Trident renewal - £167 Billion.

[Shades]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/i...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter.

So a rise in the widely assumed figure of £100 billion to £167 billion in the space of one year. That's a trend that'll only go in one direction. Where does it need to get to for some to accept that it is a significant sum?

 

[southfieldhibby]

I think some folk think any price is acceptable.

 

[Dub]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/i...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter.

So a rise in the widely assumed figure of £100 billion to £167 billion in the space of one year. That's a trend that'll only go in one direction. Where does it need to get to for some to accept that it is a significant sum?

You would think that Reuters could get this right though "Critics, who include the Scottish Nationalist Party"

 

[Shades]

You would think that Reuters could get this right though "Critics, who include the Scottish Nationalist Party"

I noticed that too. It happens all too often now.

 

[egb_hibs]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/i...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter.

So a rise in the widely assumed figure of £100 billion to £167 billion in the space of one year. That's a trend that'll only go in one direction. Where does it need to get to for some to accept that it is a significant sum?

Well you're right about state run projects, it'll go up a few times before its done. I don't think anybody thinks it's not a lot of money. It is however a level of annual new spend that is not game changing in either direction. In short the significant argument about renewal is whether we should have the capability for moral reasons, it's defensive efficacy etc. The notion that cancelling would make any dent in spending or cutting on other things is the thing that's mistaken.

 

[Shades]

Well you're right about state run projects, it'll go up a few times before its done. I don't think anybody thinks it's not a lot of money. It is however a level of annual new spend that is not game changing in either direction. In short the significant argument about renewal is whether we should have the capability for moral reasons, it's defensive efficacy etc. The notion that cancelling would make any dent in spending or cutting on other things is the thing that's mistaken.

The moral argument is only helped by the eye-watering figures that accompany the headlines. The arguments that dispute the savings that could be made by decommissioning are all based on short term comparisons in the costs of diverting employees who rely on trident, buying out the contracts of the various infrastructure needs surrounding it and decommissioning. They are, mostly, one-off issues that, once dealt with, cease to exist. To renew trident would mean a commitment to maintaining a nuclear deterrent for an indeterminable amount of time and the costs associated. Short term thinking is often cited when the causes of the economic crisis is examined, can't the nuclear issue be subject to the same critique? It does, for most, boil down to a morality issue - I'm happy to accept that the costs of decommissioning are not insignificant (although the figures I see are significantly less than the renewal figures, but I do accept that hidden costs are tough to measure) but that it is a price worth paying to remove the nuclear issue from our successors - i.e. our children.

 

[The__Proclaimer]

Complete waste of money considering our enemies are chiefly in barren middle east deserts or British born individuals living in our suburbs. I'm no military expert tho, would like to hear some professional opinion - pretty sure they'll suggest better ways to spend the cash. Can see why they made it in first place but cold war is over.

The closing of Faslane would completely destroy the community of Argyll tho make no mistake about it. Can't see how they could replace those lost jobs in a rural area. Whatever decision is made its going to be unpopular.

 

[Shades]

Complete waste of money considering our enemies are chiefly in barren middle east deserts or British born individuals living in our suburbs. I'm no military expert tho, would like to hear some professional opinion - pretty sure they'll suggest better ways to spend the cash. Can see why they made it in first place but cold war is over.The closing of Faslane would completely destroy the community of Argyll tho make no mistake about it. Can't see how they could replace those lost jobs in a rural area. Whatever decision is made its going to be unpopular.

That's the tough side of getting rid of Trident. However, if someone is morally opposed to maintaining a nuclear weapon system then it's not right to write that moral opposition off because people are employed in the industry. The same argument wouldn't work if we were discussing the tobacco companies for example. I maintain that, of the savings that could be made, a significant portion of that could be used to help the employees of Faslane into new jobs - indeed I'd feel that the government would be duty bound to make that a top priority.

 

[Dub]

That's the tough side of getting rid of Trident. However, if someone is morally opposed to maintaining a nuclear weapon system then it's not right to write that moral opposition off because people are employed in the industry. The same argument wouldn't work if we were discussing the tobacco companies for example. I maintain that, of the savings that could be made, a significant portion of that could be used to help the employees of Faslane into new jobs - indeed I'd feel that the government would be duty bound to make that a top priority.

