| The Defence of the Nation 12:36 - Jun 11 with 2417 views | Churchman |
I know I have endlessly banged on about the Labour government’s lack of interest in defending this country and it seems the now ex-defence Secretary agrees. John Healey has resigned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/liv
This is an absolute disgrace. The first duty of any government should be to defend the country against external threat (and internal). The Labour Party just isn’t interested. They don’t care so while cutting the budget in real terms, they have clamped hands over ears and ignored the threats that have been present for years. The scrap yards have never been busier.
Thanks Sir Kier, thanks Rachel.
|  | | |  |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:48 - Jun 11 with 602 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:42 - Jun 11 by Churchman |
They are continuing the policies of previous regimes and pursuing the ‘peace dividend’ until there’s nothing left.
In what sense are they doing more? Telling people that one day they’ll increase spending a fraction but before that lumping in the cost of Ukraine and all the security services into their budget means real cuts. That is not ‘doing more’.
Those that resigned today recognise the Party’s lack of support for Defence of this country and acted accordingly. Are they and most of Europe wrong? |
There has been an increase and a committent to increase. Albeit plainly insufficient. As opposed to cuts. |  |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:52 - Jun 11 with 584 views | Churchman |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:48 - Jun 11 by redrickstuhaart |
There has been an increase and a committent to increase. Albeit plainly insufficient. As opposed to cuts. |
It’s not an increase if you then lump in a load of other commitments Ito that budget pot. That’s what Labour have done. It’s actually a cut in real terms.
This isn’t about what the tories or Blair and his crowd did. This is now. Two years of Starmer and the gang and what they are doing about it. | | | |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:54 - Jun 11 with 581 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:52 - Jun 11 by Churchman |
It’s not an increase if you then lump in a load of other commitments Ito that budget pot. That’s what Labour have done. It’s actually a cut in real terms.
This isn’t about what the tories or Blair and his crowd did. This is now. Two years of Starmer and the gang and what they are doing about it. |
Its an improvement on the previous regime who have created a crisis.
But still woefully insufficient. | |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:02 - Jun 12 with 571 views | Churchman |
| The Defence of the Nation on 23:54 - Jun 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Its an improvement on the previous regime who have created a crisis.
But still woefully insufficient. |
Cutting a budget in real terms and an abject failure to be able to meet the most basic commitments with no prospect of improvement whatsoever is no improvement.
Yes, we all know how rubbish their predecessors were but Starmer and Reeves cannot hide behind that forever. | | | |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:27 - Jun 12 with 553 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:02 - Jun 12 by Churchman |
Cutting a budget in real terms and an abject failure to be able to meet the most basic commitments with no prospect of improvement whatsoever is no improvement.
Yes, we all know how rubbish their predecessors were but Starmer and Reeves cannot hide behind that forever. |
It is clearly an improvement on the previous 14 years of cuts.
Just acknowledge facts please! Utterly hypocritical of Jenrick, Badenoch et al to complain. Though the complaint is still correct. [Post edited 12 Jun 0:27]
| |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:39 - Jun 12 with 542 views | Churchman |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:27 - Jun 12 by redrickstuhaart |
It is clearly an improvement on the previous 14 years of cuts.
Just acknowledge facts please! Utterly hypocritical of Jenrick, Badenoch et al to complain. Though the complaint is still correct. [Post edited 12 Jun 0:27]
|
I’m not interested in what deadbeats like Jenrick and Badenoch have to say. They’re washed up nobodies.
Defence cuts and a disinterested shambles is no improvement on anything. The Minister resigned so he clearly feels he’s wasting his time with Starmer and Reeves. What more evidence is needed? | | | |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:26 - Jun 12 with 484 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:39 - Jun 12 by Churchman |
I’m not interested in what deadbeats like Jenrick and Badenoch have to say. They’re washed up nobodies.
Defence cuts and a disinterested shambles is no improvement on anything. The Minister resigned so he clearly feels he’s wasting his time with Starmer and Reeves. What more evidence is needed? |
Labour are in an absolute box which they cannot escape. Britain can't afford to spend more money on defence without either more borrowing (counter-productive - see Liz Truss), cutting spending elsewhere (Starmer has already shown himself as incapable of making even small cuts) or higher taxation (this has to involve new, creative taxes like the Major government did, in the mistaken belief that we won't notice).
