We need them: how do we pay?

#1
The Prime Minister has surprised service chiefs by finally admitting that more will have to be spent on our Armed Forces. Military experts, though, disagree about where the money should come from

The message to the Army recruits was blunt but clear: parachute training is cancelled. The RAF has run out of aircraft. For the troops who had joined the four-week military parachuting course at RAF Brize Norton, in Oxfordshire, just four days earlier, it was a morale-sapping blow.

Instead of joining their regiments as qualified parachutists ready to jump into battle, the 60 troops, 20 of whom were raw recruits, were ordered to return to their units without their coveted wings, the mark of an elite airborne soldier.

In order to complete the course, the troops would have needed just one of the RAF's fleet of Hercules transport aircraft for a two-week period. But the operational demands of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now so immense that commanders are being forced to sacrifice military training programmes almost every week to ensure that the troops on the front line are properly equipped. It is a position, say many senior officers, that is simply unsustainable.


Sunday Telegraph

Edited for copyright etc. PTP
 
#2
Possibly a little less concern about the welfare of foreign despots and their peoples, and a little more over our own domestic depot's people and their safety, security and welfare.

Socialists, quasi-socialists and project whores alike need to accept that their vile experiment has been a travesty. Time for regime change.
 
#3
Whiskybreath said:
Possibly a little less concern about the welfare of foreign despots and their peoples, and a little more over our own domestic depot's people and their safety, security and welfare.
Yep they have attempted to fulfill all of the promises made in drunken young labour meetings at the students union, and low and behold! Its actually not that simple or that easy! They have even had to bin Clair Short.

Gosh who ever would of thought it
 
#4
is it time to bring back some form of national service?

with armed forces one option, instead of underwater basket-weaving, tree-hugging, and other forms of community service.

and also some new form of war-loan gilt, like the 1936 issue. &c.. :shock:
 
#6
It has for many years been a wonder to me where the Peace Dividen from the Cold War went.
All armies are an exspensive exercise and War time armies have the cost go through the roof.
Tone Dear Tone wanted to play World Statesman, a Leader on the World Stage but his 'Soon to be successor' has never wanted to pay for it.
Brown who made the statement that still sticks in my Brain, 'With £10 Billion I could end illitracy in Africa'.
The nation is in hock and maybe in Gordens reign the chickens will cum home to roost.
john
 
#7
Its time that Britain faced up to the fact they are no longer a world power. The proposed forthcoming reduction in the navy will be a positive step in achieving this but more needs to be done. It would be even better Britain withdrew its troops from in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan allowing the government to make significant cuts in manpower thus saving money which could be better spent on domestic issues. How much money could be spent by not building those two huge carriers? Enough to wipe out much of the debt in Africa no doubt.
Its nice to see someone has finally has woken up to what a complete waste of cash parachute training is. No British parachutist has been dropped since Suez yet millions of pounds have been spent since training people for something that will never happen. Why? At least this government has the balls to make the right decisions when it comes to defence spending. Pity they can’t get the issue of Trident sorted by taking a strong stance and getting rid of it!
 
#8
Didn't Fallshirmjaegar do a jump in this new year?

Is the Telegraph now claiming that only new recruits are being denied Jumps? I am getting confused by this story
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#10
The irony of this whole situation is that as a country we as rich as we have ever been. We have the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. As a nation we could afford everything the Armed Forces need by way of expensive equipment, hospitals and major civil engineering projects.

So where is all the money and why don't we have the kit we need? The answer simply is two-fold. Most of the money is in your pockets or tied up in the cost of your house. Secondly, money is allocated disproportionately, i.e. the rich are getting richer.

House prices compared to average household income is running well above its 50 year equilibrium level. In plain terms, lots of money is tied up in housing. The average punter's disposible income for spending on new cars, socialising, holidays, electronic gadgets, clothes, football, etc, is also at an all time high. The money is there, it is all just tied up in the wrong stuff.

New Labour remember when we had a proper left wing govt in the 1970s. High taxation then ended with Labour being vote out of office. New Labour cannot forget this, even though we have a massively different economy now than we had then. We were a much poorer country then. We are rich now. Consider the age of your car, the places you go on holiday, the cost of your house, how many times a week you go out on the lash, etc.

New Labour (like most parties) are scared of increases to direct taxation even though we can afford them. We therefore have seen massive increases in indirect taxation.

In summary, as a country we are as rich as ever. We can afford the C-130s, more C-17s, the large aircraft carriers and everything else. We are just unlikely to get a govt who will be bold enough to make the right decision and fund it through taxation.

Cleverer people than me will critique what I had said but the money is there. The political leadership is, once agin, lacking.
 
#11
Mr_Logic said:
The irony of this whole situation is that as a country we as rich as we have ever been. We have the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. As a nation we could afford everything the Armed Forces need by way of expensive equipment, hospitals and major civil engineering projects.

So where is all the money and why don't we have the kit we need? The answer simply is two-fold. Most of the money is in your pockets or tied up in the cost of your house. Secondly, money is allocated disproportionately, i.e. the rich are getting richer.

