I am trying very hard not to get obsessive about this and I am probably failing! The Conservatives have been doing a little digging and it transpires that this government has not only increased military commitments hugely they have also cut defence spending to the lowest levels since the 1930s.
Please remember it was the defence squeeze in the 1930’s that gave Hitler the confidence to take on western Europe and directly trouncing of the BEF and the subsequent loss of life, equipment and ground in the lead up to Dunkirk.
St Crispin has asked me in the past if the Conservatives will give a commitment to increase the spending on the armed forces. Currently the back office boffins are working through our policies and spending commitments and are keeping their cards fairly close to their chests, but it is well worth remembering that there are a number of past and serving soldiers (TA) in the Conservative parliamentary team and I am sure they will not allow this poor treatment of our troops to continue.
James Cleverly AM 
The way our forces are treated is outrageous. Not only are they under funded, but they are badly housed and ill-equiped.
These boys and girls lay their lives on the line day in and day out to protect the interests of Britain – let’s have a bit more recognition for them!
The way our forces are treated is outrageous. Not only are they under funded, but they are badly housed and ill-equiped.
These boys and girls lay their lives on the line day in and day out to protect the interests of Britain – let’s have a bit more recognition for them!
Less spending and more action, sounds like a good return on investment. I will always be happy when military expenditure reduces and spending on the health service increases.
The statistics are certainly interesting but probably reflect the rate of growth of the economy (under Ken Clarke and Gordon Brown) by looking at military spending as a proportion of GDP (the longest period of economic growth in our history). The UK is the 6th largest spender on military in the world. And it’s per capita spending is 16th highest in the world. It seems to me that we are spending plenty on military and probably not about to be invaded by the Germans.
Less spending and more action, sounds like a good return on investment. I will always be happy when military expenditure reduces and spending on the health service increases.
The statistics are certainly interesting but probably reflect the rate of growth of the economy (under Ken Clarke and Gordon Brown) by looking at military spending as a proportion of GDP (the longest period of economic growth in our history). The UK is the 6th largest spender on military in the world. And it’s per capita spending is 16th highest in the world. It seems to me that we are spending plenty on military and probably not about to be invaded by the Germans.
Jimmy,
Your rather naive view of what the military does for us needs to be remedied.
We are a permanent member of the UN. With that power & privilege comes responsibility for providing forces when they are needed.
We still have 15 dependencies around the globe, and unlike those who don’t we need to have the capability of protecting them.
We need to protect shipping lanes to & from them, and cannot (as in the Falklands) expect anyone to assist us in this.
We have over 6 million British people resident abroad, and the foreign office can call on the military at any time to come to whatever part of the world, and evacuate them (under whatever circumstances, be that benign like Lebanon or from the heart of a raging war).
So, no it’s not the Germans we need to worry about. But, then again it may be the French.
Also, consider this. Most wars a fought over conflicting demands for resources or politcal idiologies. What happens when China or India starts to consume as much as the US?
Yes, Britain can’t compete with the big powers in an up front scrap, but we can be the best of the rest, and that may take firepower. So invest now or starve later!
Jimmy,
Your rather naive view of what the military does for us needs to be remedied.
We are a permanent member of the UN. With that power & privilege comes responsibility for providing forces when they are needed.
We still have 15 dependencies around the globe, and unlike those who don’t we need to have the capability of protecting them.
We need to protect shipping lanes to & from them, and cannot (as in the Falklands) expect anyone to assist us in this.
We have over 6 million British people resident abroad, and the foreign office can call on the military at any time to come to whatever part of the world, and evacuate them (under whatever circumstances, be that benign like Lebanon or from the heart of a raging war).
So, no it’s not the Germans we need to worry about. But, then again it may be the French.
Also, consider this. Most wars a fought over conflicting demands for resources or politcal idiologies. What happens when China or India starts to consume as much as the US?
Yes, Britain can’t compete with the big powers in an up front scrap, but we can be the best of the rest, and that may take firepower. So invest now or starve later!
A large part of the problems we currently see are rooted in the cost cutting of the 90’s under the conservatives.
I well remember the briefings we were given in the middle of an exercise on Options for Change, highly trained and experienced friends trying to decide whether to take the redundancy package.
The concept behind options for change was well intentioned, it recognised the changing geopolitic situation and that small conflicts were more likely.
Unfortunately New Labour have gone further with the ethos, the armed forces have been a handy place to syphon funds from as they continually manage to succeed as levels of funding drop, but it’s training that has suffered.
Training is vital, but as development projects go over budget it is the soldier on the ground who has to make do with cut price training, and equipment shortages, for eventualities that could kill him. Sgt Roberts is a prime example of how the lack of kit can be a problem, the recent death of a soldier on the ranges shows how a lack of training can be lethal.
We need more people, properly funded training and the right amount of the right kit, New Labour is failing on all of those points with its steadily declining funding.
A large part of the problems we currently see are rooted in the cost cutting of the 90’s under the conservatives.
I well remember the briefings we were given in the middle of an exercise on Options for Change, highly trained and experienced friends trying to decide whether to take the redundancy package.
The concept behind options for change was well intentioned, it recognised the changing geopolitic situation and that small conflicts were more likely.
Unfortunately New Labour have gone further with the ethos, the armed forces have been a handy place to syphon funds from as they continually manage to succeed as levels of funding drop, but it’s training that has suffered.
Training is vital, but as development projects go over budget it is the soldier on the ground who has to make do with cut price training, and equipment shortages, for eventualities that could kill him. Sgt Roberts is a prime example of how the lack of kit can be a problem, the recent death of a soldier on the ranges shows how a lack of training can be lethal.
We need more people, properly funded training and the right amount of the right kit, New Labour is failing on all of those points with its steadily declining funding.