Not that any other party has viable solutions to these tough decisions though. [Post edited 12 Jun 8:34]
|  |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:28 - Jun 12 with 479 views | Churchman |
From the Guardian and Indy.
https://www.theguardian.com/po
https://www.theguardian.com/po
So why has weak and incompetent Starmer spent months telling lies on this? Making promises there was no way he could fulfil. To look statesman like? It’s the only reason I can think of.
Given his disinterest in defending this country, Starmer should not have the brass neck to attend upcoming security conferences, NATO meetings, G7 etc. he has nothing worthwhile to say.
He and his government have nailed their ignore the threat colours to the mast, which is a choice, and buried their heads in the sand. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:45 - Jun 12 with 431 views | lowhouseblue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:26 - Jun 12 by Radlett_blue |
Labour are in an absolute box which they cannot escape. Britain can't afford to spend more money on defence without either more borrowing (counter-productive - see Liz Truss), cutting spending elsewhere (Starmer has already shown himself as incapable of making even small cuts) or higher taxation (this has to involve new, creative taxes like the Major government did, in the mistaken belief that we won't notice).
Not that any other party has viable solutions to these tough decisions though. [Post edited 12 Jun 8:34]
|
since the back benchers rejected the welfare reforms, and starmer just gave in, the government's whole strategy has become stuck in a fiscal hole. it reflects a combination of what they have inherited economically, which is pretty dire, and something close to a vacuum in terms of political leadership. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:50 - Jun 12 with 428 views | DanTheMan |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:45 - Jun 12 by lowhouseblue |
since the back benchers rejected the welfare reforms, and starmer just gave in, the government's whole strategy has become stuck in a fiscal hole. it reflects a combination of what they have inherited economically, which is pretty dire, and something close to a vacuum in terms of political leadership. |
This all comes down to that people want the following:
- Lower immigration
- Lower taxes
- Better pensions / benefits
- Better public services
- Better defence
- Better overall economy
Which obviously doesn't work but there will be people who promise that it can.
It also doesn't really help there is a disincentive for long term thinking when running a Government as usually anything difficult will require a trade off for long term good (e.g. net zero). |  |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:59 - Jun 12 with 387 views | lowhouseblue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:50 - Jun 12 by DanTheMan |
This all comes down to that people want the following:
- Lower immigration
- Lower taxes
- Better pensions / benefits
- Better public services
- Better defence
- Better overall economy
Which obviously doesn't work but there will be people who promise that it can.
It also doesn't really help there is a disincentive for long term thinking when running a Government as usually anything difficult will require a trade off for long term good (e.g. net zero). |
it can work if you have growth. that was basically the magic formula in the blair years. economic stagnation underlies all the policy conflicts that we have experienced since then. i wouldn't include 'lower' immigration in your list, if it's lower relative to the extreme boris wave at least (those extreme levels had become a fiscal drag - after decades in which immigration had been fiscally positive (and had been positive in many other ways)).
the lack of long term thinking is symptomatic of an increasingly sclerotic state which seems to grind to a bureaucratic halt when it comes to implementing major change. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 09:00 - Jun 12 with 395 views | Benters |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:50 - Jun 12 by DanTheMan |
This all comes down to that people want the following:
- Lower immigration
- Lower taxes
- Better pensions / benefits
- Better public services
- Better defence
- Better overall economy
Which obviously doesn't work but there will be people who promise that it can.
It also doesn't really help there is a disincentive for long term thinking when running a Government as usually anything difficult will require a trade off for long term good (e.g. net zero). |
‘Smash the gangs’ he said he’d do righto ! There that’s saved a few billion a year to spend on defence. |  |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 09:23 - Jun 12 with 359 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| The Defence of the Nation on 22:20 - Jun 11 by GlasgowBlue |
Do you realise how much money the UK, Europeans and Americans have given to Ukraine just to keep them in the game.
£21.8 billion from the UK, €75.2 billion from the EU and $66.9 from the USA. And I believe those figures are up to Spring 2025.
Certainly not done on a shoestring. |
And, if those ratios hold to the present day, that means the UK is contributing significantly more than both the USA and the EU on per capita or %GDP metrics.
