Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ideally Defence. But more likely an excess of diversity officers, failed procurement, and lots of inefficiency and waste." Failed procurement, inefficiency and waste are a given for the MoD. They have been since it was the MoW. But what do you mean by defence? More kit? More people? More UK - less overseas? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm puzzled this isn't a much bigger topic - it barely gets mentioned by politicians nor msm. Yet we have a military that would barely fill a football stadium. The world is getting an extremely dangerous place and we need to prepare." Indeed. And these days, unlike in the Cold War we lived through, things are far more complex; not to mention significantly more expensive. Given the state of the UK economy, I can't help but think electronic and drone warfare will have to bear the brunt. I'm not sure we can afford anywhere near the number of traditional weapon systems (ships/planes/tanks, etc.) we would want. Never mind recruit the numbers of Gen-Z, and their children, needed to operate them. We'll find out. Avoiding change isn't an option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways." Well, if it's that simple, we've got nothing to worry about. 🙂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ideally Defence. But more likely an excess of diversity officers, failed procurement, and lots of inefficiency and waste. Failed procurement, inefficiency and waste are a given for the MoD. They have been since it was the MoW. But what do you mean by defence? More kit? More people? More UK - less overseas? " The preliminary question in any case is where the funding is going to come from. The economy has already been crushed by Labours tax rises so further tax increases will further damage an already failing economy. The markets are suspicious of further UK government borrowing. Which leaves only public sector cuts, and doubtful Labour will be willing to confront its union paymasters about that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ideally Defence. But more likely an excess of diversity officers, failed procurement, and lots of inefficiency and waste. Failed procurement, inefficiency and waste are a given for the MoD. They have been since it was the MoW. But what do you mean by defence? More kit? More people? More UK - less overseas? The preliminary question in any case is where the funding is going to come from. The economy has already been crushed by Labours tax rises so further tax increases will further damage an already failing economy. The markets are suspicious of further UK government borrowing. Which leaves only public sector cuts, and doubtful Labour will be willing to confront its union paymasters about that. " Do you think the majority of the public would be ok with public sector cuts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways." how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously, it's going to have to increase. As it should, and by quite a bit. Raising the money will be a struggle, for sure; but what should it be spent on?" As said before the UK in % of GDP is a big'ish spender on defence, at 2.3% where Germany is only at 1.5 % of GDP, and most EU countries are at around the 1.5% so I don't think we need to spend much more but EU on the hole do. Finland is at 3.2% I think 🤔. For me the big debate is the nuclear Deterent is that value for money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ideally Defence. But more likely an excess of diversity officers, failed procurement, and lots of inefficiency and waste. Failed procurement, inefficiency and waste are a given for the MoD. They have been since it was the MoW. But what do you mean by defence? More kit? More people? More UK - less overseas? The preliminary question in any case is where the funding is going to come from. The economy has already been crushed by Labours tax rises so further tax increases will further damage an already failing economy. The markets are suspicious of further UK government borrowing. Which leaves only public sector cuts, and doubtful Labour will be willing to confront its union paymasters about that. Do you think the majority of the public would be ok with public sector cuts?" If they don’t want public sector cuts, which of the other two options do they want (both of which also inevitably end up with public sector cuts)? It would be better if economics and finance were more widely taught in school, in my opinion. If the economy and public sector finances had been better managed over the past fifty years the UK (and much of the West) wouldn’t be in the mess it is in. But we are where we are. Russia on the other hand still manufactures stuff, and has no national debt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways.how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now" Don't know if that's true I know loads that have not been excepted. But roles are getting more technical on a modern battel field. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm puzzled this isn't a much bigger topic - it barely gets mentioned by politicians nor msm. Yet we have a military that would barely fill a football stadium. The world is getting an extremely dangerous place and we need to prepare." When national identity is allowed to be watered down to trickle for fear offending, the payback is a loss of patriotism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways.how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now" Increase army apprenticeship programmes to allow people to do trade training whilst enlisted like they used to, carpenters electricians plumbers mechanics aerospace chef's plus the hundreds of other related Jobs.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously, it's going to have to increase. As it should, and by quite a bit. Raising the money will be a struggle, for sure; but what should it be spent on?" From the bits I watch on the Ukraine war it seems drones are extremely important. Could possibly do with the ability to manufacture them in very high numbers. Also air defence seems another crucial thing that again needs to be made quickly and in high qualities | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
HS2 other than maybe a few hundred extra commuters who actually wanted this expensive white elephant??
