Defence spending is lowest since the 1930s

#1
Defence spending is lowest since the 1930s
Daily Telegraph
Link
Britain spends less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey despite the constant demands placed on its Armed Forces, official figures show.

According to the Conservatives, defence spending as a proportion of the UK's gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930, before the UK recognised the rising threat of Nazi Germany.

Cost-cutting imposed by the Ministry of Defence is now threatening the Navy's warship-building programme and leading to unprecedented levels of disaffection among senior serving and recently retired officers.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will be challenged in the Commons today over reports of further cutbacks in the programme for new Type 45 destroyers and growing doubts on whether the Government will fulfil its promise to build two new aircraft carriers.

Julian Lewis, a Conservative defence spokesman, said last night that the Royal Navy was "bloodied, battered and on the ropes", with a "palpable feeling of betrayal" at the top as a result of a catalogue of cuts

Ministers have ordered defence chiefs to stop the leaks about equipment shortages and cutbacks to front line capability which are hitting morale. The leaks have also infuriated the Chancellor Gordon Brown, who is being blamed for the squeeze as he prepares to take over as Prime Minister.
 
#2
Random_Task said:
Defence spending is lowest since the 1930s
Daily Telegraph
Link
1. Britain spends less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey despite the constant demands placed on its Armed Forces, official figures show.

According to the Conservatives, defence spending as a proportion of the UK's gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930, before the UK recognised the rising threat of Nazi Germany.

2. Cost-cutting imposed by the Ministry of Defence is now threatening the Navy's warship-building programme and leading to unprecedented levels of disaffection among senior serving and recently retired officers.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will be challenged in the Commons today over reports of further cutbacks in the programme for new Type 45 destroyers and growing doubts on whether the Government will fulfil its promise to build two new aircraft carriers.

Julian Lewis, a Conservative defence spokesman, said last night that the 3. Royal Navy was "bloodied, battered and on the ropes", with a "palpable feeling of betrayal" at the top as a result of a catalogue of cuts

Ministers have ordered defence chiefs to stop the leaks about equipment shortages and cutbacks to front line capability which are hitting morale. The leaks have also 4. infuriated the Chancellor Gordon Brown, who is being blamed for the squeeze as he prepares to take over as Prime Minister.



1. MOST OF THE FUC*ERS ARE HERE OR ON THE WAY ANYWAY.......AND WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DEFEND?

2. Do we really need such a large navy now anyway?

3. Why?..got a bit rough in the cabins after lights out did it, champers not cold enough?....just relax and bite this pillow!!!!!!!

4. Is this not the biggest assumption going. if the leader of the party resigns an election takes place it's not passed on like a pair of stained strippers undercrackers.



Drunk, angry, tired, married, skint, cold, wet(just pissed myself),...pissed off, really pissed off!
 
#3
Funny that isn't it? Neither Brown nor Bliar will be present at that particular grilling, and yet they are the two cnuts responsible for the state of affairs.

Blackmailing our forces into keeping quiet about the shortage of funds by threatening to reduce funding is a complete waste of time - it's being done anyway so there is not point in our forces personnel stopping the leaks. It's a case of 'Be quiet while I murder you, or I'll murder you!'

Did anyone note the fact that despite the promises by Bliar that our troops could have whatever they needed to get the job done, our forces are saying that the MOD is refusing to supply the kit due to lack of funding. Same old, same old, and yet more Billy Bliar Bullsh!t.
 
#4
datumhead said:
Random_Task said:
Defence spending is lowest since the 1930s

4. Is this not the biggest assumption going. if the leader of the party resigns an election takes place it's not passed on like a pair of stained strippers undercrackers.

An election within Labour you mean- there doesn't have to be a general election. Who else in Labour could realistically succeed Blair.?
 
#5
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
 
#6
Ministers have ordered defence chiefs to stop the leaks about equipment shortages and cutbacks to front line capability which are hitting morale.
This could be taken two ways. Do you think the goverment is more concerned about the shortages hitting morale or the leaks about the shortages hitting morale?

I know where I'd put my money.
 
#8
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Sergei: ever the protagonsist! The point is that if we were only required to defend British territory, the armed forces are about right to do the job, but as soon as we are required to act overseas (and our international standing demands that we must from time to time) we are underfunded and overstretched.
 
#9
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
What ever our illustrious leader tells us to. However, the amount of funding is dispraportionate to the amount of "Defending" he wants us to do
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Our national interests, Sergey. Russia is not the only nation with some of them! :compress:
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#11
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Our island home and ancient liberties for a start Sergei. That's what Her Majesty's Royal Navy has existed for since before some damn neo-Viking Frog called William got it into his head to come over for a visit in 1066.

( That said, under this LEAST Libertarian government for 50 years, this bunch of traitorous, Stalinist dunderheads, we are in danger of letting them steal our rights inch by apathetic inch.)

How's the Black Sea fleet doing by the way ?