Both Healey, and Ben Wallace before him, realised the truth that Ukraine isn't just defending Ukraine, but is defending the whole of Europe.
Money can only be spent once, and, pound for pound, it is best spent in Kyiv at the moment. | | | |
| The Defence of the Nation on 10:52 - Jun 12 with 302 views | giant_stow |
| The Defence of the Nation on 22:20 - Jun 11 by GlasgowBlue |
Do you realise how much money the UK, Europeans and Americans have given to Ukraine just to keep them in the game.
£21.8 billion from the UK, €75.2 billion from the EU and $66.9 from the USA. And I believe those figures are up to Spring 2025.
Certainly not done on a shoestring. |
I've no idea what the overall Ukrainian defence budget is, including their own money, but it sounds like your figures cover 4 years of a war, not peace-time spending. And an all-out, getting invaded by a military super power war at that. It might well be that they're fighting on the cheap even having been given billions. [Post edited 12 Jun 10:53]
|  |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 12:52 - Jun 12 with 239 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:59 - Jun 12 by lowhouseblue |
it can work if you have growth. that was basically the magic formula in the blair years. economic stagnation underlies all the policy conflicts that we have experienced since then. i wouldn't include 'lower' immigration in your list, if it's lower relative to the extreme boris wave at least (those extreme levels had become a fiscal drag - after decades in which immigration had been fiscally positive (and had been positive in many other ways)).
the lack of long term thinking is symptomatic of an increasingly sclerotic state which seems to grind to a bureaucratic halt when it comes to implementing major change. |
Yes, most of the developed world, especially Western Europe, has been experiencing slower growth, as a result of globalisation & structural factors. That, coupled with ageing populations, means that governments everywhere are facing financial issues. Faster growth would help, but there's no easy formula for that. Liz Truss tried to have a go, with disastrous results. So governments will have to make tough choices, which will be unpopular with the electorate & that's why no-one is making them or suggesting them. | |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 13:20 - Jun 12 with 211 views | DanTheMan |
| The Defence of the Nation on 08:59 - Jun 12 by lowhouseblue |
it can work if you have growth. that was basically the magic formula in the blair years. economic stagnation underlies all the policy conflicts that we have experienced since then. i wouldn't include 'lower' immigration in your list, if it's lower relative to the extreme boris wave at least (those extreme levels had become a fiscal drag - after decades in which immigration had been fiscally positive (and had been positive in many other ways)).
the lack of long term thinking is symptomatic of an increasingly sclerotic state which seems to grind to a bureaucratic halt when it comes to implementing major change. |
You absolutely need to include immigration as that can be an easy way to grow economically, especially when you have low birth rates like we do.
And that's without getting into the pension issues when the ratio between working people and pensioners gets skewed, like it is. | |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:38 - Jun 12 with 153 views | lowhouseblue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 13:20 - Jun 12 by DanTheMan |
You absolutely need to include immigration as that can be an easy way to grow economically, especially when you have low birth rates like we do.
And that's without getting into the pension issues when the ratio between working people and pensioners gets skewed, like it is. |
it can be if you're adding in mainly skilled and economically active migrants. that wasn't the pattern for much of the boris wave. the pattern of migration had changed as well as the number rising 4 fold. we were increasingly relying on low skill and low paid new comers and a significant number were not economically active at all. a situation in which we have a high number of neets and at the same time were bringing in low wage migrants made no sense fiscally whatsoever. fortunately the current government has got it back to a more sensible position. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:44 - Jun 12 with 152 views | itfcjoe |
| The Defence of the Nation on 21:47 - Jun 11 by Churchman |
So a bit like Captain Rum believing that you don’t need a crew when every other captain thinks otherwise, you don’t think we need defence when just about every other country in Europe bar Spain thinks we do. Fair enough, it’s a view.
The reality is Labour doesn’t believe in defence or defending this country. It’s not interested and never has been. That’s crystal clear from today’s events. So why not scrap the lot? Use the defence budget for other priorities, get the civil servants on benefits and appeal to the totalitarians and authoritarians better nature. They might as well. |
"The reality is Labour doesn’t believe in defence or defending this country. It’s not interested and never has been."
Whilst I think this is an exaggeration and not particularly fair, if the Tories are going to hollow out the military and the Forces in this country then it's folly to believe Labour will build them back up.
