Operations room in HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Summary: The computer hardware, software and infrastructure on Britain’s latest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth is quite inappropriate and completely out of date already. It is another example of just how wasteful the Ministry of Defence is in purchasing armaments to fight the last war, remaining blissfully unaware that warfare in the 21st-century will be very different. Aircraft carriers and other capital ships will survive for the shortest amount of time given modern anti-ship weapon systems. The fact that our aircraft carriers will be so out of date technically before they even enter service is very concerning.
The pride of the British Navy has just sailed out from Rosyth dockyard in Scotland. Like so many of the MoD procurement programmes , this spanking new aircraft carrier is already greatly flawed and largely inappropriate for the 21st-century. You can read more about this here: http://outsidethebubble.net/2017/03/16/britain-defenceless-in-the-21st-century/. What we really should be doing now to make us safe in the future has been discussed here: http://outsidethebubble.net/2017/04/10/defence-in-the-21st-century/. However this piece is principally about the on-board computer hardware and software and the way it is worryingly insecure.
Our Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, is very bullish about his lovely new aircraft carrier but many experts have been surprised to discover that it is using Windows XP as an operating system on some of the on-board computers.
Windows XP was released in 2001 and by the time that HMS Queen Elizabeth is in service Windows XP will be 20 years old. Mr Fallon assures us that it is a very secure system and one might be forgiven for thinking that because it is on board a ship it will be very easy to protect. Sadly that completely misunderstands where cyber insecurity comes from. It is seldom from hardware, much more often a consequence of what has been done by real people.
Windows XP works fine and is even reasonably fast for many operations. Michael Fallon probably understands computer security being that outside cyber attacks will be blocked. It may indeed not be easy to hack into the system from outside but of course there are to be 1600 individuals on board.
Each of them may well have been security vetted but what has happened to them since that vetting? Has any of them got into some kind of trouble, debt or perhaps having an affair outside marriage? Surely these are the sort of things that could lead to an individual being blackmailed into compromising security on board.
All we need is an agent of a potential enemy to find one of the 1600 servicemen on board who can be “persuaded” just pop something into the computer for a moment. No visible damage will be done, no clues will be left.
The worst sort of cyber attacks are not the ones that have brought down the National Health Service in recent weeks (also because they were using Windows XP-based computers). The much more worrying cyber attacks come from the Stuxnet type computer worm. These are injected into a computer and sit quietly, in principle for years, before they are activated. All they do is replace a small piece of operating system code which may be activated on a specific date or when certain events happen such as loading a live guided missile into its launching tube.
All one needs to do is to place into a computer port a simple, apparently innocuous variant on the USB stick that most of us have. The picture above shows computers with their USB ports visible. Anybody with any degree of access to that area could carry this out. Modern operating systems like Windows 10 have very substantial capacity to block unauthorised USB-type hardware and that is why it is so important for most organisations to get rid of Windows XP as a matter of urgency. It would only take a minute for the necessary software to be downloaded into the machine and embed itself invisibly for future use.
At some time in the future that downloaded malicious virus can be activated which could cause the ship simply to stop, or to sail at full speed in a circle or in reverse. Or it could be driven onto the rocks not much can be done about it.
The Ministry of Defence’s claimed that the software systems in HMS Queen Elizabeth are fully protected is simply preposterous. The final worrying statement is that there will be a computer refit within a decade implies that hardware and software will be nearly a quarter of a century old. Does anybody remember just how dreadful and slow computer hardware was 25 years ago? This wouldn’t be Windows XP or Windows 95 but equivalent to us running Windows 3.1 today. The MoD should be planning a computer refit right now to bring the hardware and the software up-to-date. Computer technology is advancing at an ever increasing speed. The difference between Windows XP and the latest software in 10 years time will be like night and day.
Attempting to upgrade systems after such a long period of time is anyway very difficult and likely to be expensive. Hardware becomes incompatible and software very difficult to maintain because old languages and operating system commands are no longer being developed and maintained. The amount of effort will be substantial particularly as the key hardware is that which connects the computers to the various systems on board. Even getting hardware compatibility starts to become a real problem.