Yep but you just know what would happen. Faslane would be devastated and westminster would say "It's up to Holyrood to sort that out, why don't they use their powers to govern properly" or some other insulting bullshit.

 

[egb_hibs]

The moral argument is only helped by the eye-watering figures that accompany the headlines. The arguments that dispute the savings that could be made by decommissioning are all based on short term comparisons in the costs of diverting employees who rely on trident, buying out the contracts of the various infrastructure needs surrounding it and decommissioning. They are, mostly, one-off issues that, once dealt with, cease to exist. To renew trident would mean a commitment to maintaining a nuclear deterrent for an indeterminable amount of time and the costs associated. Short term thinking is often cited when the causes of the economic crisis is examined, can't the nuclear issue be subject to the same critique? It does, for most, boil down to a morality issue - I'm happy to accept that the costs of decommissioning are not insignificant (although the figures I see are significantly less than the renewal figures, but I do accept that hidden costs are tough to measure) but that it is a price worth paying to remove the nuclear issue from our successors - i.e. our children.

the arguments that question the scale of the saving are actually based on how budgets work, ie amortisation and replacement of existing spend. They don't even taken into account costs acquired through jobs lost etc. As before, it's perfectly legit to say we shouldn't have a nuclear deterrence for this reason or that, but the frequently imagined redirection of trident spend to fund the sun the moon and the stars overlooks thr financial reality,

 

[Jack]

At the end of the day while we're paying for it the button will only be pressed if we're told to do so by someone else, the USA!

It's a helluva price to pay to allow the Septics to park them 4,500 miles from New York, 450 miles from London, or 45 miles fae the maist popu-latet citeh in Scotland, Glasga!

 

[Shades]

the arguments that question the scale of the saving are actually based on how budgets work, ie amortisation and replacement of existing spend. They don't even taken into account costs acquired through jobs lost etc. As before, it's perfectly legit to say we shouldn't have a nuclear deterrence for this reason or that, but the frequently imagined redirection of trident spend to fund the sun the moon and the stars overlooks thr financial reality,

At some point in the future, the costs of maintaining a nuclear deterrent will outweigh the costs of a decommissioning that happened at a point in time prior to it. Even if the costs of renewal v decommissioning are neutral, and if the costs of renewal estimates rise as they seem to be doing I can't see how that will remain true, then at some point the maintenance and future costs surpass both. I agree that trident is emotive and often used as a hearts and minds weapon but there are even some high-ranking military peeps that think the money that it costs, the increasing costs, could be better spent. When the figures involved are so huge, it becomes quite difficult to justify to joe public when working tax credits are next in line for the chop.

 

[egb_hibs]

At some point in the future, the costs of maintaining a nuclear deterrent will outweigh the costs of a decommissioning that happened at a point in time prior to it. Even if the costs of renewal v decommissioning are neutral, and if the costs of renewal estimates rise as they seem to be doing I can't see how that will remain true, then at some point the maintenance and future costs surpass both. I agree that trident is an emotive and often used as a political weapon but there are even some high-ranking military peeps that think the money that it costs, the increasing costs, could be better spent.

It's not free, for sure - but the funds released by canning it would be modest and thus won't fund much never mind all the wonders people sometimes seem to reckon.

 

[Shades]

It's not free, for sure - but the funds released by canning it would be modest and thus won't fund much never mind all the wonders people sometimes seem to reckon.

I wonder how the spend on Trident, in real figures, compares to something like benefit fraud - which is tiny. What would save more and which is vigorously condemned. I think that Jack is pretty much on the money though - we'll only ever get rid of our nuclear deterrent if America allows it.

 

[egb_hibs]

I wonder how the spend on Trident, in real figures, compares to something like benefit fraud - which is tiny. What would save more and which is vigorously condemned. I think that Jack is pretty much on the money though - we'll only ever get rid of our nuclear deterrent if America allows it.

Same ball park - a few billion a year for trident, 1.6 or whatever it is for benefits fraud. Neither make a dent in the big picture.

 

[southfieldhibby]

Same ball park - a few billion a year for trident, 1.6 or whatever it is for benefits fraud. Neither make a dent in the big picture.

