More cash for Defence?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Simpering Civvie, Oct 3, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    • Informative Informative x 3
  1. Purple_Flash

    Purple_Flash LE Moderator

    But, it must be remembered that all sorts of creative accounting was used to make that paltry 2%, including moving pension payouts to the Defence Budget.
    • Informative Informative x 7
    • Like Like x 5
  2. As a total civilian: yes obviously. The worlds not getting any safer and I'd like me and mine to be kept safe - rough men standing guard and all that.
  3. Would they do anymore ‘defending’ with more money, how much money would that take, and how would it contribute to better defending from terror?

    Currently defence is under funded and has to be heavily justified
    Personnel are under recruited against the number that there are meant to be

    Would more money mean more ‘defence’ or just get sucked into what’s under spent already ?
    • Like Like x 3
    Once again, 2% on Defence includes armed forces pensions and a lot more than an Army, Air Force or Navy:
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Although the NATO standard for measuring defence spending does say you should include pensions I'm that 2%
  6. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    In the good old days before amalgamation under the MoD, the Navy Estimates started with Vote 'A', the pensions and other overheads that couldn't be challenged. Then votes for manpower, ships, kit etc.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  7. Sarastro

    Sarastro LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    According to me, my tax rate should be thought of as a ceiling, rather than a floor. I'm pushing the HMRC to reduce it. I think I have a better chance.

    But you're probably right. After all, what possible reason could Conservative politicians at conference have to say things they aren't actually going to do?
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Still not going to get bods through the door or keep them from signing off though!
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Cynical

    Cynical LE Book Reviewer

    Minor political problem is that for Tories to admit that the country is undefended would point to the sorry history of defence funding under Conservatives (who believe (ish) in balanced budgets, which inevitably means cuts as numeric and commercial illiterates trash procurement) compared to Labour, who believe in lavishing money on public services, to be paid for by grand children.

    And never forget it was Labour who sold the RR Nene to Soviet Union for civilian uses. When (presumably due to an administrative error in Moscow) it turned up in MiG-15 the whole Cold War got rather serious.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Roughly 24 hours after Fallon suggested that 2% be increased, May, between coughing fits, stated that the government would continue to spend 2%.
  11. Yes but if she coughed & spluttered 3 times does that mean Defence spending will rise to 6%?
  12. Here is an interesting chart:

    Obviously the advancement in defence technology means things cost a lot more these days, not to mention inflation etc. In 1990 when we had a much larger defence capability the Government spent £24 Billion, In 2020 we are spending over double.

    Attached Files:

    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. Lovely advanced technology and still struggling with recruiting numbers to man it all!
  14. Looking at the Nato definition of 2%, which includes pensions, how long before at least a quarter of defence spending is received by myself and fellow arrse's.
    If only we could claim expenses like the House of Lords:):):):):):):):)