Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

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

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
We are dealing with the consequences of the "baby boomers" getting old. Coupled to improvements in 20th century public health, we have an elderly population that is in physically good shape.
Mortality is right down.
Morbidity is way up.
The elderly aren't dying of tobacco related lung cancers, industrial injury, malnutrition or TB a couple of years after retiring.
They are dying at the end of their natural span with a host of annoying, expensive but non fatal manageable conditions.

The services they require tend to be long term social care. This is more expensive than a couple of weeks in hospital then home.

The biggest avoidable costs are all public health issues.(Which is cheap, but politically unpopular).
Ban tobacco.
Tax sugar.
Encourage exercise.

The NHS is not really a "health "service. It is an "illness management" service.
 
Yeah that seemed a weird stat. Might be in terms of tonnage but even then seems low. I seem to recall we are one of only three credible blue water navies.

Hull numbers maybe? Lots of of countries have loads of FACs/FIACs (or whatever were calling them this season) which gets lots of numbers for a low price
 
There is money. It just gets wasted on crap that isnt important
... To you, me and people on here. The problem is the other 98% of voters who want stuff NOW. A large standing army has never been a vote winner and it was only the Cold War that allowed a golden age for the Royal Armoured Corps in particular. All those regiments amalgamated away in 1992 and several times since would have been history in 1946 without the Cold War. Just like they were disbanded or amalgamated after every previous war.

If PMTM wants to win the next election, spúnking money on tanks instead of the NHS isn't the way to do it.
 
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.

Does the financial, human, and reputational (is that a word?) legacy of Telic and Herrick mean politicians and public cannot place as much faith in defence?

We are dealing with the consequences of the "baby boomers" getting old. Coupled to improvements in 20th century public health, we have an elderly population that is in physically good shape.
Mortality is right down.
Morbidity is way up.
The elderly aren't dying of tobacco related lung cancers, industrial injury, malnutrition or TB a couple of years after retiring.
They are dying at the end of their natural span with a host of annoying, expensive but non fatal manageable conditions.

The services they require tend to be long term social care. This is more expensive than a couple of weeks in hospital then home.

The biggest avoidable costs are all public health issues.(Which is cheap, but politically unpopular).
Ban tobacco.
Tax sugar.
Encourage exercise.

The NHS is not really a "health "service. It is an "illness management" service.

But "we have always done it this way......". Beware of proposing a holistic approach to health and welfare. Wait for the 'nanny state' cries...
 
If PMTM wants to win the next election, spúnking money on tanks instead of the NHS isn't the way to do it.


And so what happens when there is literally no money left in other pots (defence, policing, borders, trading standards, justice system, prisons, transport, Foreign Office, Trade, etc)?

At some point, a PM with balls is just going to have to stand up and explain in words of one syllable that there just isn't another £20bn to throw into the NHS or housing benefit.

Wrecking the country just to buy NHS votes is a cowardly, destructive course of action. Thats the central easy-vote methodology of leftist parties that have no viable economic manifesto.

A so-called Conservative government should be trying to educate the population about money, reform the horrific financial black holes of welfare, reduce the debt burden, and keep the other institutions of the country in decent shape.

Throwing cash at the NHS is actually profoundly counter-productive from an electoral point of view. The comments sections of the tabloids (ie the vox populi of the mass unwashed) are overwhelming in favour of the NHS being thoroughly reformed before money is thrown at it. Add to that the millions who withold their conservative vote because they do not want high tax/high spend socialism, and there is a significant vote in financial prudence.

IMHO May is going to lose the next election anyway. Every week or so she is angering and insulting sections of the dwindling conservative voter base.
 
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.


I'd love to see the scale of metrics from which you posit this. Whilst I fully concede we are right short on numbers of personnel, ships and aircraft, the technological difference is supposed to make up for numbers.

I also acknowledge the simplicity of that point (mass vs technology), but it is still the case we are top 10 (and possible top 6) in terms of GDP spent, probably top 4 in terms of nuclear warhead numbers, one of a very small (<10) number with a full sized carrier (yes yes it has nothing pointy on board at the moment).

You also comment about being a defence force, I'm not sure the relevance of this. If you are referring to Army numbers, it is presumably because you conflate not having the numbers for an Echelon made up of more than one Corps, with not having an Army. Even Lichtenstein, with 3 squaddies and a regimental goat, can call the land based facet of their armed forces, an Army, because the numbers of such a formation do not predicate what it is called.
 
Government expenditure and debt is one part of the the equation. The other is tax revenue and national income. What is the Government doing to promote exports and other forms of international trade, make British companies more competitive, and promote and agile and innovative economy?

Oh, silly me...

Ultimately all things desired to come from the public purse have to be paid for by the private sector, so providing an environment in which businesses can grown and thrive should be a top priority.

As with the discussion regarding the NHS about treatments provided and healthcare funding, discussions about the education system and how it was 'better' thirty/forty years ago (guess what - the world has changed, so must schooling), or about defence (why are we building carriers when we cannot keep a frigate/destroyer in the Carribean all the time), we need to be innovative and agile.

Innovation and agility must play a part across all aspects of public and private endeavour, if we are to stand any chance of meeting future challenges.
 

New posts

Top