Imagine if you combined trident spend, benefit fraud and tax avoidance/evasion. We'd all be wiping our rings with 20's

 

[egb_hibs]

Imagine if you combined trident spend, benefit fraud and tax avoidance/evasion. We'd all be wiping our rings with 20's

Nope. The first two together wouldn't make a dent. The latter is a bigger deal but again far from the magic pot of gold that is imagined. The bottom line is we spend far, far more than we can afford. That in turn is in significant part a product of our lifestyle choices.

After decades at the top of the pile we now have a completely unreal view of the interplay between economics and society. As a result, we will do very well to avoid being displaced by emerging economies, at which point we will know what poverty looks like.

 

[Jack]

Roughly speaking the cost of Trident is the equivalent of Scotlands GDP, that's all goods and services produced, for 2 years!

Anyone trying to dismiss that as a not significant amount, no matter how it's processed through accounting systems, has clearly lost the plot!

A fun tax revenue example would be the cost of Trident is the equivalent of all the Excise Duty and VAT on tobacco in the UK since 1997!

 

[southfieldhibby]

Nope. The first two together wouldn't make a dent. The latter is a bigger deal but again far from the magic pot of gold that is imagined. The bottom line is we spend far, far more than we can afford. That in turn is in significant part a product of our lifestyle choices.

After decades at the top of the pile we now have a completely unreal view of the interplay between economics and society. As a result, we will do very well to avoid being displaced by emerging economies, at which point we will know what poverty looks like.

I wasn't being serious mate. I'm not sure I agree with your dystopian outlook, but you called the crash earlier than anyone else on here so heed should be given.

 

[egb_hibs]

I wasn't being serious mate. I'm not sure I agree with your dystopian outlook, but you called the crash earlier than anyone else on here so heed should be given.

The big one is still to come! Nothing fundamental has changed that I can see.

 

[The__Proclaimer]

One thing I've just thought of after Jack and Shades pointed out this could all be an exercise just to please the Americans puts another spin in it. What if the cost (simplified figures for convenience) of £10bn a year for trident is offset by America buying £15bn worth of UK goods that could otherwise be bought off the Germans? Would the cost be worth it then? All the wealth, jobs and tax created by exports that would otherwise be filling German coffers in return for the politically volatile, expensive weapons system?

This is a complicated issue, whatever the truth it's not black and white matter. Swapping trident for 50 hypothetical hospitals is a pointless debate.

 

[egb_hibs]

One thing I've just thought of after Jack and Shades pointed out this could all be an exercise just to please the Americans puts another spin in it. What if the cost (simplified figures for convenience) of £10bn a year for trident is offset by America buying £15bn worth of UK goods that could otherwise be bought off the Germans? Would the cost be worth it then? All the wealth, jobs and tax created by exports that would otherwise be filling German coffers in return for the politically volatile, expensive weapons system?

This is a complicated issue, whatever the truth it's not black and white matter. Swapping trident for 50 hypothetical hospitals is a pointless debate.

Good point. To which I can only add in support of your closing remark;

I would go with 6 billion per annum based on 30 year depreciation cycle. If that could all be accessed - which would involve recouping all costs from things to be replaced and ignoring the reclamation costs - then if Scotland were to get a standard 10% of that based on population, we'd get 600m pa. if 100% of that was redirected to NHS Scotland it would give a budget uplift of 5% which would cover inflation and then leave a bit besides. Nice to have for sure, and one could absolutely argue a better use of money. But not a game changer in terms of public service provision, clearly.

 

[Dub]

Good point. To which I can only add in support of your closing remark;

I would go with 6 billion per annum based on 30 year depreciation cycle. If that could all be accessed - which would involve recouping all costs from things to be replaced and ignoring the reclamation costs - then if Scotland were to get a standard 10% of that based on population, we'd get 600m pa. if 100% of that was redirected to NHS Scotland it would give a budget uplift of 5% which would cover inflation and then leave a bit besides. Nice to have for sure, and one could absolutely argue a better use of money. But not a game changer in terms of public service provision, clearly.

