Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
Liam Fox has ordered a review into the Armed Forces and has not ruled out any cuts other than in the Trident Nuclear missile subs.There could even be a reduction in the number of troops on the front. I thought the Tories were saying'prior to the election'that the armed services were safer in their hands than the previous Labour government!!! Some pledge,some promise...easily broken.The troops that voted this lot in must feel betrayed and let down by the Con/Dems.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#2
Marek, thanks to Labour the nation is bankrupt, got no money, penniless. Ergo somethings have to go if we are to survive. There will be savage and painful cuts in all directions and all made necessary by the totally inept fiscal management by those in government for the last 13 years.
The armed forces are no exception.
However, I do think there may be some realignment of defence spending in order to ensure the boys doing the actual fighting get the equipment they need to do the job Blair/Brown committed them to. Some jumped up Major at Sandhurst may have to buy his own pencils soon!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#3
sid
think the Tories gave the impression troops woiuld be ok
this as MAREK SAYS is a betrayal of the troops
but no surprize
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
An overdue Strategic Defence Review was promised in the election and that is happening.
Of course no commitments/promises about cuts or whatever will be made before the review, to do so would compromise the review itself.
Personally I consider the Armed Forces to be the one area of expenditure that must not be cut due to the fact that they did not benefit from Labour's excess and we are at war. Some re-alignment in the budget must happen of course regardless.
#5
Perhaps our socialist friends already know the outcome of the review before its taken place, in which case, why bother?
Obviously Blairite thinking and spinning of falsehoods isn't dead. Perhaps the Millipede Brothers will come up with some new fangled "Ism" to replace "Blairism", but this time based on a semblance of honesty and truth? Any bets? No? I thought not.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#6
Sid
I have no idea what the final outcome of the 'review' will be however going by past experience a 'review' often leads to 'cuts'. No matter what PCspeak terminology you want to attach to it.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
No pc language butchery there Marek. Just a statement of fact and common sense.
It is simple - a Strategic Defence Review is about assessing present and future threats and deciding on the shape and form of the Armed Forces required to face it.
It is wrong to say it always means cuts.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#8
Amid the pressure for large cuts, Fox said no area of spending would escape scrutiny and refused to rule out reductions in uniformed personnel.
"There will be major change," Fox said. "This is the review that has to kiss goodbye to the cold war. That will require us to be quite tough . . . every single thing must be justified."
Still sounds like cuts to me BarryW
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
He has said nothing unexpected at all Marek, however you want to dress it up. Yes, I am expecting major change, the last SDR was in 1997 and a lot has changed in the world. The shape of the Forces needs to be kept up to date and at a level to deal with today's threats. What the future threats are and what needs to be done to prepare for them is the big question so it is obvious that nothing should be ruled out. I believe that the defence budget should not be reduced but will need a lot of changes within it. I would love to see an increased defence budget but the Labour economic mess means that is not possible.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#10
The problem is that one never knows where in the world the next hot spot will be.However you don't have to be a Defence Minister to work out that now that oil has been found off the Falklands that Argentina could cause problems or the continuing growth of Koreas nuclear capability could spark off tension and well...then there's the 'Middle East' and Africa surely it would be wise to build in these factors when the review takes place.Once there gone there gone and we will be back to the days of 'little boats' rescuing our troops syndrome. Cuts now could prove costly to replace in the future.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
If the Party you supported had been more sensible with our money then we might be able to expect Defence spending increases, as I want, but sadly after 13 years of the most useless and incompetent Government in our history that is not the case.
#12
They don't get the message even now Barry. Thirteen years of bungling and financial ineptitude have brought us to this point. I haven't mentioned dragging us into a war with a trail of lies and deceipt that has cost many of our young adults their lives and the country billions to fund.
My fervent wish is for Blair and Bush to have sleepless guilt ridden nights for the rest of their lives, but I doubt they will. That sort never does, sadly. It would help if they felt some of the pain and anguish the bereaved had to endure after losing loved ones fighting a war to boost political egoes.
It makes you sick in the stomach, or should.
And now this "cobbled together" government has to sort the mess, again. Let's get on with it and stop whinging and trying to score stupid political points..