Today, 17 July 2017, it is revealed that the data networks within the carrier are also very slow, and are capable of running at only 8 Mb a second. We must remember that modern weapon systems generate very large amounts of data because it takes a lot of data to describe a rapidly changing battle environment. And don’t forget that 8 MB/sec is not available for everyone simultaneously. In reality it is available for one task at one moment and another task has to wait until data bandwidth is available. 8 MB per second is barely fast enough to watch a DVD and yet a £3 billion aircraft carrier has got to make do with that! This is and inadequate speed for a cottage in the Lake District or North Norfolk but not in a state-of-the-art fighting machine for the 21st-century
Domestic bandwidths are these days up to 300 Mb per second. Gigabit bandwidth is now commonplace in commercial environments in the UK and overseas. The report in today’s Times newspaper explains that the obscenely expensive jets that are being purchased for the UK simply cannot communicate data back to other aircraft and to the surface support ships adequately without revealing the position of those jets.
Sadly this is another example of massive procurement incompetence at the Ministry of Defence. Vast sums of money are being wasted on things simply couldn’t survive a 21st-century war and are therefore an extraordinary waste of money.
It doesn’t matter how Brexiteers spin things. We were lied to in order to achieve a very marginal result.
I was unsure about buying a new TV, but told it would pick up all the channels in beautiful full-colour. However I found it wouldn’t get any BBC channels and the picture was black-and-white. The shop said they hoped all these channels would work and in colour but these weren’t guarantees, only aspirations. They said that I had to live with it because that was what I had chosen.
This is what the Leave campaign want us to accept about the Brexit referendum result. We now know most of their promises were what we used to call “lies”. However they claim this is the “Democratic Will of the People”, despite all their lies.
For anything else I might buy this would simply be illegal and probably fraud. As a minimum we need to guarantee a rerun of the referendum once we know what sort of deal has been arranged. Nothing less will do.
Summary: Successive governments have been grossly negligent in their approach to providing adequate levels of housing within the UK. A radical programme of investment in new housing managed by local government will allow us to catch up with the backlog. It would involve training and employing many new skilled construction workers. We must plan to use advanced construction techniques wherever possible such as the widespread use of high quality, modern prefabricated buildings. As a major infrastructure programme this will have an important role in boosting activity rapidly in the British economy.
The collapse in British housebuilding since 2008 exacerbated the shortages that had already accumulated by then. Since 2010 the number of social rent homes being built has dropped by 97%. Affordable home completions in the current year are running at around half that of the previous year. One of the big problems in building affordable homes is that many developers accept a requirement from the planners of a good percentage of affordable homes. These might typically be around 40%. However it is almost routine that the developers go back to the planners and ask for a reduction in the affordable home percentage. In the Cambridge area recently 40% requirement was reduced to around 6%. Shortly afterwards the developers marketed these properties energetically in China.
Most agree that we need to build about 250,000 new homes each year just to keep up with demand. Annual completions are running at under half that level. Approximately 80% of completions (about 90,000 per annum) come from the private sector which is dominated by eight or nine big housebuilders who currently hold enough land for about 600,000 new homes.
They deny they are hoarding land to allow scarcity to keep prices high but they do have enough land for over six years supply at their present building rate. The rate of granting detailed planning permission is currently running in excess of 250,000 homes per annum so at more than twice the current construction rate. Since 2008 the number of small builders has dropped substantially.
Claims that planning delays are limiting construction seem to be greatly exaggerated. Indeed an increased housing programme would probably need boosting the size of planning departments to keep delays to a minimum in future. In order to accelerate a housebuilding programme it may be necessary to acquire land with planning permission on a “use it or lose it” basis. An appropriate valuation might be at the time the most recent planning permission was granted.
Since Margaret Thatcher introduced the right-to-buy over 30 years ago around 2 million social houses have been sold by local authorities who are currently forbidden from replacing them. Most new social housing is provided by Housing Associations, and their rate of construction would increase radically if the regulation of Housing Associations was relaxed.
There are over 200,000 homes in England empty for more than six months (the usual definition of an empty home). This does not count second homes or holiday homes. First-time buyers are finding it increasingly difficult to get on the housing ladder. In the past, house price inflation was made more manageable as salaries rose but median salary increases are running way below median house price increases.