Bojo and his cronies obviously apart from that.
Many billions over budget for a useless service.
That's probably combined over the past ten years I'm guessing close to 500billion( I'm just guessing this figure but it would definitely be a couple of hundred billion)that could have gone into defence spending,but the liberal minded do gooders against defence seem to have to much say in the defence of our nation.
Now we have a country full of unregistered illegal immigrants who should they decide could easily overwhelm the security/military on numbers alone.
We've been relying on the USA to bail us out for far too long.
I could go on but I think compulsory national service is the only way forward.
Not only will this boost much needed rank's it will also create a whole generation with discipline, respect and pride in the country something that is sadly lacking today.
Too many anti establishment loud mouths with zero respect for anyone and anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways.how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now Increase army apprenticeship programmes to allow people to do trade training whilst enlisted like they used to, carpenters electricians plumbers mechanics aerospace chef's plus the hundreds of other related Jobs.... " Not a bad idea. Of course, it'll come with the risk of getting killed, as all military service does, like it used to. Fewer young people are up for that, these days, no matter how small the risk. Who can blame them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways.how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now Increase army apprenticeship programmes to allow people to do trade training whilst enlisted like they used to, carpenters electricians plumbers mechanics aerospace chef's plus the hundreds of other related Jobs.... Not a bad idea. Of course, it'll come with the risk of getting killed, as all military service does, like it used to. Fewer young people are up for that, these days, no matter how small the risk. Who can blame them?" Well given the increase in knife crime at the moment probably safer in the military than on the street! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously, it's going to have to increase. As it should, and by quite a bit. Raising the money will be a struggle, for sure; but what should it be spent on? From the bits I watch on the Ukraine war it seems drones are extremely important. Could possibly do with the ability to manufacture them in very high numbers. Also air defence seems another crucial thing that again needs to be made quickly and in high qualities" That would be a good place to start but we will need more manufacturing capability, for ordnance, weapons and vehicles, fairly quickly. Though it's an easier problem to solve than recruitment, given how young people feel about volunteering for military service, after Iraq and Afghanistan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways.how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now Increase army apprenticeship programmes to allow people to do trade training whilst enlisted like they used to, carpenters electricians plumbers mechanics aerospace chef's plus the hundreds of other related Jobs.... Not a bad idea. Of course, it'll come with the risk of getting killed, as all military service does, like it used to. Fewer young people are up for that, these days, no matter how small the risk. Who can blame them? Well given the increase in knife crime at the moment probably safer in the military than on the street!" A tiny fraction of them, perhaps. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously, it's going to have to increase. As it should, and by quite a bit. Raising the money will be a struggle, for sure; but what should it be spent on? As said before the UK in % of GDP is a big'ish spender on defence, at 2.3% where Germany is only at 1.5 % of GDP, and most EU countries are at around the 1.5% so I don't think we need to spend much more but EU on the hole do. Finland is at 3.2% I think 🤔. For me the big debate is the nuclear Deterent is that value for money." Probably more so now than it ever was. Although we had our own we've always been under America's nuclear umbrella. Can we still say that or rely on it? At the moment I would doubt it so probably best to hang on to ours for a while. The main issue is procurement and priority's Britain should buy a lot more off the peg kit rather than spending fortunes developing new ideas that invariably go over budget and time scale. The Ajax armoured personnel carrier being a prime example. Prioritising what the forces actually need and can use instead of politicians vanity projects. The two bloody useless missile targets, sorry aircraft carriers, being the prime example of getting that bit wrong. Oh yeah they look great when the admiral gets piped aboard but nobody thought about where the aircraft would come from or about how carriers are deployed in the modern world. The Americans deploy in carrier groups with a whole fleet of esc*rt vessels. Britain couldn't put a carrier