it sounds better than 'equality', a traditional Leftist watchword but one that might alarm the middle-class voters they were so desperate to attract.
Hence Mr Brown's rather baffling Election slogan of 'A future fair for all'.
So both Blair and Brown dressed up old socialist ideas in feel-good clothing, justifying billions spent on increased welfare payments as fair-dealing, even though the true aim was to equalise incomes.
The policy has left this country with a massive benefits bill and greater welfare dependency than any comparable European economy.
Yet it was Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats who set the tone for this bout of 'fairness' mania. As the last Election neared, Mr Clegg claimed the Lib Dems were the party of fairness and would 'hard-wire' it into society. His manifesto pledged 'fair' taxes, 'fair' politics, a 'fair start' for children and even a 'fair' economy.
It looked like the usual third party rhetoric: overblown claims designed to attack both Labour and Tory policies, but without underlying principles and unlikely to be tested in practice.
Coalition politics has changed all that, and this childish language has been adopted in deadly earnest at the highest level – along with a series of Lib Dem policies that are doing so much to blunt the edge of Mr Cameron's Government. True Conservative objectives – deficit reduction, strong families, schools free from state control – have been traded against Lib Dem priorities, most of them expensive.
Mr Cameron has a rather more robust view of what is fair and what is not. At the Tory Conference, he said: 'Fairness means giving people what they deserve – and what people deserve depends on how they behave.'
Quite right, too. It is wrong, for example, that able-bodied adults who should be working to support their families can sit back and take the money rather than look for a job.
But where is this common sense when it comes to Coalition policy? Take the revamp of university fees: graduates will pay different levels of interest according to how much they earn. Those who opt out of work to live on benefits never need repay the cost of higher education.
Yet a teacher or doctor who puts in long hours over many years will have to pay a higher rate of interest for the same loan.
The Coalition claims this is 'fair' because a teacher or doctor is better paid than non-graduates. But in that case they face higher rates of tax, and so already pay more. Why attack them for a second time? Is that 'fair'?
Then there is the Chancellor's clumsy child-benefit cut that takes nearly £2,000 a year from middle-income homes where a sole breadwinner earns £33,000 a year after tax. Meanwhile, dual-earner households with a combined income twice the size are spared.
It is another assault on the 'squeezed middle' and full-time mothers, and especially perverse as such middle-class women do so much to hold society together, devoting themselves to raising children or caring for the aged at the expense of their careers.
They are in fact the mainstays of the charities, school boards and other voluntary groups at the heart of Mr Cameron's hopes for 'Big Society'.
The truth is the Coalition is using the muddy language of 'fairness' to justify a range of Lib Dem measures which strike at the heart of Middle England. Whatever Mr Cameron says, there is little chance that what you receive will depend on how you behave. 'Fairness' will see to that. Why should a family where the mother stays at home be punished? If this is seen as aberrant behaviour, what hope is there for a fairer, better society?
It is also politically naive. Ed Miliband, Labour's new leader, has already taken advantage of Coalition confusion, telling the Commons that unequal treatment of single and dual-earner homes regarding child benefit is 'simply not fair'.
Mr Cameron seemed to have no answer. 'Fairness', it seems, has come to mean whatever politicians want it to mean.

Daily Mail.co.uk,
Last updated at 10:33 PM on 16th October 2010