House prices compared to average household income is running well above its 50 year equilibrium level. In plain terms, lots of money is tied up in housing. The average punter's disposible income for spending on new cars, socialising, holidays, electronic gadgets, clothes, football, etc, is also at an all time high. The money is there, it is all just tied up in the wrong stuff.

New Labour remember when we had a proper left wing govt in the 1970s. High taxation then ended with Labour being vote out of office. New Labour cannot forget this, even though we have a massively different economy now than we had then. We were a much poorer country then. We are rich now. Consider the age of your car, the places you go on holiday, the cost of your house, how many times a week you go out on the lash, etc.

New Labour (like most parties) are scared of increases to direct taxation even though we can afford them. We therefore have seen massive increases in indirect taxation.

In summary, as a country we are as rich as ever. We can afford the C-130s, more C-17s, the large aircraft carriers and everything else. We are just unlikely to get a govt who will be bold enough to make the right decision and fund it through taxation.

Cleverer people than me will critique what I had said but the money is there. The political leadership is, once agin, lacking.
Hear hear

Although Yours is a message that some on here will not want to listen to
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#12
low-profile said:
is it time to bring back some form of national service?

with armed forces one option, instead of underwater basket-weaving, tree-hugging, and other forms of community service.

and also some new form of war-loan gilt, like the 1936 issue. &c.. :shock:
The Army doesn't want national service as having an all volunteer army keeps standards higher.

The reason military national service was ended in the 1960s was that the nation could not afford to have 200,000+ young men taken out of productive (i.e. wealth generating) work in the nation's economy.

The only reason that I would support any form of national service type program is to employ the scrotes who refuse to work long term. They could be made to do something for the common benefit for the minimum wage. Give them a shitty job that incentivises them to off their arrses and cancell all benefits if they refuse. Given modern legislation, this would, of course, apply to females as well as males.
 
#13
logical_log said:
Its time that Britain faced up to the fact they are no longer a world power. The proposed forthcoming reduction in the navy will be a positive step in achieving this but more needs to be done. It would be even better Britain withdrew its troops from in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan allowing the government to make significant cuts in manpower thus saving money which could be better spent on domestic issues. How much money could be spent by not building those two huge carriers? Enough to wipe out much of the debt in Africa no doubt.
Its nice to see someone has finally has woken up to what a complete waste of cash parachute training is. No British parachutist has been dropped since Suez yet millions of pounds have been spent since training people for something that will never happen. Why? At least this government has the balls to make the right decisions when it comes to defence spending. Pity they can’t get the issue of Trident sorted by taking a strong stance and getting rid of it!

Knob. Do not learn the wrong lessons from history. A number of op descents have taken place since Suez. Not many, I grant you, however if we remove that particular 'club' from the 'golf bag' how else can we demonstrate strategic reach at very high readiness onto an objective.


bt80
 
#15
bt80 said:
logical_log said:
Its time that Britain faced up to the fact they are no longer a world power. The proposed forthcoming reduction in the navy will be a positive step in achieving this but more needs to be done. It would be even better Britain withdrew its troops from in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan allowing the government to make significant cuts in manpower thus saving money which could be better spent on domestic issues. How much money could be spent by not building those two huge carriers? Enough to wipe out much of the debt in Africa no doubt.
Its nice to see someone has finally has woken up to what a complete waste of cash parachute training is. No British parachutist has been dropped since Suez yet millions of pounds have been spent since training people for something that will never happen. Why? At least this government has the balls to make the right decisions when it comes to defence spending. Pity they can’t get the issue of Trident sorted by taking a strong stance and getting rid of it!

Knob. Do not learn the wrong lessons from history. A number of op descents have taken place since Suez. Not many, I grant you, however if we remove that particular 'club' from the 'golf bag' how else can we demonstrate strategic reach at very high readiness onto an objective.


bt80
Hear hear bt80. An inability to go in at Kolwezi comes to mind. Africa is in sh1t state and us cancelling all of Africas' foreign debt wouldn't do a goddamned thing! We could do better by having 3 FSJ brigades and dropping them in on Mugabe, giving him and his cronies a quick, fair Field General Court Martial followed by good a good shooting. As for getting rid of Trident, do we really want to be the mercy of Pakistan, Iran etc? :shakefist: :threaten: And you are correct - he is a knob!
 
#17
jimmys_best_mate said:
logical_log said:
How much money could be spent by not building those two huge carriers? Enough to wipe out much of the debt in Africa no doubt.
Why the fuck should we? They ran the debts up, not us.
Yes, but we did lend them the money knowing full well they could never pay it back.

msr
 
#18
msr said:
jimmys_best_mate said:
logical_log said:
How much money could be spent by not building those two huge carriers? Enough to wipe out much of the debt in Africa no doubt.
Why the fuck should we? They ran the debts up, not us.
Yes, but we did lend them the money knowing full well they could never pay it back.

msr
True but what would they have done without it? Mind you it wasn't the people we lent it to, it was the corrupt wnakers who ran them and squandered the money on God alone knows what.
 
#19
Unfortunately defence is expensive and as much as we all know we should have/need more funding, Joe Public is not willing to cough it up. Whilst the government undoubtedly waste money - the MOD manage to in spectacular style. It comes down to us or the NHS/Education and that's one battle we are not going to win. Dog toffee.
 

Top