group together if it used the entire fucking navy. Mark my words, if it does kick off properly with Putin those two lumps (along with their crews) will be gone in a week. That money would have been much better spent on guided missile destroyers that can be rapidly deployed, would be more effective and cost a damn site less to build and to run. I read somewhere a while ago that one of those carriers cost the same to build as five top of the range destroyers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways.how are you going to get more soldiers? They have trouble getting people to sign up now Increase army apprenticeship programmes to allow people to do trade training whilst enlisted like they used to, carpenters electricians plumbers mechanics aerospace chef's plus the hundreds of other related Jobs.... " thats all well and good but i cant see people signing up to defend this country, half the youngsters these days seem to hate the country so there certainly not gona put there lifes on the line for it, perhaps we could offer the newcomers a passpirt if they done five years in the milatary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably more so now than it ever was. Although we had our own we've always been under America's nuclear umbrella. Can we still say that or rely on it? At the moment I would doubt it so probably best to hang on to ours for a while. The main issue is procurement and priority's Britain should buy a lot more off the peg kit rather than spending fortunes developing new ideas that invariably go over budget and time scale. The Ajax armoured personnel carrier being a prime example. Prioritising what the forces actually need and can use instead of politicians vanity projects. The two bloody useless missile targets, sorry aircraft carriers, being the prime example of getting that bit wrong. Oh yeah they look great when the admiral gets piped aboard but nobody thought about where the aircraft would come from or about how carriers are deployed in the modern world. The Americans deploy in carrier groups with a whole fleet of esc*rt vessels. Britain couldn't put a carrier group together if it used the entire fucking navy. Mark my words, if it does kick off properly with Putin those two lumps (along with their crews) will be gone in a week. That money would have been much better spent on guided missile destroyers that can be rapidly deployed, would be more effective and cost a damn site less to build and to run. I read somewhere a while ago that one of those carriers cost the same to build as five top of the range destroyers. " The nuclear deterrent is worth the money, though you wouldn't think so when the RN does a Trident test. You're right about the aircraft carriers but they're a thing now; we're not getting the money back. It'll be interesting to see what Trump thinks of the AUKUS submarine programme. It's still in its infancy, so if he doesn't fancy it, it's dead. I still can't help feeling, even if the money is available, we're going to have to more high tech because recruitment is going to be a problem. George Robertson's SDR is going to make the headlines, for sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously, it's going to have to increase. As it should, and by quite a bit. Raising the money will be a struggle, for sure; but what should it be spent on? As said before the UK in % of GDP is a big'ish spender on defence, at 2.3% where Germany is only at 1.5 % of GDP, and most EU countries are at around the 1.5% so I don't think we need to spend much more but EU on the hole do. Finland is at 3.2% I think 🤔. For me the big debate is the nuclear Deterent is that value for money. Probably more so now than it ever was. Although we had our own we've always been under America's nuclear umbrella. Can we still say that or rely on it? At the moment I would doubt it so probably best to hang on to ours for a while. The main issue is procurement and priority's Britain should buy a lot more off the peg kit rather than spending fortunes developing new ideas that invariably go over budget and time scale. The Ajax armoured personnel carrier being a prime example. Prioritising what the forces actually need and can use instead of politicians vanity projects. The two bloody useless missile targets, sorry aircraft carriers, being the prime example of getting that bit wrong. Oh yeah they look great when the admiral gets piped aboard but nobody thought about where the aircraft would come from or about how carriers are deployed in the modern world. The Americans deploy in carrier groups with a whole fleet of esc*rt vessels. Britain couldn't put a carrier group together if it used the entire fucking navy. Mark my words, if it does kick off properly with Putin those two lumps (along with their crews) will be gone in a week. That money would have been much better spent on guided missile destroyers that can be rapidly deployed, would be more effective and cost a damn site less to build and to run. I read somewhere a while ago that one of those carriers cost the same to build as five top of the