A typical first-time buyer today who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder will be even further from achieving that next year. The construction of low-cost affordable housing is now down at very low levels indeed. In essence, if you cannot afford to buy a house today you will be even less able to afford it tomorrow. That has gone on now for nearly 10 years and is a direct consequence of austerity and public sector pay squeezes.
It is estimated that there are 1.8 million people today on the social housing waiting register in England. In order to catch up with the backlog as well as keeping up with demand we need to target a building rate of between 350,000 and 400,000 new homes per annum. This is an enormous increase on current rate of about 120,000 per annum and will be difficult to achieve without a substantial effort.
There are genuine problems in simply turning on such a dramatic increase in building rate. Simply scaling present construction methods will require a tripling of brick production, difficult as many brick factories were mothballed following 2008 and the collapse in the construction industry. It is thought that many of these mothballed factories would be too decayed and inefficient to restart.
Current statistics show that it takes about 6.6 construction workers one year to build one house. Hundreds of thousands of new skilled bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and even architects would need to be trained. Finding such people to train will be difficult particularly as the demand for new housing is concentrated in the relatively low unemployment areas in the south of England.
And then there is the small matter of funding. The obsession of the Cameron government with austerity would make this funding impossible but most economists agree that housebuilding is a genuine investment in infrastructure that must be accounted for outside the day-to-day economy. Now that George Osborne has been deposed even the Conservative government seems to accept that rampant austerity is fundamentally damaging to the whole of our economy.
The British government can borrow money at present at ridiculously low interest rates for long periods. So raising the funds for an ambitious programme is practical in the present economic climate. This would best be done by the Local Authorities who would be required to manage this dramatic increase in housebuilding. Clearly a number of radical changes in our approach to housebuilding will be needed for this to be achievable.
It does seem odd in the 21st-century that most houses in the UK are still built by taking tens of thousands of bricks, mixing up cement and sticking them altogether. In much of Europe many buildings are prefabricated, built in modular form such as walls with windows, doors, electricity and plumbing already built in that can be assembled in just a few days.
The construction site must be prepared in advance but this is a relatively quick procedure compared with the business of conventional house construction in the UK. Modern European prefabricated houses are designed and built to a high standard, often much better than conventional low-cost UK housing standards. Prefabricated designs and construction procedures are well established and could be duplicated in the UK leading to substantial employment opportunities that could easily be in unemployment blackspots in the UK.
The cost of these properties are, if anything, cheaper than conventional houses and dramatically quicker to construct. Above all they would reduce greatly the need to train as many skilled individuals close to where the houses are needed, though many would still be required.
The extraordinary cost of houses in many parts of the country is a very poor guide to the actual cost of building a new property. There is no such thing as a standard house. The needs of single people right through to those of large families need to be addressed. One of the most helpful metrics is the typical floor area per person that we find in modern houses today. Our standards must not be the minimum but provide for appropriate storage space and space for the equipment and facilities most of us would take for granted.
In the UK, typical house floor areas work out to be approximately 33 m² per head although this is on the low side when compared with houses in the rest of Europe (40 m² for Sweden, 43 m² for France and 55 m² in Germany). Conventional construction works out at about £1200/ m² in Greater London, £1050 in the south-east of England and perhaps £900 in the Midlands. Building to a high standard would add between £150 and £200 per square metre to this cost.
This makes conventional construction roughly at the £120,000 level for four people in three bedrooms and to which must be added the cost of land. Most developments try to get to about 12 houses per acre which adds between £30,000 and £60,000 to the cost for a single property for land already zoned for residential development in our close to urban areas. In rural areas land prices can be significantly less particularly for land currently used for farming on the margins of existing developments. So even for a good quality three-bedroom house construction costs are well under £200,000.
How much do prefabricated houses actually cost? We are not thinking here of the sort of prefabs that were built after the second war as emergency short-term accommodation. Modern prefabricated houses are designed to last, to provide high standards of comfort and to be in no way inferior to houses built with thousands of bricks and buckets of cement. Good examples of high quality prefabricated homes come from SvenskHomes come out to be almost identical to conventional construction costs.
In practice, setting up major facilities in the UK to carry out the prefabrication would lead to highly significant economies. Prefabrication does not mean every house the same. Prefabrication uses modular components which are combined in different ways to give very different shapes and sizes of properties. They may be tailored to the requirements locally and provide anything from highly affordable properties up to some that would be quite luxurious by any standards.
