Frontline troops must now be a spending priority

#1
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.
 
#2
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?
 
#4
NHS is outsourcing lots of services within 2 years so maybe proper bean counters can check the contract bids more closely to get VFM
 
#5
jarrod248 said:
Mikal said:
NHS is outsourcing lots of services within 2 years so maybe proper bean counters can check the contract bids more closely to get VFM
Outsourcing means a private company will make a profit.
Indeed look what outsourcing has done to the Forces. Inflated prices while lowering efficiency and the removal of power from Stn CO's.

Defence Estates, MHS, Housing, DII, DFTS etc all receiving blank cheques with public money.
 
#6
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.
 
#7
Ord_Sgt said:
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.
Seconded. :evil: :x
 
#8
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:

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.
The BOE is printing money that is immediately being spent by the government on Schools/Hospitals/"Jobseekers Allowance".
 
#9
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/comment/leading_article/article6633132.ece
 
#10
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.
 
#11
Whet said:
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.
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.
 
#12
hackle said:
Whet said:
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.
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.
I agree entirely.
 
#13
Must it?

From the Times, 28 June

The threat of a recession-driven 10 per cent cut in the defence budget next year has raised more doubts over whether Britain can afford to spend £20 billion on replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent.

The Ministry of Defence’s big equipment projects are going to be re-examined in a review after the next general election, whoever is in power, with the Conservatives talking about possible 10 per cent cuts across Whitehall.
Sunday Times, today:

Gordon Brown is to announce a root and branch rethink of Britain’s defence strategy within weeks, throwing the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent into doubt.

Defence sources say the new strategic review – the first to be carried out in a decade – will look at every aspect of national security.

The move heralds another policy U-turn by the prime minister as he clears the decks for the general election campaign.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6638416.ece
That tw@t cares only marginally more about the defence of this country, than he does about what the future holds for the Afghan people, about whom he couldn't give a flying tuppenny feck.

We're in there to sustain the Special (Ha!) Relationship with Unca Sam, because it allows gunmint to avoid having to contemplate paying for things like strategic lift, and a properly sized Navy, Army and Air Force.

If you think you have been shafted already, you need to brace yourselves: you guys and gals are about to find yourselves being asked to manage with even less than you currently have available.

And it won't matter who gets in next time there's an election:

Whitehall lines up ‘doomsday’ cutbacks
Jonathan Oliver, Isabel Oakeshott and David Smith

Secret “doomsday” plans for 20% cuts in public spending are being prepared by senior civil servants, who fear politicians are failing to confront the scale of the budget black hole.

Whitehall mandarins have begun creating detailed dossiers containing reductions in expenditure that are far deeper than the more modest savings being proposed by Labour and Conservative politicians.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6638323.ece
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
Someone mentioned EFP earlier. I don't think that EFP are a problem in Afgh - at the moment. There is simply so much explosive - both HME and military - available that the Taliban can make bigger and bigger IEDs as the armour of vehicles increases. I've seen an ISAF (naming no Nation here) LAV - weighing many tonnes - thrown fifty metres; if the targets are bigger, they make bombs bigger. I presume they don't like to - it's presumably better for them to have 6 small bombs to deny an area than one big one which can be found more easily - but if it kills Westerners..........
 
#16
Disco said:
jarrod248 said:
Mikal said:
NHS is outsourcing lots of services within 2 years so maybe proper bean counters can check the contract bids more closely to get VFM
Outsourcing means a private company will make a profit.
Indeed look what outsourcing has done to the Forces. Inflated prices while lowering efficiency and the removal of power from Stn CO's.

Defence Estates, MHS, Housing, DII, DFTS etc all receiving blank cheques with public money.
How very dair you mock these bastions of efficiency and modern progressive thinking to produce results and solutions.....
 
#17
Whet said:
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.
Which is why more airlift is required! Say for instance, Chinooks! Maybe about 8 of them.
 
#18
rickshaw-major said:
Which is why more airlift is required! Say for instance, Chinooks! Maybe about 8 of them.
Are you serious? How will we pay out benefits to single teenage mothers, asylum seekers and layabouts if we spend money on stupid helicopters?
 
#19
Fallschirmjager said:
rickshaw-major said:
Which is why more airlift is required! Say for instance, Chinooks! Maybe about 8 of them.
Are you serious? How will we pay out benefits to single teenage mothers, asylum seekers and layabouts if we spend money on stupid helicopters?
Silly me! Helicopters can't vote :evil:

I fecking hate this Government but I'm also positive that Call Me Dave's lot aren't going to make it any better.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
It probably suits the Goverment to run down the Armed Forces to virtually nothing
It's no secret that Blair and Mandleson (and now Brown since Mandy's in charge) want one Europe and a European Army
We are told that there will never be another large scale tank battle so lets park Chally 2 up and develop no more new tanks
Yet turning on the news we see Danish Leopards blasting Taliban positions in support of British Troops

When (I almost put if.. then silly me) the Tories win the next election the damage will be done and may be unrecoverable

Blair will be the EU El Presidente and Mandy will have slithered back to his side don't rule out roles somewhere for the party faithful
They will push and push for a European Army and they will get it because the French Germans etc will vote it in and then carve it up

We will retain the infantry and teeth arms and do all the fighting
The French will provide some nice aircraft carriers, someone will provide helicopters and so on

That way they can claim to America and specifically Obama that they are fighting in the war on terror and fully supporting them

In reality you will get some Foreign Legion (mainly Brits and Eastern European ) and some ex Eastern States wanting to join NATO fighting on the ground along side us
Germany and the rest can hang back whilst providing "logistical" support

Balir will get everyones thanks for organising it and Mandy will rule Europe
 

Latest Threads