Does not surprise me in the least.
We now have a part time military made up of thousands of reservists and members of the TA.
I think he wants to increase this part of the military and get rid of more full time posts.
Lets face it, if we had a thread for every promise feeble Dave breaks we would fill the forum,
probably best to make threads about him keeping a promise as it would take up less room and would actually be news?
I've not read the article but the Conservatives have always been in favour of strong defence (unlike Labour), so if the Tories are having to compromise on defence spending, it's very much against the grain and their natural instincts.
I've not read the article but the Conservatives have always been in favour of strong defence (unlike Labour), so if the Tories are having to compromise on defence spending, it's very much against the grain and their natural instincts.
Nothing is making them compromise on defence spending. They chose instead to enshrine in law a guarantee to send billions abroad in so-called foreign aid so that other countries could fund defend forces that we can no longer afford.
Nothing is making them compromise on defence spending. They chose instead to enshrine in law a guarantee to send billions abroad in so-called foreign aid so that other countries could fund defend forces that we can no longer afford.
Don't forget their number one priority though, sheltering their wealthy supporters and party funders from feeling any of the impact of their cuts in the way us plebs have.
This has to be paid for, and other than actually starving the underclass to death (watch this space if they win an election) then the money to shelter their friends has to come from somewhere.
Nothing is making them compromise on defence spending. They chose instead to enshrine in law a guarantee to send billions abroad in so-called foreign aid so that other countries could fund defend forces that we can no longer afford.
A nice attempt at spin. Yes there is cross-party consensus to fund overseas aid (IMHO a misguided attempt by DC to deflect the "nasty party" tag).
The real purpose of this aid is to help prevent extremism developing over there and then coming over here. So it's not only a waste of money, but also ineffective.
Natural Tories would undoubtedly cut foreign aid and spend the savings on defence but DC's "lets be more fluffy" policies dictate otherwise.
BTW Defence = £38 billion, international development = £10 billion.
At last September’s Nato summit in Wales, participating nations agreed a statement committing those who currently spend less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence to “halt any decline in expenditure”. They were also encouraged to move back to the 2 per cent target within a decade as growth returned.
From your own link
Countries already spending above 2 per cent, including the UK, agreed to “aim to continue to do so”. The British Government promised to meet this target for the financial year 2015-16, but not beyond.
A nice attempt at spin. Yes there is cross-party consensus to fund overseas aid (IMHO a misguided attempt by DC to deflect the "nasty party" tag).
The real purpose of this aid is to help prevent extremism developing over there and then coming over here. So it's not only a waste of money, but also ineffective.
Natural Tories would undoubtedly cut foreign aid and spend the savings on defence but DC's "lets be more fluffy" policies dictate otherwise.
BTW Defence = £38 billion, international development = £10 billion.
I am not spinning anything. It is Cameron's choice to cut defence and renege on the country's NATO commitment, just as it is his choice to lock in spending on 'overseas aid.' He could choose to cut the 'overseas aid' budget and have more than enough to meet the NATO requirement on defence spending.
Whatever the reasons for doing something ( a thread of it's very own is needed) the fact is that David Cameron has broken promise after promise on a wide range of issues.
So,
Did he promise these things without knowing if it could be done?
Did he promise these things knowing he was not going to do them?
Did he promise these things believing they could be done, and then finding out they couldn't?
Whatever the reason he has no legitimate excuse for breaking such specific promises.
Either he's incompetent or a brazen liar.
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?
Bernard Woolley: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people *believe* Britain is defended.
Bernard Woolley: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it's not.
Politicians write promissory checks that no one can cash all the time. It's only likely to get worse while we continue to have governments with no overall control. On the bright side the more regulations stay the same the more predictable conditions will be for business while Westminster is in gridlock.
At last September’s Nato summit in Wales, participating nations agreed a statement committing those who currently spend less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence to “halt any decline in expenditure”. They were also encouraged to move back to the 2 per cent target within a decade as growth returned.
From your own link
Countries already spending above 2 per cent, including the UK, agreed to “aim to continue to do so”. The British Government promised to meet this target for the financial year 2015-16, but not beyond.
An aim is not a solemn promise.
Thats why in the land of the politician he's not telling lies. He has an aspiration to meet the 2% target - s ometime , somewhere, eventually, when someone else is PM, or pigs fly.
A smarter Labour leader - with less need to pander to his left - would trump this, and restore his own credibility as being fit and responsible enough for office, by agreeing to met the target.
Farage should be jumping all over this - instead of droning on in his own fantasyland about immigration and the EU. Its a superb opportunity to claim Cameron is unpatriotic and irresponsible.