The mixture on one site can be whatever suits the local requirement. We would need to insist on a wide mix of different styles and sizes of housing within a single development. The creation of ghettos or gated communities would be completely unacceptable! Managing the ground works and site construction as a large site will bring costs down quite markedly.
Each property needs a flat concrete plinth on which it is constructed. The site plan establishes the sizes, orientations and positions of each plinth. The site is developed by creating access roads and pavements with all the utilities in place right up to the individual properties. In planning the site it is important to include community centres, shops, GP surgeries and school as part of the total plan if we are to produce genuine integrated communities rather than anonymous dormitory villages.
And how much are we talking about for this program? It would take time to ramp up such a substantial scheme but it is incremental nature allows a lot to be achieved on relatively short timescales. The funding that would need to be available for this sort of programme would probably be in the range of £40 billion-£60 billion over 10 years, so less than half the cost of Trident over the same period, and unlike Trident we still have most of the money at the end of 10 years.
Remember that as properties are built they are sold to Local Authorities, Housing Associations, private landlords and conventional house-owners in whatever mixture seems appropriate. The sale of these properties would be close to cost of construction for the first two categories but very much what the market might bear for the other two. Funds raised from sales are remitted directly back into the program. Unlike Trident, the programme would produce good quality housing for vast numbers of people desperately in need of accommodation.
There are enormous constraints at present on local government raising funding but they should in future be allowed to raise funds to manage a major increase in building houses in their own area. Each local government area should be allocated a specific number of houses to be built each year over a 10 year forward look. Each area should establish a Local Government Housing Authority (LGHA) to manage the local plan. The LGHA should fund additional planning officers and fund the necessary training programs, free of student fees, at local technical colleges providing trainees with appropriate certification.
They should identify suitable sites and where local opposition is strong, that opposition should be required to locate sites in their area on which their share of new houses should be built. It is always been possible to build on greenbelt sites in special circumstances but it is expected that a significant amount of new houses will need to be built on greenfield sites such as farmland.
Building on greenbelt land is something that must be considered. There are nearly 4 million acres of greenbelt designated land in the UK. Even building 250,000 homes on greenbelt land would only cover under 1% of greenbelt area. It may therefore be necessary to change planning procedures so that these do not become a significant blockage to completing the programme. Every town, village or hamlet must take its share. If any region resorts to nimbyism then they must be left to sort it out if they don’t want it imposed more centrally. If they cannot sort out it will be imposed!
At present housebuilding can be a very profitable business. The LGHA program would combine a good portion of affordable housing, some of it for social rented housing but always intermixed with housing for commercial sale with the profits going back into the scheme. The construction of low-cost ghettos must always be resisted with good attention given to the quality of the development.
All developments would, of course, need to address community issues such as schools, community centres, GP surgeries, access to public transport etc. At the bottom end of the price range, houses could be sold with minimum profit but with clear covenants so that if they were sold within a certain timeframe commercially then a significant part of the profit would return to the LGHA.
Building large numbers of houses priced at the bottom end of the market would have a major effect in slowing the general rise in house prices that is distorting economic growth in much of the UK. Planners should only reduce the agreed percentage of affordable homes in exceptional circumstances. A developer that got a reduced percentage would then be required to accept a larger percentage on any subsequent developments they sponsored.
Such a program would be a very substantial investment in the UK. It would inject a very great boost to the economy, provide opportunities to train young people in valuable skills but above all make a serious attempt to recover the many years lost while governments wrung their hands about the difficulty of building houses.
Most of the efforts by the LGHAs would bypass the current big housebuilders who could be left to get on with building expensive houses for those that can afford them. This scheme would finally offer hope to millions of young and less well-off people in the UK that they might actually be able to find a home to live in and possibly own.
References: a brief list of articles and sources of information that the reader might care to follow-up.