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#13
Sid
My dear chap...its not about political point scoring it's about the security of the country.Secondly the previous govt. embarked on an ambitious ship building programme (see Vics thread).
As for the "..trail of lines...." as you put it there are many schools of thought that differ with you regarding the intelligence information made available to Blair at the time upon which he 'in conjuction with Bush' invaded Iraq to rid them of Saddam.
As far as I am concerned once Saddam had been toppled and topped we should have withdrawn our troops immediately and left the different Iraqi factions to fight it out over who gets one pile of sand to another.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#14
Quite so, Marek, but the fault doesn't lie with a Government that has been in power for a month.
As for your comments about Iraq -
- but isn't that also true of Afghanistan? I would have thought it easier to stop the drugs trade there by intercepting the goods during shipment than to fight a guerilla war so far from home.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#15
Andy
I started the thread highlighting Liam Fox's review of the Services.I wasn't apportioning blame but merely stating that a review normally equals cuts and that the Con/Dems prior to election were slagging off the Reds for their treatment of the troops.It is therefore a bit ironic that having ridden in to power on the back of ""our suffering troops" we will "give them the best equipment" etc that they are now considering front line troop cuts. I wasn't try to point score but merely state how bloody fickle politicians are with their promises from either persuasion and side of the House.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
Nothing fickle at all Marek. A strategic defence review should be done every 10 years, it was dodged by the last government when it should have been done due to their lack of real interest in defence. These reviews do not simply mean cuts at all and indeed can result in increased Defence spending.
The Conservatives correctly were critisising the last government for their appalling treatment of defence and, quite responsibly promised the defence review.
You refer to the ship buidling, thats a joke. The Royal Navy never did get the fleet size identified by Labour as necessary in their SDR in 1997. The Type 45's alone have been cut back from 12 to 6. They kept putting off the building of the carriers, pushing up the cost.
The fact is they have not said they are cutting troop numbers as you suggest, Liam Fox has simply and quite correctly ruled nothing out ahead of the SDR. There is no point in an SDR if you start pre-judging it.
We have a very difficut financial situation thanks to the old government, leaving the defence budget in a poor state. If they had handled the finances better then we might be able to get an increase in defence spending but that will not be possible.
one thing is certain, the forces will get better treatment and a higher priority under this government. there is a large number of ex-forces people in the Conservative government and back benches who understand and take an interest in these matters. Unlike Labour who only had Eric Joyce with any sgnificant service career or interest in these matters.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
wonder what the troops serving in afghanistan are thinking, a day or so ago they had the prime minister promising them free money backdated until may the 6 th, now these rumblings about some of their jobs being in danger, hardly good for morale.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#18
I found this article about Fox's views so I have cut and pasted some of the relevant bits that may shed some light on his approach and thinking to the Armed Services
Trident: In line with a key Conservative policy raised during the election campaign, Fox will maintain the status of the Trident deterrent system.
Afghanistan: Fox fully supports the Afghanistan campaign and has visited the country on five occasions. He has pressed for well-defined targets and a clear exit-strategy. He is critical of some European NATO members, whom he believes are not involving themselves enough in the campaign, but are relying instead on the UK to provide a greater number of soldiers and to deal with the more dangerous regions.
Iraq: Fox voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and supports a British presence in the country until a stable post-conflict arrangement is in place.
Iran: Fox visited Iran in July 2007 in efforts to improve diplomatic ties. Unsurprisingly, he is very much against a nuclear-capable Iran, suggesting that actions towards such an ambition could warrant a military response.
Relations with the EU: Fox is against the involvement of the European Commission in defence matters, as well as the existence of the Security and Defence Policy, which he believes undercuts NATO's resources. He also opposes the Lisbon Treaty's approach to defence provision. He believes the UK could do more to increase defence ties with France, Norway and Turkey, among other strategic partners
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#19
In my experience "review" and "consultation"= cuts and losses, usually already decided. Here's a thought: why can't we simply double the size of constituencies and halve the number of MPs? There's a saving worth making........
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
quite about review bern.
a few years back our council had announced a review of parking charges, when i said that it just meant a rise, i was told not to be so cynical.
of course they went up.