range destroyers. " Yes the 2 carriers are a bit big when yiu think Drones seem to be the way forward. Could you not launch a fixed Wing Drone from a Destroyer. The air craft carriers are good for world piece kipping roles but not so efficient when being used in attack deployment across Europe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably more so now than it ever was. Although we had our own we've always been under America's nuclear umbrella. Can we still say that or rely on it? At the moment I would doubt it so probably best to hang on to ours for a while. The main issue is procurement and priority's Britain should buy a lot more off the peg kit rather than spending fortunes developing new ideas that invariably go over budget and time scale. The Ajax armoured personnel carrier being a prime example. Prioritising what the forces actually need and can use instead of politicians vanity projects. The two bloody useless missile targets, sorry aircraft carriers, being the prime example of getting that bit wrong. Oh yeah they look great when the admiral gets piped aboard but nobody thought about where the aircraft would come from or about how carriers are deployed in the modern world. The Americans deploy in carrier groups with a whole fleet of esc*rt vessels. Britain couldn't put a carrier group together if it used the entire fucking navy. Mark my words, if it does kick off properly with Putin those two lumps (along with their crews) will be gone in a week. That money would have been much better spent on guided missile destroyers that can be rapidly deployed, would be more effective and cost a damn site less to build and to run. I read somewhere a while ago that one of those carriers cost the same to build as five top of the range destroyers. The nuclear deterrent is worth the money, though you wouldn't think so when the RN does a Trident test. You're right about the aircraft carriers but they're a thing now; we're not getting the money back. It'll be interesting to see what Trump thinks of the AUKUS submarine programme. It's still in its infancy, so if he doesn't fancy it, it's dead. I still can't help feeling, even if the money is available, we're going to have to more high tech because recruitment is going to be a problem. George Robertson's SDR is going to make the headlines, for sure." Recruitment is not the problem. My nephew got rejected from the army as he was not up to scratch. People think you put your name down and your in. But it's hard if you want to get in. As for national service I don't think the forces would want the youth of today. And its just not like it was. How are you going to make someone do a run with a back pack if they don't want to. As as for getting them to clean an assault rifle. lol better get making more for when they brake them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes the 2 carriers are a bit big when yiu think Drones seem to be the way forward. Could you not launch a fixed Wing Drone from a Destroyer. The air craft carriers are good for world piece kipping roles but not so efficient when being used in attack deployment across Europe. " I suppose the Secretary of State for Defence could have one stationed in the Baltic and one in the Black Sea - if he could persuade our allies to help protect them. Doesn't seem likely the PM would take the risk though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recruitment is not the problem. My nephew got rejected from the army as he was not up to scratch. People think you put your name down and your in. But it's hard if you want to get in. As for national service I don't think the forces would want the youth of today. And its just not like it was. How are you going to make someone do a run with a back pack if they don't want to. As as for getting them to clean an assault rifle. lol better get making more for when they brake them. " What you say is correct; which kind of indicates recruitment is the problem. That could be solved by lowering entry requirements/standards, of course. A dangerous path to tread but it's not entirely unknown, sadly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously, it's going to have to increase. As it should, and by quite a bit. Raising the money will be a struggle, for sure; but what should it be spent on? From the bits I watch on the Ukraine war it seems drones are extremely important. Could possibly do with the ability to manufacture them in very high numbers. Also air defence seems another crucial thing that again needs to be made quickly and in high qualities That would be a good place to start but we will need more manufacturing capability, for ordnance, weapons and vehicles, fairly quickly. Though it's an easier problem to solve than recruitment, given how young people feel about volunteering for military service, after Iraq and Afghanistan." Yes it will require several changes and investments | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"drones ... cheap drones have proven highly effective over the last two years. ukraine with no navy has wiped out all russian