Further defence cuts on the way?

#2
#3
I do remember in the early 1980s ish...Labour had a leader called michael foot...part of his manifesto was to actually dispand the Uks armed forces..and remember this was a time when a cold war with russia was looming. Also , labour strongly opposed sending the task force to the falklands in 82, despite the Argies naughty invasion.

Labour has never been good for the Armed forces, so i dont know why people are surprised about possible further cuts. However, due to the two major conflicts we are engaged in now, Im shocked that any governement would do such a thing...but this is new labour were talking about.
 
#4
At least Foot was honest!
 
#5
If they carry on like this I see a coup coming on!!
 
#6
Regarding my comment about Michael foots idea of dispanding the uk armed forces..its common knowledge that top brass at whitehall were in discussion of 'getting rid' of mr foot if this would have happened.

Jeses christ british people...do not vote labout in the next election.
 
#7
armies said:
I do remember in the early 1980s ish...Labour had a leader called michael foot...part of his manifesto was to actually dispand the Uks armed forces..and remember this was a time when a cold war with russia was looming. Also , labour strongly opposed sending the task force to the falklands in 82, despite the Argies naughty invasion.

Labour has never been good for the Armed forces, so i dont know why people are surprised about possible further cuts. However, due to the two major conflicts we are engaged in now, Im shocked that any governement would do such a thing...but this is new labour were talking about.
Labour actually expanded the army, but wasn't keen on out of area projection. Hence under Labour a Parachute Bn was mechanised (3 Para got rid of their 432's about 3 months before Op Corporate) etc.

Anything that wasn't able to contribute to either the fight against the WP or IRA was converted into something that could.

It's indicative that it was Labour that ordered Warrior (2,093 of them, before Thatcher slashed the order), Challenger, SP-90, MILAN, Lynx etc., and reorganised the Army into 8 Combat Divisions.

One of the more unpopular things Labour did was integrate the TA into the BAOR, the 5th-8th Divisions were 50/50 regular/TA for example.

Foot in fact strongly supported Thatcher's sending of the TF on Op Corporate (against strong opposition from Tony Benn's faction of the Labour Party), and had been raking at the announced Conservative cuts. The post-war protests in the house were over the Thatcher governments cutting of forces and ignoring clear intelligence that the Argentine government intended to mount a Coup de Main on the islands.
 
#8
And how much more money are the Conservatives going to put into defence if they get in?

Are there any recent manifesto statements on Tory defence policy?
 
#9
If they (Labour) keep this up we will soon be on tour and stay on tour till the job is done!! It will save money on having us in the UK and funding new barracks or houses!!! Time for an election I think, lets pray for a winter of discontent!! Enough is enough
 
#10
Labour has never been good for the Armed forces
So the Conservatives were? Sorry people seem to think Maggie etc was some sort of Army Angel, she nor her following Cons were. No Goverment supports the Army, unless its a vote winner, all Goverments would love to slash Armed Forces Budgeting to a minimum.

If the Torys got in, you think that suddenly about 10 billion would find its way into the armed forces budget?

The Torys started the rot and labour carried on, if the Falklands hadnt occured,we would have gone to GW1 in sandals carrying a peashooter, after the cuts that were in place to happen.

Options for change, who implemented that?
 
#11
Is this cut wrong? Would cutting 2 bases and squadrons reduce our ability to support current ops? As I see it, the army is at the right size for whats currently needed, I didn't see any mention of extended tours or very little time at home in between tours.

I'd moan more about the closure of Linton on Ouse, resulting in many redundancies in that area. 'Moaning about more low flying' is a smoke screen, they'll get more technical jobs which the area can't support. Anyway why should Wales have less low flying than Yorkshire? Its less populated than Yorkshire, so less disturbance per captia.
 
#12
Do you really thing 'Dave' is such a good guy, granted Gordy has bottled it but the 'Boy Dave' aint the ordinary guy he tries to portray, he is still an Eaton educated toff who's party spent the best part of twenty years economically vandalising Britains industries in the name of 'Market Forces' so that she could reward the rich 'Entrepeneurs' with tax cuts to get even richer, the Falklands were fought mainly to help the old Witch cling to power, after she had quite clearly signalled to the Argies that Britain was not interested in the islands as it cost too much to administer, like all buisness men 1% saving in fixed costs is 1% added to the profit margin and the Feck you Jack i'm alright party of the Right were all for saving on spending on the ordinary working man, where did you think all the problems that we are paying for now started? the cuts in public services paid for the tax cuts that mainly benefitted the well off and as for POLL TAX how can taxing the rich at the same rates as the poor be fair, so I on my low wage paid the same poll tax as 'Maggie' that seems right!!!! do we want a return of these policies and by the way 3million on the dole and interest rates at 15%?!!!!!
 
#13
polar said:
Is this cut wrong? Would cutting 2 bases and squadrons reduce our ability to support current ops? As I see it, the army is at the right size for whats currently needed, I didn't see any mention of extended tours or very little time at home in between tours.