I'm not clear on why it is important to note that it isn't a game changer. Spending £167 billion on weapons of mass destruction is a waste of money no matter how you amortise it and there is little doubt that the money could be put to better use. What amount would it have to be before you thought "Fukk me this is too expensive"

 

[egb_hibs]

I'm not clear on why it is important to note that it isn't a game changer. Spending £167 billion on weapons of mass destruction is a waste of money no matter how you amortise it and there is little doubt that the money could be put to better use. What amount would it have to be before you thought "Fukk me this is too expensive"

I've repeatedly made the point - in fact do so in the post you quote - that you can make a perfectly valid argument (many arguments actually) that the money should not be spent. The point here is to put into context the endless citations of cutting this spend as being a key contributor to avoiding 'austerity'; it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Then there is the fact it's a direct response to the question posed in the OP

 

[Dub]

I've repeatedly made the point - in fact do so in the post you quote - that you can make a perfectly valid argument (many arguments actually) that the money should not be spent. The point here is to put into context the endless citations of cutting this spend as being a key contributor to avoiding 'austerity'; it isn't.

Nobody on this thread mentioned it being a key contributor to avoiding austerity apart from your good self. Try and step back and think of it as a waste of money regardless of what it does for austerity [because that isn't the issue]. Is it worth spending that money on Trident as a deterrant YES/NO bearing in mind that we cannot press a single button without Uncle Sam saying it's OK. No need to start complicating the subject.

 

[egb_hibs]

Nobody on this thread mentioned it being a key contributor to avoiding austerity apart from your good self. Try and step back and think of it as a waste of money regardless of what it does for austerity [because that isn't the issue]. Is it worth spending that money on Trident as a deterrant YES/NO bearing in mind that we cannot press a single button without Uncle Sam saying it's OK. No need to start complicating the subject.

You missed my addition I think. The op asks when people will see it is as a 'significant' amount - in fact it was the point of the thread as I read it. Shades can expand on what he means by significant if he chooses but I have put it in a context that at least quantifies it's significance in terms of public expenditure.

 

[Dub]

You missed my addition I think. The op asks when people will see it is as a 'significant' amount - in fact it was the point of the thread as I read it. Shades can expand on what he means by significant if he chooses but I have put it in a context that at least quantifies it's significance in terms of public expenditure.

And the answer to my question is?

The question is - Do you think it is too much money to spend on renewing a deterrant we will likely never use and one which we have to kowtow to Uncle Sam for permission to fire if we ever did decide to use it. Forget everything else Eeeg and try to answer the question simply with a YES or a NO. If you can

 

[Kenny]

And the answer to my question is?

The question is - Do you think it is too much money to spend on renewing a deterrant we will likely never use and one which we have to kowtow to Uncle Sam for permission to fire if we ever did decide to use it. Forget everything else Eeeg and try to answer the question simply with a YES or a NO. If you can

how about we agree we have but we have to use it , so if we've not used it within the 10years then have a referendum for the coordinates of the target?

see i'm a kind of reduce/reuse/recycle kind of guy and i hate to see thing go to waste.

 

[StevieC]

" try to answer the question simply with a YES or a NO"

Best of luck with that one Dub

 

[Jack]

One thing I've just thought of after Jack and Shades pointed out this could all be an exercise just to please the Americans puts another spin in it. What if the cost (simplified figures for convenience) of £10bn a year for trident is offset by America buying £15bn worth of UK goods that could otherwise be bought off the Germans? Would the cost be worth it then? All the wealth, jobs and tax created by exports that would otherwise be filling German coffers in return for the politically volatile, expensive weapons system?

This is a complicated issue, whatever the truth it's not black and white matter. Swapping trident for 50 hypothetical hospitals is a pointless debate.

The easy answer to the USA buying as suggested is that it would be shouted from the rooftops as company after company announced deals.

The fact is the USA has a form of protectionism; there's no way into their defence contracts, their big pharma is all but a closed shop, for their airline building industry Rolls Royce engines are an optional extra over their own. The only big type industry I can think of the car industry and we sold ours overseas some time ago!

I'm not going to say much about hospitals, costs vary, other than its between 1,600 and 1,700 Edinburgh Royal Infirmaries! :-)

 

[The__Proclaimer]

The easy answer to the USA buying as suggested is that it would be shouted from the rooftops as company after company announced deals.

The fact is the USA has a form of protectionism; there's no way into their defence contracts, their big pharma is all but a closed shop, for their airline building industry Rolls Royce engines are an optional extra over their own. The only big type industry I can think of the car industry and we sold ours overseas some time ago!