Lee Shaver
 
#12
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
1. The right not to be arrested at 3.00 a.m. (politicians excluded!) by murderous loonies commanded by a Nutter (Papa Jo/ Vlad (Putin) the Impaler) and headed up by a Paedo (Beria). The winter sports part of that holiday you can also keep - Siberia is a bit far for me.

2. The right not to have self-heating drinks fired-up with Polonium 210 if you say something the politicians/some nutter in power somewhere doesn't like. Self preservation that one - most arrsers would be glowing like 100W bulbs by now. :sweatdrop:

3. The right not to become part of what the Rodina is fast becoming and something even Adolf and his gang couldn't manage - a Fascist State.

4. Our Vital National Interests globally and the security of our Country and Way of Life - despite the best attempts of our current Politburo.

I expect the Vital National Interest bit will have lots of people getting excited discussing what it is but there you go. It is a complex question also covering Vital Security Interests. What is need however is the allocation of resources to do the job - something this lot in power aren’t doing.

On the subject of Mad Vlad, Sergey, Do you think he will step down from Office and quietly disappear after the elections or will he have his hand up the new Presidents chuff using him as a glove puppet? Or will he just get the Duma to change the rules?
 
#13
Jamie_Donnelly said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
WFT kind of question is that?!?!? what is "Mother Land Russia" defending its self from?!?!
From? From oiliberators of course.
 
#14
Bat_Crab said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Sergei: ever the protagonsist! The point is that if we were only required to defend British territory, the armed forces are about right to do the job, but as soon as we are required to act overseas (and our international standing demands that we must from time to time) we are underfunded and overstretched.
You are absolutely correct. Though I asked something else. Why namely you are required to act overseas? What namely you are defending there?
 
#15
Bat_Crab said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Sergei: ever the protagonsist! The point is that if we were only required to defend British territory, the armed forces are about right to do the job, but as soon as we are required to act overseas (and our international standing demands that we must from time to time) we are underfunded and overstretched.
Thanks for making me laugh!! Classic quote there!
'Our international standing demands that we must from time to time'
bwa ha ha !
You mean your international standing as the turd that is hanging out of the American dogs arrse??
You can't even compete with France these days.
I'm loving watching the running down of the armed forces by this government. Its like someone is stamping out the dying embers of the fire of your glory days.
 
#16
drain_sniffer said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
What ever our illustrious leader tells us to. However, the amount of funding is dispraportionate to the amount of "Defending" he wants us to do
It is an interesting answer. So from your point of view British armed forces blindy follow orders issued by the Great leader without a knowledge about what they defend exactly.

So following your logic British soldiers should trust their leader in the question of spendings.
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
Bat_Crab said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Sergei: ever the protagonsist! The point is that if we were only required to defend British territory, the armed forces are about right to do the job, but as soon as we are required to act overseas (and our international standing demands that we must from time to time) we are underfunded and overstretched.
You are absolutely correct. Though I asked something else. Why namely you are required to act overseas? What namely you are defending there?
they arm't
They are just pretending they still have some influence left in the world. Kind of Laughable isn't it.
Roll on the next round of (inevitable) defence cuts !!
 
#18
in_the_cheapseats said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Our national interests, Sergey. Russia is not the only nation with some of them! :compress:
It's an excellent answer, i should say. Of course national interest but do you youself believe that British armed forces now are defending namely British national interests?
 
#19
These questions are never as clear as you might think. There are more than a few quotes from the politicians (sorry, can't find any at the moment - although I expect Des Brown to mention it in his response to the House) stating that this government is spending more on Defence than any other ... however, once you take into account inflation and this ridiculous accountants' smoke and mirrors trick entitled Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB), which has introduced an 'imaginary' charge passing between the Treasury and Defence Dept, the actual real money spent on Defence has been dropping year on year for a while.

In short, I don't believe a word the politicians say since none are honest in their interpretation of the true situation on the ground. They are all in it for themselves rather than representing the views of their constituents.

Struck off at a bit of a tangent there. What was I thinking about ... oh yeah, I agree with the article.
 
#20
Goatman said:
KGB_resident said:
I could ask in this context: what Great Britain is defending now exactly?
Our island home and ancient liberties for a start Sergei. That's what Her Majesty's Royal Navy has existed for since before some damn neo-Viking Frog called William got it into his head to come over for a visit in 1066.

( That said, under this LEAST Libertarian government for 50 years, this bunch of traitorous, Stalinist dunderheads, we are in danger of letting them steal our rights inch by apathetic inch.)

How's the Black Sea fleet doing by the way ?

Lee Shaver
As I remember Goatman this illegal immigrant Willy even managed to occupy a very prominent post and even appointed British governments. Who knows, maybe modern illegal immigrants, their children would be news British rulers later or (rather) sooner?

I doubt that now British armed forces are aimed against this threat. BTW in this case ancient liberties would be forgotten.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads