Originally Posted by meridian

A properly funded strategic defence and security review, one that matched foreign policy strategy and objectives to actual, as opposed to paper, capabilities

But are we going to get it? I see a rushed, cost-saving job being done.

Originally Posted by ashie

But are we going to get it? I see a rushed, cost-saving job being done.

And I see dead people... oh no wait, wrong genre.

It would be ludicrous to pretend that this review is not underpinned by the need to cut costs but who was it who put us in this position by spending money we didn't have on the assumption that the economy would continue to grow indefinitely? And who was it who failed to fully fund the last SDR, even though they set out the parameters for it? And who committed us to two major overseas operations without significantly increasing the defence budget? Oh yes, the last Labour government...

Originally Posted by ashie

But are we going to get it? I see a rushed, cost-saving job being done.

Remind us again who did the SDR in 1998 and never carried through with it's recommendations and then got us into two long term hot wars while merrily cutting budgets?

Oh yes, your former employers.





Edited for fat fingers - sorry MSR.

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Remind us again who did the SDR in 1998 and never carried through with it's recommendations and then got us into two long term hot wars while merrily cutting budgets?

Oh yes, your former employers.

Mine? How so?

Originally Posted by msr

Mine? How so?

Sorry mate, pressed the wrong quote. Post now amended.

In a pissing competition between which party treated the forces the best I think you would fine all the main parties pishing all over their shoes than seeing how far up the wall they could go but Ashie, yes, it is going to be a rushed cost cutting exercise not any high minded strategic outlook that will be the order of the day but as the others have said, who's fault is that