Britains Defence to go in a decade

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by TheKing, Jul 13, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Britain will be a "very different place" militarily in a decade, apparently Britain's imperial pretentions will be the main bidgetory target for the government over the course of the next 10 years.

    Just as I'm trying to start a career in the Army, this guy reckons by the time I decide to leave I'll be leaving some unappreciated little token army club merely in place for the sake of tradition and not a source of national pride and international power projection.

    Will the Armed Forces survive this one?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/26/britain-super-power-will-hutton
     
  2. [​IMG]

    In ten short years you'll have a lovely new European Army uniform and you will get to spend most of your time abroad suppressing and neutralising decreasing pockets of dissenting public on the streets of Europe in defence of the Great and Good European Leader (Blair)and the greater good. Initially you will get sent to France and French troops will get sent to British streets- it will be easier to beat and shoot foreigners. Unless...unless...unless........
     
  3. Load of co@k!
     
  4. King - you need to appreciate that this isn't Hutton speculating what will happen, rather issuing his dream hope that this is what'll happen.

    Hutton is from the same 'A penny spent on defence is a penny wasted' school of thought from which Brown emanates. He is also very much pro-EU integration, and this article reads more like his dream vision of the UK being forced into an EU army as a result of funding constraints. While he's correct that Brown has stuffed the economy more adroitly than Nigella Lawson can stuff a Christmas turkey, part of this is Hutton doing a wish-fulfilment exercise.
     
  5. Makes you think.
    I have said for some time that a Euro Army/Military is the goal of the Eurocrats.
    Why oh why does the Left detest the old Empire and why do are they ashamed of Britians past ?

    We united nations, gave them a Judicial system, a non corrupt civil service and above all the English language, a highly prized and expensive item to acquire where I live. What these nations have done with our gift since we left is another matter.
    "The British economy, in dollar and euro terms, is now emphatically smaller than those of France or Germany, and our new peers are Italy and Spain"
    Well that something good to come out of it France, Italy and Spain paying their share of the Euro Budget as we are now a down and out Nation.
    john
     
  6. This man, IMHO, is clearly a cretin! Whilst he quite correctly identifies foreign aid as a target for budget cuts, his first target is defence - quelle surprise! What - there are no, repeat NO, other, more available, more worthy (any pollie who states that defence is a worthy target of budget cuts ought to be instantly removed from office and shot at dawn!), or even more wasteful departments in governement?

    It is notable that the welfare budget did not receive a mention, despite the fact that it is 3 times, or more, in cost terms than defence. As has been mentioned in several other threads, it is also worthy of note that this govt spent more in its takeover of Northern Rock than it does on defence in 3 years, and has spent more since - on that bank alone, never mind the rest of the banks.

    What all these penny pinching, accountancy qualified pollies always do, regardless of their hue and colour, is consider their own jobs before discussing budget cuts in public. In their minds, defence is the easiest target because it is un-represented in Parliament, (most certainly by any of the so called defence ministers, who have serially failed to represent Defence in either monetary or operational matters!) has no union (and I am not suggesting there should be a union), and they (pollies) calculate that, in electorate terms, defence cuts are the least unpopular and therefore represent the smallest threat to their (pollies) gravy train career prospects.

    Now, doubtless there are those out there who would dispute that view - but I stand by it. There can be no other logic for the consistent denigration of the defence budget in what were economically good times. IE - the defence budget should have been increasing over, at least, the last 10 years or so, based on the fact that the national economy was growing. That it was cut in such times is further proof, (only required for political retards like whet etc), that the current party of government have absolutely NO interest in either defence or those individuals who work there.

    Quite the opposite. Given that the military stand for almost everything that NuLab loathes - history, loyalty, country before self etc, this is hardly surprising. (Unsurprisingly, given the treatment of the armed forces at the hands of this government, its party loathing of the military is only exceeded by the military loathing of labour!) That a government are incapable of overcoming such puerile, teenage and emotinally motivated party instinct is just another piece of evidence that they are not fit for government. (Anybody out there who has voted labour in the last 12 years, take a good, long, look at yourselves in the mirror. You should see Broon looking back at you, coz you put him there! Economically competent, tough on crime, whiter than white, pretty straight kind of guy, education etc .... believed it all didn't you - f*&kwits!)