It's like if Labour spend the next 5 years destroying the NHS, no one would expect the Tories to save it when they came to power |  |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:46 - Jun 12 with 146 views | DanTheMan |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:38 - Jun 12 by lowhouseblue |
it can be if you're adding in mainly skilled and economically active migrants. that wasn't the pattern for much of the boris wave. the pattern of migration had changed as well as the number rising 4 fold. we were increasingly relying on low skill and low paid new comers and a significant number were not economically active at all. a situation in which we have a high number of neets and at the same time were bringing in low wage migrants made no sense fiscally whatsoever. fortunately the current government has got it back to a more sensible position. |
People have been upset about the amount of immigration long before Boris Johnson.
To be clear, I'm not defending the amount of immigration, I'm saying that people in the UK tend to want very, very low levels of immigration which is pretty bad when combined with an aging population and low birth rates. | |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:50 - Jun 12 with 129 views | lowhouseblue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:46 - Jun 12 by DanTheMan |
People have been upset about the amount of immigration long before Boris Johnson.
To be clear, I'm not defending the amount of immigration, I'm saying that people in the UK tend to want very, very low levels of immigration which is pretty bad when combined with an aging population and low birth rates. |
the point i'm making is that, in the extremes of the boris wave, the usual fiscal case for immigration broke down. in that period reducing from close to 1 million net in one year ceased to conflict with the other wants you listed. if it now settles down at 100,000+ a year, with the focus on skilled workers, that will be entirely economically positive. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The Defence of the Nation on 16:19 - Jun 12 with 99 views | Churchman |
| The Defence of the Nation on 15:44 - Jun 12 by itfcjoe |
"The reality is Labour doesn’t believe in defence or defending this country. It’s not interested and never has been."
Whilst I think this is an exaggeration and not particularly fair, if the Tories are going to hollow out the military and the Forces in this country then it's folly to believe Labour will build them back up.
It's like if Labour spend the next 5 years destroying the NHS, no one would expect the Tories to save it when they came to power |
Labour voted against any defence spending right up to 1937, 4 years after Adolf took over. Even then in 1939 they voted against conscription even though everyone knew war was coming.
You said that ‘ if the Tories are going to hollow out the military and the forces in this country then it’s folly to believe Labour will build them back up’
Why? The threat is obvious. Every country bar U.K. and Spain recognise it. But what you are saying is the tories tore the guts out of it (and they did) so we sit on our hands, accept that and do nothing. That doesn’t seem much a of a solution to me. Not least because it says the current government has no responsibility to protect its people. Not important. Tories shoved it in the bin so there it can stay.
If that is the way it is, why has Starmer lied? He’s been busy talking about need, yet another defence review blah blah blah, yet quietly cut defence spending in real terms further. If he’s against defending this country, don’t lie about it and mince about with a big flag promising something he has no intention whatsoever to deliver.
Be honest. Just say our policy is x and y and defence is not important to us. Bottom of the pile. That nice Mr Putin is a reasonable man and his people can sightsee in Salisbury whenever they like.
Lastly, if Labour spent 5 years destroying the NHS I would expect the tories to save it they came to power - not that it will ever happen. They’re finished and let’s face it the privileged don’t believe in it anyway.
Personally, I think there’s nothing more important than this country’s capability to defend itself. Nothing. But Labour clearly disagree and Starmer for all his hand shaking, promises etc is all wind, image, party, free gear and self preservation. | | | |
| The Defence of the Nation on 17:43 - Jun 12 with 65 views | mellowblue |
| The Defence of the Nation on 00:27 - Jun 12 by redrickstuhaart |
It is clearly an improvement on the previous 14 years of cuts.
Just acknowledge facts please! Utterly hypocritical of Jenrick, Badenoch et al to complain. Though the complaint is still correct. [Post edited 12 Jun 0:27]
|
not really, defence spending has remained low but fairly consistent at between 2 and 2.6% of GDP since the year 1997. Successive governments have assumed that the peace dividend would sustain. Compare that to the heady days of the 70s and 80s when it averaged around the 4.5% area. Para 2 is correct though, but opposition parties have to oppose even at the risk of being called hypocrites. All part of the game. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