I'm not going to say much about hospitals, costs vary, other than its between 1,600 and 1,700 Edinburgh Royal Infirmaries! :-)

The USA take £35bn of UK imports a year. I'm sure a high percentage of that stuff could be sourced elsewhere.

 

[Dub]

The USA take £35bn of UK imports a year. I'm sure a high percentage of that stuff could be sourced elsewhere.

So, do you reckon that if we got rid of trident the USA would stop being our pal and start shopping elsewhere? If that's the case it is akin to saying that we only have trident because the USA has a gun to our heads. Is that what you're alluding to or have I misinterpreted.

 

[The__Proclaimer]

So, do you reckon that if we got rid of trident the USA would stop being our pal and start shopping elsewhere? If that's the case it is akin to saying that we only have trident because the USA has a gun to our heads. Is that what you're alluding to or have I misinterpreted.

I'm saying I haven't got a clue, it's just a theory after the suggestion was raised that trident is only around for America's benefit. Sometimes we've got to do uncomfortable things to receive other benefits. You think the West tolerates Saudi Arabia for a laugh? Or to tie it in to another thread, support middle east dictators cos they like them?

 

[Dub]

I'm saying I haven't got a clue, it's just a theory after the suggestion was raised that trident is only around for America's benefit. Sometimes we've got to do uncomfortable things to receive other benefits. You think the West tolerates Saudi Arabia for a laugh? Or to tie it in to another thread, support middle east dictators cos they like them?

Fair enough Proccie. I was asking a serious question there, thanks for answering.

 

[egb_hibs]

And the answer to my question is?

The question is - Do you think it is too much money to spend on renewing a deterrant we will likely never use and one which we have to kowtow to Uncle Sam for permission to fire if we ever did decide to use it. Forget everything else Eeeg and try to answer the question simply with a YES or a NO. If you can

Ooh for a simple world where every decision is straightforward and politicians are all venal and / or stupid. There's a hell of a lot of wishing for simplicity going around, but things aren't like that really.

The answer to your question - which is not the OPs - is I don't know. I don't know enough about defence and deterrent. However I do believe that anyone who thinks we don't need defences in this world of ours is mistaken. Whether trident is effective in that capacity, I don't know.

Now I've answered your question, after answering the OPs, will you help in any future threads where people are citing redirected trident spend as an answer to our economic ills?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not going to say much about hospitals, costs vary, other than its between 1,600 and 1,700 Edinburgh Royal Infirmaries! :-)

ooft - if that's typical public sector grasp of finance then it explains a lot

 

[Dub]

Ooh for a simple world where every decision is straightforward and politicians are all venal and / or stupid. There's a hell of a lot of wishing for simplicity going around, but things aren't like that really.

The answer to your question is; I don't know. I don't know enough about defence and deterrent. However I do believe that anyone who thinks we don't need defences in this world of ours is mistaken. Whether trident is effective in that capacity, I don't know.

Now I've answered your question, after answering the OPs, will you help in any future threads where people are citing redirected trident spend as an answer to our economic ills?

You're a deep thinker mate but I think you opted out of answering the question to be honest, not to worry.

As to the effectiveness of nuclear weapons - How do they help defend against terrorism? They don't otherwise 9/11 for example wouldn't have happened.

If another country nukes GB then we [and by we, I particularly mean people in the central belt of Scotland because any attacker worth his salt would target the area where our weapons are centred first] are fukked anyway so again having nukes doesn't really count for a hill of beans. The only way to effectively use nukes is to get your retaliation in first and hope to fukk that you escape any fall out or more importantly that you destroy the other mob's capability before they can fire back. What a world to live in indeed.

If anyone starts a thread stating that they believe cancelling trident is a panacea for all our financial woes I'll certainly back you when you say it isn't. That's not what I'm arguing here though.

 

[egb_hibs]

[/B]

You're a deep thinker mate but I think you opted out of answering the question to be honest, not to worry.

i didn't opt out of the question, I just don't have your level of prowess when it comes to military strategy. Nor do I think it's a simple question so I can't just take a swing at it.

As to the effectiveness of nuclear weapons - How do they help defend against terrorism? They don't otherwise 9/11 for example wouldn't have happened.

so terrorists are the only conceivable threat over the next half century? This is the kind of strategic knowledge I lack.

