-
04-07-2009, 19:34 #1
'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Interesting dit from the Daily Telegraph:
Frontline troops must now be a spending priority
David Cameron and Gordon Brown have both promised to protect spending on the NHS but what about defence?
Telegraph View
Published: 7:01PM BST 04 Jul 2009
The debate on the future of state spending in Britain has started to assume an air of unreality. Gordon Brown has been embarrassed several times by David Cameron on the floor of the House of Commons. Mr Cameron has shown that, on the Government's own figures, there will have to be very significant cuts in public spending. Mr Brown's only reply has been to maintain, in the teeth of the evidence, what he must know to be false – which is that our shrinking economy can somehow maintain present levels of spending without enormous rises in taxation. But while Mr Cameron is undoubtedly right that cuts are inevitable, he has refused to offer a single word on where he would make them. Hence the air of unreality which now clings to the debate.
There is, however, one area where the effects of chronically insufficient spending are already horribly clear. As we report today, British soldiers are being sent to fight in Afghanistan in vehicles known to be unable to resist the roadside bombs planted by the Taliban. As a consequence, 48 of them have been killed. Armoured troop carriers capable of resisting such attacks have been designed and manufactured, but whereas the US has already deployed its vehicles on the ground, many of ours have been delayed. In other words, America's politicians have managed to protect their soldiers' lives. Ours have not.
It is not too much to say that, as a consequence, ministers and officials have the blood of British soldiers on their hands. The politicians decided to commit British troops to Afghanistan. This newspaper supported that decision, and still does: we believe the country cannot be allowed to become a failed state, or a religious despotism, from where fanatical fundamentalist terrorists can plot and perpetrate mass murder, as they did in 2001. What we cannot support is our Government's failure to provide the men and women it sends to risk their lives in that war with the equipment they need to protect themselves adequately.
The Ministry of Defence has insisted that all of the vehicles ordered will be deployed by the end of this year. Why do our soldiers need to wait so long? The Americans managed to provide their much higher number of troops with the necessary protection months ago. And that is not the only glaring failure. Eight Chinook helicopters, which would make an enormous difference to the Army's fighting capability in Afghanistan, given that a lack of helicopter support is the single greatest problem cited by those serving there, are at present in hangars in Britain, waiting for their computers to be upgraded so they can fly in cloudy conditions. These useless craft, which have cost hundreds of millions of pounds, are a terrible testament to the MoD's incompetence.
David Cameron and Gordon Brown have promised to protect spending on the NHS. Mr Brown has said he will safeguard spending on education as well. Neither leader has promised to protect defence. Unless ministers have simply decided that more troops will have to die, because it is not worth buying the equipment to keep them alive, the amount devoted to defence – and especially to the purchase of the weapons and vehicles that those serving on the front line need and demand – must not merely be maintained. It must be increased. Anything less would be a criminal failure to honour the responsibility politicians have to the men and women they order into battle.British Armed Forces Federation - www.baff.org.uk
-
04-07-2009, 19:42 #2
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
If any politician thinks defence can keep being cut back then they're as bad as the likes of Chamberlain.
I have been of the firm opinion for several years now that we cannot defend this country. To always rely of allies is suicidal.
Whoops! Where did that nice safety blanket go?
-
04-07-2009, 19:42 #3
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
There has already been a thread on the NHS and the massive amout that we will be short. Defence - does that win votes?
And hence one master passion in the breast, like Aaron's serpent swallows up the rest.
-
04-07-2009, 19:48 #4
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Seemed to work for Maggie.
-
04-07-2009, 19:54 #5
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
You think so?
Originally Posted by danielsan
And hence one master passion in the breast, like Aaron's serpent swallows up the rest.
-
04-07-2009, 20:48 #6
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
NHS is outsourcing lots of services within 2 years so maybe proper bean counters can check the contract bids more closely to get VFM
-
04-07-2009, 20:54 #7
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Outsourcing means a private company will make a profit.
Originally Posted by Mikal
And hence one master passion in the breast, like Aaron's serpent swallows up the rest.
-
04-07-2009, 21:01 #8
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Indeed look what outsourcing has done to the Forces. Inflated prices while lowering efficiency and the removal of power from Stn CO's.
Originally Posted by jarrod248
Defence Estates, MHS, Housing, DII, DFTS etc all receiving blank cheques with public money.
-
04-07-2009, 21:13 #9
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
The UK is broken. Defence, like the rest of the country is in freefall. So many are so far removed from any sense of threat they whinge constantly about such tosh as global warming, or is it climate change this week?
As a nation, distance not-with-standing, we cannot stand up to piss poor countries such as North Korea!!!
Look at how our European partners supported us recently against Irans bullshit!! Ran for the fcuking hills with their tails between their legs, as usual!!! Still the dole will pay out each week......
I dispair I really do."Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life".
Cecil Rhodes
-
04-07-2009, 21:20 #10
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Seconded.
Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt
Democracy is not for the people.
-
04-07-2009, 21:26 #11Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Posts
- 452
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Dont worry, Hyper Inflation will soon wipe out of the value of all that debt!
It might take out everyone's savings as well, but it serves you right for bothering to do some work and not being part of Zanu-Lab's client state!
From The Times:
The BOE is printing money that is immediately being spent by the government on Schools/Hospitals/"Jobseekers Allowance".A record sell-off of UK government debt by overseas investors is fuelling City anxieties over the Treasury’s ability to fund soaring public borrowing that is set to top £150 billion over this year and next.
The surge in foreign selling of gilt-edged bonds and short-term UK Treasury bills is also reinforcing growing fears over the effectiveness of the Bank of England’s controversial quantitative easing (QE) scheme to pump newly created money through the economy.
Bank of England figures released on Monday highlighted record overseas sales of UK government debt during the three months from March to May.
Foreign investors dumped a total of £22 billion in their holdings of UK gilts and Treasury bills, mainly selling these to the Bank itself, through its QE scheme.
-
04-07-2009, 23:20 #12Senior Member

- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,768
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
From The Times
July 4, 2009
The cost of war
Money is scarce but there is no excuse for conducting a battle with inadequate equipment. The nobility of the troops demands more than this
The British Army has always shown that the virtue of nobility is not confined to the officer class. Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond died the death of heroes, in the service of their country. It would be naive to suppose that any conflict, especially one with such a tenacious enemy as the Taleban, could be conducted without casualties. The sacrifices made by these two young men, and by their many colleagues before them, are the tragic concomitant of a military commitment that, in the view of this newspaper, is in a just cause.
That said, these deaths cannot simply be ascribed to doomed heroism. It is now clear that the Taleban are directly exploiting the weakness of the Viking, the Army’s favoured personnel carrier. Huge roadside bombs, sometimes two placed together, can rip through the weak underbelly of the Viking. When the carrier was first sent to Afghanistan in 2006, its versatility and manoeuvrability made it a great addition to the armoury of the troops. But the increased strength of Taleban bombing exposed a hitherto concealed weakness. The Viking cannot bear sufficient armour to protect its occupants
More on the link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6633132.ece
-
04-07-2009, 23:40 #13
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Interesting that the Viking is now the next Snatch. When will journalists realise that there is not a vehicle on the planet that will protect soldiers all the time. It is also interesting that EFP is just not mentioned in the news.
-
05-07-2009, 00:08 #14
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
Interesting. We (BAFF) declined multiple requests on Friday for comment about Viking, just as we have previously declined to comment specifically about Snatch - even though the BAFF Executive Chairman is a qualified Snatch driver "Balkans only"! We do say that the operational chain of command should get the equipment they say is needed.
Originally Posted by Whet
British Armed Forces Federation - www.baff.org.uk
-
05-07-2009, 00:25 #15
Re: 'Frontline troops must now be a spending priority'
I agree entirely.
Originally Posted by hackle
-


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks



Reply With Quote












Bookmarks