Whatever the reasons for doing something ( a thread of it's very own is needed) the fact is that David Cameron has broken promise after promise on a wide range of issues.
So,
Did he promise these things without knowing if it could be done?
Did he promise these things knowing he was not going to do them?
Did he promise these things believing they could be done, and then finding out they couldn't?
Whatever the reason he has no legitimate excuse for breaking such specific promises.
Either he's incompetent or a brazen liar.
But he didn't promise - he aspired to meet, or he wished to see, or he didn't expect to cut. Its pure Sir Humphrey speak - imlying a commitment without making one, and suggesting an objective that you have no intenton of meeting
Its like Labour saying they will look at rail nationalisation - when any Labour chancellor to be will be screaming over my dead body - as it means money thats not there would be is needed, and government then gets the blame for every cancelled train.
There's a NATO agreement about members spending 2% of GDP on defence. We currently spend a little more than that so could in theory reduce that a bit and maintain that target over a given period and I've not heard anything from the tories to suggest they aren't going to maintain that 2% average so what promise has Cameron supposedly broken?
It's the Navy we need to strengthen, not the Army.
In 2012, The Strategic Defence Review cut Army manpower from 102,000 to 82,000, saving, according to George Osborne, £4.7 billion in manpower costs and £3.8 billion in equipment costs by this year. Putting aside the effect this could have on Britain’s ability to defend itself, we have been in similar situations in the past. Approximate army strengths at times of crisis in the past have been:
1750, pre 7 years war: 78,900, 1800 pre Napoleonic War: 80,300, 1939, start of WWII: 230,000, 1969, start of NI Troubles: 174,000, 1982: Start of Falklands War: 159,000. 2001, Start of Afghanistan War: 110,000 (source: Imperial War Museum)
Bearing in mind that Britain has always had a strong navy which has protected the country from invasion and has only ever needed an army for overseas conflicts, where foreign powers are concerned, then should we not be more concerned with the strength and fighting effectiveness of our seaborne forces to prevent any future invasion of the UK homeland, and especially in the light of our waning interest in supporting American imperialism.
More than 16’000 troops have become available for redeployment due to the winding down of Britain’s commitment to the army on the Rhine. With this, an army of 82,000 can easily cover Britain’s commitment to NATO and our overseas interests such as the Falklands.
If any branch of our armed forces needs strengthening, it is the Royal Navy, and not with aircraft carriers either. In my opinion, greater priority should be given to the frigate and destroyer fleet which provides multi-purpose warships capable of performing a variety of roles and can be deployed quickly.
Britain is still an island. We need an effective navy more than a big army.
I've not read the article but the Conservatives have always been in favour of strong defence (unlike Labour), so if the Tories are having to compromise on defence spending, it's very much against the grain and their natural instincts.
Where have you been.
Mrs Thatcher had to beg steal and borough to get our troops to the Falklands .
We took perfectly workable aircraft carriers out of service long before the new ones would be ready.
Now we have thousands of military personnel being made redundant while we face more attacks from terrorists .
And if you want to go back much further the then Conservative Government sat on its hands while Hitler rearmed.
Lets face it, if we had a thread for every promise feeble Dave breaks we would fill the forum,
probably best to make threads about him keeping a promise as it would take up less room and would actually be news?
;-)
It's just another pledge that he's broken. I don't really take anything he says seriously anymore.
Where have you been.
Mrs Thatcher had to beg steal and borough to get our troops to the Falklands .
We took perfectly workable aircraft carriers out of service long before the new ones would be ready.
Now we have thousands of military personnel being made redundant while we face more attacks from terrorists .
And if you want to go back much further the then Conservative Government sat on its hands while Hitler rearmed.
Don't worry. We've got Trident to protect us. We're a bit like a suicide bomber. Of course if Russia decided to invade rather than simply drop nukes there wouldn't be a lot we could do.
onecitizen
Posts: 5,042
Comments
Does not surprise me in the least.
We now have a part time military made up of thousands of reservists and members of the TA.
I think he wants to increase this part of the military and get rid of more full time posts.
probably best to make threads about him keeping a promise as it would take up less room and would actually be news?
;-)
Nothing is making them compromise on defence spending. They chose instead to enshrine in law a guarantee to send billions abroad in so-called foreign aid so that other countries could fund defend forces that we can no longer afford.
Don't forget their number one priority though, sheltering their wealthy supporters and party funders from feeling any of the impact of their cuts in the way us plebs have.