If another country nukes GB then we [and by we, I particularly mean people in the central belt of Scotland because any attacker worth his salt would target the area where our weapons are centred first] are fukked anyway so again having nukes doesn't really count for a hill of beans. The only way to effectively use nukes is to get your retaliation in first and hope to fukk that you escape any fall out or more importantly that you destroy the other mob's capability before they can fire back. What a world to live in indeed.

except the point of nukes is not to use them. The peace was kept to a remarkable degree - between world powers - on the back of that. Amazing how quickly it has fallen apart during the term of one president who shares the deep strategic knowledge and ability to see complex things simply, as do the no nukes camp.

If anyone starts a thread stating that they believe cancelling trident is a panacea for all our financial woes I'll certainly back you when you say it isn't. That's not what I'm arguing here though.

ok - maybe if someone asks a different question you could change that question as you've done here though?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.hibeesbounce.com/showthr...nd-amp-UK-etc-etc&highlight=Trident+austerity

Interesting thread this one. Shades seems to have forgotten what he acknowledged here that 100 billion was not the cost of trident and nor now is 167.

Meanwhile, someone impersonating dub seemed to reckon that, if not a panacea, cutting it would help us live within our means.

Pity even my figures above overestimate the impact by multiples.

 

[Dub]

i didn't opt out of the question, I just don't have your level of prowess when it comes to military strategy. Nor do I think it's a simple question so I can't just take a swing at it.
so terrorists are the only conceivable threat over the next half century? This is the kind of strategic knowledge I lack.
except the point of nukes is not to use them. The peace was kept to a remarkable degree - between world powers - on the back of that. Amazing how quickly it has fallen apart during the term of one president who shares the deep strategic knowledge and ability to see complex things simply, as do the no nukes camp.
ok - maybe if someone asks a different question you could change that question as you've done here though?

Talk about black pots and kettles.

As to my military prowess, well, it may surprise you to learnt that I have none. However, I listed an example of why I believe nukes would be rendered useless. I am sure there are many other threats out there and I can go and have a think about them and get back to you later. Either that or I could just snipe at you as you are now doing to me

Fear kept people at peace, how wonderful for us all. Except it didn't did it. There are wars going on all over the world at any given time so how did us having nukes not contribute to stopping these or are you only really concerned about wars with other people with nukes? Is that the answer to everything - might is right.

EDIT: I've looked back at the OP and it doesnt mention any thing about austerity. It asks when an amount will be enough for it to be considered too much. Pretty much in line with the question I asked you and which you ducked using mocking tones to cover up.

EDIT EDIT: Are you suggesting that saving 100 billion [as was] would not contribute positively in some way to the countries finances

 

[egb_hibs]

Threats: mmm, Russia maybe? Turkey perhaps? Neither of whose armies could be stopped by any European nation or perhaps even coalition of the same. Neither are without form, shall we say.

Or what of the EU collapses while the rising nationalisms continue to rise? Then there's Iran, China ... There's probably more.

Hopefully none of these will come to pass, but strategic planning can't proceed based on crossed fingers.

As for snipng - get outta here D - you're changing the question and then insisting on a simplicity that doesn't exist to try and ram raid your way to a conclusion. It's sadly reminiscent of too many of the Indy related threads where trident comes up. Searching for trident and austerity brings up hunners of threads. That's probably threads featuring one or both as I don't know how to get search to return only those with both.

But the one I quoted is the first I opened and typical of countless references to cancelling trident as a contributor to avoiding cuts. If you're telling me you've missed all these other than your own mentions and / or that you, and in your opinion, others, have only a negligible contributor in mind... Well, I find that surprising.

Finally, now I have reminded myself of some more of he detail, I think the additional 70-100m a year (which is actually what the trident bit would be closer too) in the Scottish budget would be nice, if a rounding error in NHS terms alone.

Whether it's worth its in terms of what trident brings as part of a deterrence capability is where my knowledge runs out. Your point about wars that have happened proves only that mans appetite for it is inexhaustible - precisely why avoidance of cataclysmic wars between major powers has been such a notable achievement of nukes.

 

[Jack]

ooft - if that's typical public sector grasp of finance then it explains a lot

I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it if it wasn't such a huge difference from the 50 supposed :-)