"May questions UK’s top tier military status.."

#4
Because without it, SoS won't be able to fulfil his mancrush on Mad Dog Mattis...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#5
So she is happy to risk another row with her backbenchers? I suspect that both the new CDS and CGS will put her straight in terms of the risks that she is running.
 
#6
Seriously. Wouldn't this idiotic woman just be better off stepping across to the other side of the house.
 
#7
Christ she is an absolute walking disaster.

How does she have the gall to describe herself as a conservative?
 
#8
We haven't been a tier 1 military power for 10 years or so, we have neither the manpower or equipment to even claim that status. we are 32nd in the list of Navies, and defintley not in the top 10 when it comes to Airframes and Army personnel. We have a defence force at best and with recruitment and retention at a low level I can only see that getting worse.
 
#10
To give PMTM her due, this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. A lot of the discussion within Defence, and amongst the defence-minded on places like here treats the idea of the UK as a Tier 1 military power as a given.

It's not. We live in a democracy, where the voters choose a government, and influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.

Many of them - most, I suspect - do not understand what a Tier 1 military power is, let alone why it matters that the UK is one. They want to know why the UK is spending billions on expensive pieces of military equipment when the NHS is struggling, school funding isn't being increased, the pension age is rising, and taxes are going to rise.

As has been the case for the last ten years, there is no money. The UK still has a substantial national debt - the interest on that debt costs about as much annually as the defence budget. The government is still running a deficit. An aging population needs more health care, and pensions.

Brexit will cost the government GBP 300m a week in tax revenues.

If politicians, and the armed forces, cannot explain in words of one syllable or less, why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have ships, planes, submarines and tanks, then bluntly there is no case to be a Tier 1 military power.

And given the points being made repeatedly on here and in other forums my the defence community about the challenges of trying to be a Tier 1 power on the cheap, what is the cost benefit analysis of finding more money to retain a status that will cost increasingly large amounts of cash?

What is self evident to you is not the same as being beyond doubt. Make a case.
 
#12
To give PMTM her due, this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. A lot of the discussion within Defence, and amongst the defence-minded on places like here treats the idea of the UK as a Tier 1 military power as a given.

It's not. We live in a democracy, where the voters choose a government, and influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.

Many of them - most, I suspect - do not understand what a Tier 1 military power is, let alone why it matters that the UK is one. They want to know why the UK is spending billions on expensive pieces of military equipment when the NHS is struggling, school funding isn't being increased, the pension age is rising, and taxes are going to rise.

As has been the case for the last ten years, there is no money. The UK still has a substantial national debt - the interest on that debt costs about as much annually as the defence budget. The government is still running a deficit. An aging population needs more health care, and pensions.

Brexit will cost the government GBP 300m a week in tax revenues.

If politicians, and the armed forces, cannot explain in words of one syllable or less, why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have ships, planes, submarines and tanks, then bluntly there is no case to be a Tier 1 military power.

And given the points being made repeatedly on here and in other forums my the defence community about the challenges of trying to be a Tier 1 power on the cheap, what is the cost benefit analysis of finding more money to retain a status that will cost increasingly large amounts of cash?

What is self evident to you is not the same as being beyond doubt. Make a case.
There is money. It just gets wasted on crap that isnt important.

The NHS isnt struggling - its extremely badly managed

Why the **** would we be losing £300m a week following Brexit? You ******* loon.


Otherwise, perfectly reasonable for May to question it.
 
#15
To give PMTM her due, this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. A lot of the discussion within Defence, and amongst the defence-minded on places like here treats the idea of the UK as a Tier 1 military power as a given.

It's not. We live in a democracy, where the voters choose a government, and influence how much tax they pay, and how it is spent.

Many of them - most, I suspect - do not understand what a Tier 1 military power is, let alone why it matters that the UK is one. They want to know why the UK is spending billions on expensive pieces of military equipment when the NHS is struggling, school funding isn't being increased, the pension age is rising, and taxes are going to rise.

As has been the case for the last ten years, there is no money. The UK still has a substantial national debt - the interest on that debt costs about as much annually as the defence budget. The government is still running a deficit. An aging population needs more health care, and pensions.

Brexit will cost the government GBP 300m a week in tax revenues.

If politicians, and the armed forces, cannot explain in words of one syllable or less, why the public need to accept less of the things they want because it's important to have ships, planes, submarines and tanks, then bluntly there is no case to be a Tier 1 military power.

And given the points being made repeatedly on here and in other forums my the defence community about the challenges of trying to be a Tier 1 power on the cheap, what is the cost benefit analysis of finding more money to retain a status that will cost increasingly large amounts of cash?

What is self evident to you is not the same as being beyond doubt. Make a case.


The vast majority of the UK population evidently cannot manage even a basic household budget. They absolutely do not comprehend the cost of NHS, education, pensions and other welfare support. Furthermore, they have, over decades, been lulled into a belief system that they can live out their entire lives whilst being funded by the state, and that any shortage of cash for nice stuff is down to government to produce. Most people cannot even visualise the world beyond their own immediate needs and desires, and are certainly not capable of comprehending great geo-political themes.

Ergo the duty of responsible government is to sensibly provide and fund the necessary institutions of state for the safety and well-being of the country, and to take those funding decisions on behalf of the electorate. Defence, more than anything else, cannot merely be left to transient public sentiment.
 
#16
We haven't been a tier 1 military power for 10 years or so, we have neither the manpower or equipment to even claim that status. we are 32nd in the list of Navies, and defintley not in the top 10 when it comes to Airframes and Army personnel. We have a defence force at best and with recruitment and retention at a low level I can only see that getting worse.
What's worse we aren't even trying, all those pointless 'light' units soaking up the budget but justifying lots of VSOs. We rightly claim the NHS is badly run but then won't face the hard choices to field a proper albeit small army.
 
#17
I presume this has been leaked by SoS to make himself look good to the parts of the Tory party that voted for Brexit to regain an Empire.
 
#18
There is money. It just gets wasted on crap that isnt important.

The NHS isnt struggling - its extremely badly managed

Why the **** would we be losing £300m a week following Brexit? You ******* loon.


Otherwise, perfectly reasonable for May to question it.
It's no more or less badly managed than the Armed Forces.

It's struggling because we insist that our Grannies and Granddads, who have dementia, are treated for their cancer and given a hip operation, all within the same two or three years, just before they die.
 
#19
It's no more or less badly managed than the Armed Forces.

It's struggling because we insist that our Grannies and Granddads, who have dementia, are treated for their cancer and given a hip operation, all within the same two or three years, just before they die.
Do the healthcare systems in other countries cope better? Do we need to look at European or Scandinavian models of funding and managing healthcare? What savings could be generated by greater investment in preventative medicine?
 
#20
Frankly its her job to question - I want to know that if she's going to sign off on more money, which means coming out of my pocket through tax rises, that the homework has been done.
Given the manner that MOD has spent years going 'Tier 1 military power' coupled with 'need more money' coupled with squeals of anguished outrage every time someone suggests simple ways of saving money to create headroom, frankly its created a perfect storm.
Its utter common sense to check the homework, make sure the sums add up and that Defence NEEDS more money, rather than WANTS more money, and that its spending it in the right way.

Given threats we face increasingly diverse, having 300 extra challenger 2 tanks may look good, but may also not be the counter to the threats we have.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top