I'd moan more about the closure of Linton on Ouse, resulting in many redundancies in that area. 'Moaning about more low flying' is a smoke screen, they'll get more technical jobs which the area can't support. Anyway why should Wales have less low flying than Yorkshire? Its less populated than Yorkshire, so less disturbance per captia.
I'd be interested in knowing where you see it from, it seems very unlikely that it's from inside the forces.
The bit about the Welsh farmers doesn't actually quote any Welsh farmers. Most people on this site will have grave reservations about any cuts in the RAF as they already have insufficient air support to ensure their safety on operationsIn rely to Scarlettos post about the Tory cuts in the early 90s this was because of a reduction in the percieved threat from an enormous Soviet army. The present government not only reduce the forces but at the same time increase it's commitments.
 
#14
Any government that embarks on further defence cuts at this time is either barking f*cking mad(likely with this mob),traitors(a significant proportion of Brown's cabinet could be described as thus).

Consider the following

Britian is fighting a 2 front war with insufficient resources,

There are emerging threats from Russia(witness the recent aircraft intercepts over the North Sea),China(military spending UP by a publicised 15-17% EACH year for the last 15 years or so),and Venezuela(threats to the Falklands),not to mention Iran,Syria,etc.

If cuts have to be made,try welfare payments to workshy chavs and immigrants,oh and politicians' pay and perks.
 
#15
Le_addeur_noir said:
Consider the following

Britian is fighting a 2 front war with insufficient resources,
There are emerging threats from Russia(witness the recent aircraft intercepts over the North Sea),China(military spending UP by a publicised 15-17% EACH year for the last 15 years or so),and Venezuela(threats to the Falklands),not to mention Iran,Syria,etc. If cuts have to be made,try welfare payments to workshy chavs and immigrants,oh and politicians' pay and perks.
Sorry,you think that Labour would cut the benefits to the chav familys,the workshy and immigrants,how many votes would that lose them, its those that need gripping.Aint going to happen though.

However if China wanted to rumble, what the feck would we do, even if we had an increase in military spending, bit like a gnat biting a bear.
 
#16
Ord_Sgt said:
If they carry on like this I see a coup coming on!!
With what?

Perhaps the continual cuts are the defence against a coup?
 
#17
TheHatsRevenge said:
Do you really thing 'Dave' is such a good guy, granted Gordy has bottled it but the 'Boy Dave' aint the ordinary guy he tries to portray, he is still an Eaton educated toff who's party spent the best part of twenty years economically vandalising Britains industries in the name of 'Market Forces' so that she could reward the rich 'Entrepeneurs' with tax cuts to get even richer, the Falklands were fought mainly to help the old Witch cling to power, after she had quite clearly signalled to the Argies that Britain was not interested in the islands as it cost too much to administer, like all buisness men 1% saving in fixed costs is 1% added to the profit margin and the Feck you Jack i'm alright party of the Right were all for saving on spending on the ordinary working man, where did you think all the problems that we are paying for now started? the cuts in public services paid for the tax cuts that mainly benefitted the well off and as for POLL TAX how can taxing the rich at the same rates as the poor be fair, so I on my low wage paid the same poll tax as 'Maggie' that seems right!!!! do we want a return of these policies and by the way 3million on the dole and interest rates at 15%?!!!!!
Thanks for that poorly put together rant :roll: You started off talking about David Cameron and then moved on to Margeret Thatcher. You have no real clue about the diplomatic background of The Falkland Islands and no idea about the 'market forces' you so enjoy quoting.

I am not (yet) suggesting I agree or disagree with your politics - I just wish that that you would show a little pride and spend a little more time thinking about the drivel you write (spelling/punctuation/grammar).

If you are just posting for your own enjoyment and do not want others to read this nonsense; please carry on - you are doing fine...
 
#18
armies said:
Also , labour strongly opposed sending the task force to the falklands in 82, despite the Argies naughty invasion.
Actually, Michael Foot and his party supported Thatcher in seizing back the Falklands. One of the many reasons why the militant socialists despised the party. Try to at least convey some sense of historical accuracy, old chap. Otherwise it sounds like the US McCarthyites who would scream "commie" at everyone they didn't like. It didn't make it true.
 
#19
Sapukay - I can't remember the Labour party increasing defence capability. The linking of the TA into Field Forces was done under them, but at the Army's behest to make them more usable.
 
#20
No major Party is a friend of the Armed Forces unless it suits their needs at the time. Also, our collective vote is unlikely to radically change the Political Landscape, however p*ssed off we may be with whoever is in power.
As has been stated on numerous threads, the "masses" couldn't give a flying one for those of us taking the Queens shilling, so their vote (if they can be ars*d to vote in the first place) is not likely to be affected by a Party implementing further Defence cuts. :x
 

Latest Threads

Top