operational ability from the black sea." Remarkable really as Ukraine has no navy of its own, yet the Royal Navy and border force can’t turn a few dingys around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes the 2 carriers are a bit big when yiu think Drones seem to be the way forward. Could you not launch a fixed Wing Drone from a Destroyer. The air craft carriers are good for world piece kipping roles but not so efficient when being used in attack deployment across Europe. I suppose the Secretary of State for Defence could have one stationed in the Baltic and one in the Black Sea - if he could persuade our allies to help protect them. Doesn't seem likely the PM would take the risk though." Why would you want allies to protest them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"drones ... cheap drones have proven highly effective over the last two years. ukraine with no navy has wiped out all russian operational ability from the black sea." What do you class as a cheep drone? £100 £1000 £10,000 £100,000 Cheep compair with a Tornado fighter jet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cheep drones are for the birds!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a slight aside, apparently in the EU member countries are supposed to stay within certain debt rules and if they go to far into debt they get into trouble with the commission and possible fines. They may change this so that the countries do not have to include money spent on defence. This would allow them to spend more without getting into trouble, though of course the debt will still need paying back. Would the UK chancellor follow suit? It would allow for even more borrowing and keeping within the commitment, though they have already changed the rules on debt once so might be a non starter." As above uk is at 2.3% of GDP on defence the rest of Europe expect Finland and Ukraine is at 1.5% or there abouts. I Personally think if a country goes below 2.1% then they should not expect support from NATO. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Personally I don't understand the urgency of preparing the armed forces to counter russian forces. At their best, the Russian army failed to invade Ukraine with a much smaller military because in a nutshell are crap. So why the panic ? " A fair point, no real need for panic - but sooner would be better than later. It gives Vlad less of a breather while we get ready. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Around 5% of out taxes get spent on defence. Education takes 10% Public Order & Safety 4.5%. Yet compare these with 22% that goes on Welfare (excluding state pensions and health). Here is the problem : the UK, like much of The West, has sleep walked into a Welfare State consuming almost a quarter of all taxes. The result is that we can't afford to defend ourselves." Bingo. And much of that going to those who have paid nothing into the pot. Time to return to a contribution based system as envisaged by Keynes and the 1945 Labour Govt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Around 5% of out taxes get spent on defence. Education takes 10% Public Order & Safety 4.5%. Yet compare these with 22% that goes on Welfare (excluding state pensions and health). Here is the problem : the UK, like much of The West, has sleep walked into a Welfare State consuming almost a quarter of all taxes. The result is that we can't afford to defend ourselves." I wonder why they haven't used 5% of taxes, rather than 2.3% of GDP? 🙂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Around 5% of out taxes get spent on defence. Education takes 10% Public Order & Safety 4.5%. Yet compare these with 22% that goes on Welfare (excluding state pensions and health). Here is the problem : the UK, like much of The West, has sleep walked into a Welfare State consuming almost a quarter of all taxes. The result is that we can't afford to defend ourselves." Very good article on that exact subject by Andrew Neil in the Mail today. I know the lefties foam at the mouth when anyone mentions the Mail but it's worth a read. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14403639/ANDREW-NEIL-watershed-Europes-history-decades-lavished-billions-welfare-sent-bill-defence-America-Trump-simply-wont-let-continue.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Further to the comments about aircraft carriers needing protection, firstly I too agree with _otlovefun42 that they’re pissing-contest exercises; and the Brits are still trying to get F35Bs to work properly off HMS Queen Elizabeth (the Americans use F35Cs). In the current tripartite exercises in the Philippines - the smart money is on war with China rather than war with Russia - the Charles de Gaulle is accompanied by three frigates and the armoured tanker Jacques Chevallier, the USS Carl Vinson is protected by the destroyers USS Princeton, USS Sterrett and USS William P. Lawrence, and the Japanese helicopter ship JS Kaga is accompanied by the destroyer Akizuki." The irony of the aircraft carriers, unless they have nuclear power they require