This has to be paid for, and other than actually starving the underclass to death (watch this space if they win an election) then the money to shelter their friends has to come from somewhere.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-leave-smallest-army-oliver-5298182
A nice attempt at spin. Yes there is cross-party consensus to fund overseas aid (IMHO a misguided attempt by DC to deflect the "nasty party" tag).
The real purpose of this aid is to help prevent extremism developing over there and then coming over here. So it's not only a waste of money, but also ineffective.
Natural Tories would undoubtedly cut foreign aid and spend the savings on defence but DC's "lets be more fluffy" policies dictate otherwise.
BTW Defence = £38 billion, international development = £10 billion.
At last September’s Nato summit in Wales, participating nations agreed a statement committing those who currently spend less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence to “halt any decline in expenditure”. They were also encouraged to move back to the 2 per cent target within a decade as growth returned.
From your own link
Countries already spending above 2 per cent, including the UK, agreed to “aim to continue to do so”. The British Government promised to meet this target for the financial year 2015-16, but not beyond.
An aim is not a solemn promise.
So do I and the same goes for the emergency services being cut
I am not spinning anything. It is Cameron's choice to cut defence and renege on the country's NATO commitment, just as it is his choice to lock in spending on 'overseas aid.' He could choose to cut the 'overseas aid' budget and have more than enough to meet the NATO requirement on defence spending.
So,
Did he promise these things without knowing if it could be done?
Did he promise these things knowing he was not going to do them?
Did he promise these things believing they could be done, and then finding out they couldn't?
Whatever the reason he has no legitimate excuse for breaking such specific promises.
Either he's incompetent or a brazen liar.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Bernard Woolley: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people *believe* Britain is defended.
Bernard Woolley: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it's not.
Reclassify international development or foreign aid as a part of defense spending and jobs a good un.
Thats why in the land of the politician he's not telling lies. He has an aspiration to meet the 2% target - s ometime , somewhere, eventually, when someone else is PM, or pigs fly.
A smarter Labour leader - with less need to pander to his left - would trump this, and restore his own credibility as being fit and responsible enough for office, by agreeing to met the target.
Farage should be jumping all over this - instead of droning on in his own fantasyland about immigration and the EU. Its a superb opportunity to claim Cameron is unpatriotic and irresponsible.
But he didn't promise - he aspired to meet, or he wished to see, or he didn't expect to cut. Its pure Sir Humphrey speak - imlying a commitment without making one, and suggesting an objective that you have no intenton of meeting
Its like Labour saying they will look at rail nationalisation - when any Labour chancellor to be will be screaming over my dead body - as it means money thats not there would be is needed, and government then gets the blame for every cancelled train.
In 2012, The Strategic Defence Review cut Army manpower from 102,000 to 82,000, saving, according to George Osborne, £4.7 billion in manpower costs and £3.8 billion in equipment costs by this year. Putting aside the effect this could have on Britain’s ability to defend itself, we have been in similar situations in the past. Approximate army strengths at times of crisis in the past have been:
1750, pre 7 years war: 78,900, 1800 pre Napoleonic War: 80,300, 1939, start of WWII: 230,000, 1969, start of NI Troubles: 174,000, 1982: Start of Falklands War: 159,000. 2001, Start of Afghanistan War: 110,000 (source: Imperial War Museum)
Bearing in mind that Britain has always had a strong navy which has protected the country from invasion and has only ever needed an army for overseas conflicts, where foreign powers are concerned, then should we not be more concerned with the strength and fighting effectiveness of our seaborne forces to prevent any future invasion of the UK homeland, and especially in the light of our waning interest in supporting American imperialism.
More than 16’000 troops have become available for redeployment due to the winding down of Britain’s commitment to the army on the Rhine. With this, an army of 82,000 can easily cover Britain’s commitment to NATO and our overseas interests such as the Falklands.
If any branch of our armed forces needs strengthening, it is the Royal Navy, and not with aircraft carriers either. In my opinion, greater priority should be given to the frigate and destroyer fleet which provides multi-purpose warships capable of performing a variety of roles and can be deployed quickly.
Britain is still an island. We need an effective navy more than a big army.
Where have you been.
Mrs Thatcher had to beg steal and borough to get our troops to the Falklands .
We took perfectly workable aircraft carriers out of service long before the new ones would be ready.
Now we have thousands of military personnel being made redundant while we face more attacks from terrorists .
And if you want to go back much further the then Conservative Government sat on its hands while Hitler rearmed.
It's just another pledge that he's broken. I don't really take anything he says seriously anymore.
Don't worry. We've got Trident to protect us. We're a bit like a suicide bomber. Of course if Russia decided to invade rather than simply drop nukes there wouldn't be a lot we could do.