http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...561490,00.html

Bliar to make key note speech on defence - 1215Hrs UK time
- should be interesting

Isn't it a bit late to actually ask peoples opinions?

He's already started

PMQ's "Didn't see Portsmouth Naval Dockyard ever closing. ITV SW news programme. "Could never see Plymouth Naval Dockyard closing". ISTR them saying somewhere that we only had a need for one RN dockyard Maths and English never my strong point but maybe it means it will be announced AFTER he goes and then he can say "nothing to do with me Guv".

Mind you I did enjoy Question Time last night when Jabba the Hut got a right old fashion mauling by an 80 (sorry mam) year old grandma.

I really don't think that Bliar has the interests of the armed forces at heart. If he had more would have been done at the drop of a hat and he wouls have avoided a lot of flak.

Closing the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.


fastmedic

The way they reported this on the BBC world service this morning was that it would be a debate on the future status of HMF.

Do we want to stay a major world player or should we pull in our horns and change to a classic defence force.

Got to admit it there would be a HUGE amount of money saved if all the military were not allowed outside of the UK.

Just think of the benefits, no more over strech, no tours away, no need for bases in BFG etc and all that extra dosh could be spent on equipping and housing the forces properly

Yeah right. More likely to be spent on more oneleggedblacklesbiandwarf outreach centres and the like.

It is significant that Blair has called for a 'public debate' on the future role of the Armed Forces at a time before he leaves office and a time before Brown, as Prime Minister adopts Presidential powers over their future.

I wonder if he is seeking to elicit the legitimacy of a public consensus over the question to undermine Brown's plan's for them which Blair sees as an infinitely more horrible one than Blair himself was responsible for by at best culpable neglect or at worst, an inability to find the funding for them from Brown while the latter was Chancellor with control over the purse strings.

It is pretty difficult to enforce Government Policy abroad with armed forces which, under Brown will become little more than a Home Defence Force not dissimilar to the structure of the Defence Forces of the Irish Republic.

Originally Posted by fastmedic

I really don't think that Bliar has the interests of the armed forces at heart. If he had more would have been done at the drop of a hat and he wouls have avoided a lot of flak.

Closing the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.


fastmedic

Actually, he probably does have the country's best interests at heart. In provoking this (much needed and well overdue) debate he's probably trying to tie the hands of his successor into maintaining at least some sort of warfighting capability. If you think Bliar has been bad for the Armed Forces, you'd do well to consider who actually holds the purse strings and has set the agenda on how much funding we have received. I'll give you a clue - it's not Bliar. Bliar must know that this individual is unlikely to enter No 10 with any more positive attitude towards the Forces than he has held until now. He will have recognised that this is not good for the Forces or the Country's longer-term interests.

Originally Posted by Rheinstorff

Originally Posted by fastmedic

I really don't think that Bliar has the interests of the armed forces at heart. If he had more would have been done at the drop of a hat and he wouls have avoided a lot of flak.

Closing the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.


fastmedic

Actually, he probably does have the country's best interests at heart. In provoking this (much needed and well overdue) debate he's probably trying to tie the hands of his successor into maintaining at least some sort of warfighting capability. If you think Bliar has been bad for the Armed Forces, you'd do well to consider who actually holds the purse strings and has set the agenda on how much funding we have received. I'll give you a clue - it's not Bliar. Bliar must know that this individual is unlikely to enter No 10 with any more positive attitude towards the Forces than he has held until now. He will have recognised that this is not good for the Forces or the Country's longer-term interests.

Have to agree - a very useful airing before someone else waltzes into No. 10 with no personal mandate and very low credibility. Bliar may be doing us a favour?

Originally Posted by Victorian_Major

Originally Posted by Rheinstorff

Originally Posted by fastmedic

I really don't think that Bliar has the interests of the armed forces at heart. If he had more would have been done at the drop of a hat and he wouls have avoided a lot of flak.

Closing the gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind.


fastmedic

Actually, he probably does have the country's best interests at heart. In provoking this (much needed and well overdue) debate he's probably trying to tie the hands of his successor into maintaining at least some sort of warfighting capability. If you think Bliar has been bad for the Armed Forces, you'd do well to consider who actually holds the purse strings and has set the agenda on how much funding we have received. I'll give you a clue - it's not Bliar. Bliar must know that this individual is unlikely to enter No 10 with any more positive attitude towards the Forces than he has held until now. He will have recognised that this is not good for the Forces or the Country's longer-term interests.

Have to agree - a very useful airing before someone else waltzes into No. 10 with no personal mandate and very low credibility. Bliar may be doing us a favour?

I have to agree with you VM. He may just have come to his senses (gags at having to say something positive about the tw@t Bliar).

This is all "legacy" stuff. If Bliar had any b@lls he would have tackled his neighbour long ago.

A public debate on the role of the UK armed forces in the world has been had, back in early 2003. The majority of the public were ignored.