a massive amount of fuel this means being followed everywhere by a fuel ship. Take that out and you render the carriers useless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how Labour always manages to find money to give to foreigners. If I were a UK pensioner hoping to benefit from UK government largesse in my retirement I would definitely be looking to retire abroad. No doubt the UK will soon be picking up the bill for state spending in Ukraine. Or move to the Caribbean to benefit from the forthcoming reparations." I was planning on retiring to Spain but some of my fellow citizens complicated that plan to stop people moving here. It worked out swimmingly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how Labour always manages to find money to give to foreigners. If I were a UK pensioner hoping to benefit from UK government largesse in my retirement I would definitely be looking to retire abroad. No doubt the UK will soon be picking up the bill for state spending in Ukraine. Or move to the Caribbean to benefit from the forthcoming reparations. I was planning on retiring to Spain but some of my fellow citizens complicated that plan to stop people moving here. It worked out swimmingly." I’m thinking of Barbados. Heaps of money heading their way from the UK. Europe is finished. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they stopped pi$$ing away money on carbon capture crap, that doesn’t work, stop sending £bns of foreign aid (I think k we saw how this is wasted in the US), stop spending £bns on hotels for illegal migrants, stop the outrageous waste that goes on in all areas of public sector…. Then they might be able to increase spending on defence. However, none of what I suggest will happen because we have incompetent idiots in charge." When it comes to government waste what we hear about is just the tip of a huge iceberg. As for the rest of what you mention that would easily be cured by getting rid of the "nice" politicians. They all want to be Mr/Mrs nice. It's about time we got a few nasty's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how Labour always manages to find money to give to foreigners. If I were a UK pensioner hoping to benefit from UK government largesse in my retirement I would definitely be looking to retire abroad. No doubt the UK will soon be picking up the bill for state spending in Ukraine. Or move to the Caribbean to benefit from the forthcoming reparations. I was planning on retiring to Spain but some of my fellow citizens complicated that plan to stop people moving here. It worked out swimmingly. I’m thinking of Barbados. Heaps of money heading their way from the UK. Europe is finished." I wouldn't quite go that far but it needs some serious change. It isn't all sunshine and roses on this side on the channel. Far from it. Let's see what happens in Germany on Sunday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You could take money away from the poorest in society, including those who are working and struggling to make ends meet or maybe the likes of Amazon et al would like to chip in." Just how do you think these "poorest in society" would get on if we really did go to war? I think most would have fond memory's of "struggling to make ends meet". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Recruitment is not the problem. My nephew got rejected from the army as he was not up to scratch. People think you put your name down and your in. But it's hard if you want to get in. As for national service I don't think the forces would want the youth of today. And its just not like it was. How are you going to make someone do a run with a back pack if they don't want to. As as for getting them to clean an assault rifle. lol better get making more for when they brake them. What you say is correct; which kind of indicates recruitment is the problem. That could be solved by lowering entry requirements/standards, of course. A dangerous path to tread but it's not entirely unknown, sadly." The real problem with recruitment now, is that it's done by a private company. Back in the day (pulls up a sandbag and swings lantern), recruitment was done by 20+ year served career soldiers, who were much better qualified to know who would make decent soldiers, not selected by box ticking exercises. You usually find, that the best soldiers are not the best academics and/or come from broken homes and troubled backgrounds. Many of which now, struggle to get accepted in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm puzzled this isn't a much bigger topic - it barely gets mentioned by politicians nor msm. Yet we have a military that would barely fill a football stadium. The world is getting an extremely dangerous place and we need to prepare." Like we did for a potential pandemic *smirk* | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm puzzled this isn't a much bigger topic - it barely gets mentioned by politicians nor msm. Yet we have a military that would barely fill a football stadium. The world is getting an extremely dangerous place and we need to prepare. Like we did for a potential pandemic *smirk*" How meny stadiums hold 75,000 oh and that's just army not the combined arm force. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm puzzled this isn't a much bigger topic - it barely gets mentioned by politicians nor msm. Yet we have a military that would barely fill a football stadium. The world is getting an extremely dangerous place and we need to prepare. Like we did for a potential pandemic *smirk* How meny stadiums hold 75,000 oh and that's just army not the combined arm force. " Wembley holds 90,000 off the top of my head. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More soldiers, boots on the ground. More pilots and planes. And increased size of the navy. A few hundred billions should do it. Bin of ridiculous projects like HS2 and unwanted smart motorways." Plus get rid of Nukes and the Royals. Save billions there… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to YouGov polling the majority of UK people aren’t prepared to pay more tax to increase Defence spending. Which leaves only public sector cuts to pay for it. This creates quite the dilemma for the warmongering Left. Keep their war going and lose their jobs. Or keep their jobs and dump the war. Reality is hard sometimes." The majority of UK people aren't prepared to pay more tax for anything, let alone increasing defence spending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to YouGov polling the majority of UK people aren’t prepared to pay more tax to increase Defence spending. Which leaves only public sector cuts to pay for it. This creates quite the dilemma for the warmongering Left. Keep their war going and lose their jobs. Or keep their jobs and dump the war. Reality is hard sometimes. The majority of UK people aren't prepared to pay more tax for anything, let alone increasing defence spending. " Tough | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to YouGov polling the majority of UK people aren’t prepared to pay more tax to increase Defence spending. Which leaves only public sector cuts to pay for it. This creates quite the dilemma for the warmongering Left. Keep their war going and lose their jobs. Or keep their jobs and dump the war. Reality is hard sometimes. The majority of UK people aren't prepared to pay more tax for anything, let alone increasing defence spending. Tough" Amateur100 do you realy think Ukraine could push Russia back to its border with say 20,bilion of support a year. And if you do howling would it take. The time is important as the Ukraine’s are living in a war zone. And the Russian population is getting the rough end as well. Personally its a shame Putin is still breathing. That would be a start to the end of this madness. I support Ukraine but its a stall mate at the moment with people dieing almost for nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looked at another way, the UK has 150,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen in it's armed services. Contrast that with 9.5 million in receipt of UK state benefits (excluding the state pension). This is the nightmare situation we've gotten ourselves into." Are you suggesting that if someone is fit and healthy enough but chooses not to work they should do compulsory national service? Coz if so I'm all for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looked at another way, the UK has 150,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen in it's armed services. Contrast that with 9.5 million in receipt of UK state benefits (excluding the state pension). This is the nightmare situation we've gotten ourselves into. Are you suggesting that if someone is fit and healthy enough but chooses not to work they should do compulsory national service? Coz if so I'm all for it. " That would soon get people back to work! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looked at another way, the UK has 150,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen in it's armed services. Contrast that with 9.5 million in receipt of UK state benefits (excluding the state pension). This is the nightmare situation we've gotten ourselves into. Are you suggesting that if someone is fit and healthy enough but chooses not to work they should do compulsory national service? Coz if so I'm all for it. " Would it be so bad if everyone had to do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looked at another way, the UK has 150,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen in it's armed services. Contrast that with 9.5 million in receipt of UK state benefits (excluding the state pension). This is the nightmare situation we've gotten ourselves into. Are you suggesting that if someone is fit and healthy enough but chooses not to work they should do compulsory national service? Coz if so I'm all for it. " So am I, think I've done some qualifying time already though. What I find strange is that national service to some is something done in the old days. The two children that live door will have to do it despite being born in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