- Dwellings by tenure in England, information on number of homes built in England and many other general housing statistics: http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns_/why_we_campaign/housing_facts_and_figures/subsection?section=housing_supply
- Article in the Guardian newspaper dated 12 January 2015 by Hilary Osborne and Paddy Allen entitled “The Housing Crisis in Charts”. See: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/12/the-housing-crisis-in-charts
- BBC article on housebuilding entitled “Why Can’t The UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year?”. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306
- Building cost calculator: a number of companies provide this sort of capability that you can worse start with http://www.jewson.co.uk/working-with-you/for-self-builders/preliminary-planning/calculators/build-cost-calculator/
- There are many European manufacturers of prefabricated homes. Many of them look absolutely fabulous. Start by looking at: http://houses4you.net/
- This is a 4 year-old article about the effect of British planning restrictions on the cost of the average house. See: http://ralphanomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/british-planning-restrictions-boost.html
- Guardian article dated 20/12/15 by Graham Ruddick entitled “Revealed: Housebuilders Sitting on 600,000 Plots of Land”. See: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/30/revealed-housebuilders-sitting-on-450000-plots-of-undeveloped-land
- Guardian article dated 4/1/16 by Dawn Foster entitled “What Will It Take to Build George Osborne’s 400,000 Homes?” It gives a lot of basic statistics about bricks, bricklayers and every other part of the construction chain. See: https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/04/george-osborne-400000-homes-housebuilding-bricks
- Article on Politics Home website, dated 20 June 2017, by Emilio Casalicchio entitled “Labour fury as new social rent homes plummet by 97%”. See: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/communities/housing/news/86856/labour-fury-new-social-rent-homes-plummet-97
Summary: We are told repeatedly that the referendum result represents the “Democratic Will of the People”. It does not. A close majority was obtained on the basis of the most outrageous lies. As the Brexit negotiations progress more and more of these lies will be revealed for what they are. We should stop pretending there is any merit in them at all and steel ourselves to say that the UK simply got it wrong and that we should stay in the EU. Yes there will be considerable loss of face, and we have already lost a great deal of respect for the nonsense of the referendum and now for the collapse of the Tory party at the recent election. We’ve screwed up, we should admit it and get on with trying to put the UK back together again.
Imagine you bought a new television set. You have been told in the shop of all the wonderful features it had and you are looking forward to using them. You have just unpacked it and you find that what you have bought is nothing like you were promised. You would be very upset and expect to get a full refund. Indeed, if it was serious enough, you might report them to Trading Standards. Telling lies to get someone to buy something is a crime.
The UK voted to leave the EU on a very narrow 52:48 majority. Increasingly people are realising just how dishonest the whole Leave campaign was and groups such as farmers, business people and many others are turning against Brexit as interpreted by the right-wing, fiercely anti-EU Tories and the right-wing media.
Tom Smith on a Labourlist comment pointed out that vote disenfranchised the more than 1 million Brits living and working in the EU, together with 3 million EU citizens who have lived in the UK in many cases for decades, pay taxes and have an enormous investment in the future of the UK. The overwhelming majority of these would undoubtedly have voted to Remain.
The British government has just started the Brexit negotiations. Already the tough positioning that Theresa May thought was going to win her a general election has turned to dust. The EU are making it clear that expectations of a brilliant deal from the EU giving us all the advantages and none of the costs of being members is simply make-believe.
We will see over the next few months just how far the Leave campaign’s claims are at variance with the reality. Then we have to address the fundamental problem. The referendum was won for Leave on the basis of lies. We must stop pretending that it is the Democratic Will of the People. It simply is not.
The last election showed just how little trust there is in those Conservative politicians who lied to us so brilliantly during the referendum campaign. Those same politicians are now in charge of negotiating Brexit, negotiations that they are deeply unsuited to carrying out. The Tories are always going to have big problems with the extreme right and no doubt Theresa May hoped she would be able to deal with them given a large majority. She did not get it and the country increasingly realises that so much of what the Tories want is simply increasing the inequality in the country.
We have to keep repeating again and again that we are being led away from EU on the basis of outrageous lies. We should also stop accepting that, notwithstanding those lies, that leaving the EU is the Democratic Will of the People. In fact there is no mandate of any sort for leaving the EU and we should simply stop this nonsense as soon as we can.
The whole business of the referendum has damaged our reputation worldwide and particularly with our EU partners. There will be a considerable loss of face if we do a U-turn. However in this case it is what we should do. Our brilliant democratic system screwed up during the referendum. It did a much better job in the general election and now we must get on with trying to put the UK back together again after the deeply damaging seven years of Tory austerity.