    The way all these morons (including Hitchens) make such calculations proves conclusively that they are not fit for their jobs. To make calculations of national importance in this manner, (ie self before country), is to weaken, perhaps fatally, the countries national defence capacity. And that most certainly should be a criminal action! It matters not one jot who well (or poorly) little Janets and Johns are educated, how quickly one is treated in hospital, how swift or labouriously the wheels of justice turn, if we are not the ones determining these issues. If we are unable to defend our nation, or if the means of that defence are so eroded as to become ineffective, or of so little deterrence value as to be ineffective, than all is lost.

    I fear that NuLab, and quite possibly the Conservatives (though it does pain me to say it), will be equally short sighted with regards to defence. Certainly, the Tories have only began to challenge the govt over defence matters at what can most charitably be described as a 'politically expedient time' and that is, at best, lamentable. It may, more worringly, be a very precise indication of the priority the Tory party give defence. That is to say, a very, very low priority.

    The message the electorate should taking to MPs of all colours, (even SNP!), is that the defence budget is already too small and needs increasing. If budgetary cuts are required (and I don't doubt that they are), then foreign aid is the first obvious target. (Why does India get over 800m sterling? They just upped their defence by 28B! [So, in effect we are actually increasing the defences of a foreign, albeit friendly, nation, at precisely the same time as we are reducing our own defence budget! Now, does that sound like well thought out policy to you? ] Equally, China - why? Their economy is bigger than ours - what are we giving them money for?) The beauty of such cuts is that they are instant - it will not take time for their effects to improve our situation. Likewise with Welfare reform - far too many people receive benefits, many of them who actually do not need them. IE a person who is taxed for high earnings is hardly in need of child benefit. It may not be a huge amount nationally, but would certainly add to reducing national expenditure.

    Finally, there is a bigger, far more worthy, target for budget cuts - the civil service and the huge number of quangos. The civil service has increased in size hugely since NuLab came in 97. And quangos have practically come into existence since then. The reduction of the former to more realistic levels and the removal of the latter would reduce national expenditure far more expediently than defence cuts. Of course, there is the issue of unions. (So, this govt was never going to do it, even after Broon himself promised to do so in 2004 or 2005 - why was that broken Labour govt promise never pursued by our left wing sympathetic media?) The challenge for the next govt (I pray it will not be Labour!) will to be conduct these cuts without a dramatic reduction of service delivery and no doubt in the face of rabid union opposition and huge swathes of an anti Tory media. (I do not imagine the Liberals, even if they won power, would have the balls for it!)

    So, Hitchens et al - explain to us why these proposals are not given higher priority for cutting government expense than reducing the national defences. And while you are it, explain why cutting national defences in the national interest? I wish I could say 'I eagerly await your reply' - but I don't, as I know it will A. be full of political bullsh1t, and B. will not answer the question.
     
  7. I bet comrade brown has increased overseas aid significantly in his years as chancellor/PM while he runs the forces down.
     
  8. I completely disagree with his economics, leading me to reject the rest of the article as well. He uses spurious claims with no back up, many of which fly in the face of the evidece. He also fails to realise that the British public will not accept such a crushing change in our EU and military policy although (like most of our European politicians) he is probably happy with the notion of unpopular policies that are 'in our interest' being dictated, just like the Lisbon treaty.
     
  9. Perhaps the logic is that welfare payments go straight back into the economy, hell, even spongers need to buy Asda products. Whereas Defence spending turns into gunpowder and ballistic misiles, never seen again.
     
  10. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

  11. He has and every time Cyclops went on some foreign jaunt he pledges more money to someone(it was 15 million the the French last week),of all people.

    High time he and his unelected communist government was removed from power and then shot .
     
  12. Anyone here willing to risk their lives for a Federal Europe?

    Anyone here willing to take up arms against EU soldiers on our streets?
     
  13. And there M-D is the rub! The German Govt will not deply troops to a hot zone and let them fight. Not a dig at the Bundeswehr - it's politics and the German voters don't like it. So, and I hate to say this, it would be us and the Frogs (if it suited them!)
     
  14. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Sadly Mr Hutton's piece fails to take into account one of the more serious factors in calculating the defence budget: the threat. It is, as a consequence, an exercise in leftist wish-fulfilment of little value other than filling space in the Grauniad. We've been through this before; however nice we are to people, and however much we dial down our defence posture, they still aren't nice to us. Remember Neville Chamberlain.
     
  15. Are you familiar with the defence industry multiplier effect? May I commend to you the work of Prof. Keith Hartley and nick Hooper of the CDE, York?