By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I know I have endlessly banged on about the Labour government’s lack of interest in defending this country and it seems the now ex-defence Secretary agrees. John Healey has resigned.
This is an absolute disgrace. The first duty of any government should be to defend the country against external threat (and internal). The Labour Party just isn’t interested. They don’t care so while cutting the budget in real terms, they have clamped hands over ears and ignored the threats that have been present for years. The scrap yards have never been busier.
Thanks Sir Kier, thanks Rachel.
12
The Defence of the Nation on 07:52 - Jun 13 with 560 views
The Defence of the Nation on 22:20 - Jun 11 by GlasgowBlue
Do you realise how much money the UK, Europeans and Americans have given to Ukraine just to keep them in the game.
£21.8 billion from the UK, €75.2 billion from the EU and $66.9 from the USA. And I believe those figures are up to Spring 2025.
Certainly not done on a shoestring.
Indeed - it’s costing over $100bn a year to fund their defence, not sure where some people get their information from.
They have been incredibly effective at doing SOME things on a shoestring, such as counter drone measures. In fact that’s become a successful export to help fund their defence- they’ve been out in the gulf states to sell some of their tech and training. Thanks to Iran attacking half countries in the Middle East, there’s now a worldwide shortage of Patriot missiles, so Ukraine and others are having to find alternative methods to defend drones and missiles.
0
The Defence of the Nation on 08:19 - Jun 13 with 518 views
An interesting interview with Andrew Neil. Worth a listen Not my favourite person, but he’s right on Defence.
He makes the point that the money is there. Boatloads of it. But this government is not interested and is prioritising other stuff.
He also right about what underpins the government’s pitiful efforts. Party before Country.
When they were elected they said they’d put the country first. They deliberately told whoppers. Party comes first second third. It’s all that matters to them and that every action they’ve taken shows that.
They either couldn't give a monkeys about the security of the people in this country or have their heads buried firmly in the sand. Maybe both, given how noticeable Starmer’s liar's sweat is in the last day or so’s interviews.
0
The Defence of the Nation on 08:28 - Jun 13 with 505 views
The Defence of the Nation on 08:19 - Jun 13 by Churchman
An interesting interview with Andrew Neil. Worth a listen Not my favourite person, but he’s right on Defence.
He makes the point that the money is there. Boatloads of it. But this government is not interested and is prioritising other stuff.
He also right about what underpins the government’s pitiful efforts. Party before Country.
When they were elected they said they’d put the country first. They deliberately told whoppers. Party comes first second third. It’s all that matters to them and that every action they’ve taken shows that.
They either couldn't give a monkeys about the security of the people in this country or have their heads buried firmly in the sand. Maybe both, given how noticeable Starmer’s liar's sweat is in the last day or so’s interviews.
Well they could start by allocating the £2bn he was going to p1ss up the wall on mandatory ID. Ironically a policy which wouldn’t look out of place in Russia.
1
The Defence of the Nation on 08:47 - Jun 13 with 462 views
Well they could start by allocating the £2bn he was going to p1ss up the wall on mandatory ID. Ironically a policy which wouldn’t look out of place in Russia.
Green energy subsidies are the equivalent to half the Defence budget (about £30bn), just to keep Miliband and his merry men happy and to provide energy at a far greater cost than other European countries. Child benefit changes from the benefits budget? £3bn extra by 2030.
Laudable or otherwise there’s loads of £ out there. £7bn a year spent on illegal immigration. Ok, maybe there’s no choice but it’s interesting that the money is found without batting an eyelid, no problem.
So when Starmer Reeves and the rest of them whine about no money, I just wish they wouldn’t. It’s all about priorities. Fine. Just be honest about it.
2
The Defence of the Nation on 08:58 - Jun 13 with 451 views
The Defence of the Nation on 08:47 - Jun 13 by Churchman
Green energy subsidies are the equivalent to half the Defence budget (about £30bn), just to keep Miliband and his merry men happy and to provide energy at a far greater cost than other European countries. Child benefit changes from the benefits budget? £3bn extra by 2030.
Laudable or otherwise there’s loads of £ out there. £7bn a year spent on illegal immigration. Ok, maybe there’s no choice but it’s interesting that the money is found without batting an eyelid, no problem.
So when Starmer Reeves and the rest of them whine about no money, I just wish they wouldn’t. It’s all about priorities. Fine. Just be honest about it.
'just to keep Miliband and his merry men happy'
I kind of understand where you're coming from in this moment, at this place we've come to, but it makes me so sad that this was the sort of blind attitude which pervaded the period through we had some chance of funding and reconfiguring our defence against the biggest enemy we will ever face.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Tories - in power for 14 years Labour - in power for 2 years Naturally everything is Labour’s fault
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
The Defence of the Nation on 09:03 - Jun 13 by chicoazul
Tories - in power for 14 years Labour - in power for 2 years Naturally everything is Labour’s fault
Both sh1te and more interested in their own careers, internal power struggles, and gaslighting the population. This government in fairness is apparently less corrupt, but remarkably more authoritarian.
0
The Defence of the Nation on 09:11 - Jun 13 with 425 views
Both sh1te and more interested in their own careers, internal power struggles, and gaslighting the population. This government in fairness is apparently less corrupt, but remarkably more authoritarian.
I don’t disagree with you at all, but we are in the here and now.
One of the people who resigned said that Blair/Brown lied through their teeth about Helmand. Apparently they told the nation there were more than enough helicopters. The chap interviewed said there were nowhere near enough and Blair/Brown were told to their faces. But chose the political message rather than the truth - potentially at the cost of servicemen’s lives.
The tories of course would not have known the truth if it had hit them over the head. They lived on a diet of lies. The nearest they came to getting excited about anything was squabbling over the pool cars (somebody I worked with managed them for a while). Image, look, self, filling their boots. It’s all they cared about.
But we are here right now. The threat is that if we carry on as we are, we won’t have to worry about the planet, windmills, NHS, Education or anything else. That’ll be up to somebody else if there’s any world left. A doomsday view? Sadly yes and probably / hopefully wrong. Maybe Blackadders Captain Rum was right. You don’t need a crew.
If defence is deemed unimportant fine. It’s a democracy after all. It’s the future generations that’ll pay, not me. If Starmer views it as nothing; just something to look all electable on fine. That’s a political choice. Just for one be honest about it. I loath Corbyn with every fibre and disagree with him about near enough everything, but despite being a weird miserable little man, at least he stands by what he believes in.
0
The Defence of the Nation on 10:09 - Jun 13 with 350 views
The Defence of the Nation on 08:47 - Jun 13 by Churchman
Green energy subsidies are the equivalent to half the Defence budget (about £30bn), just to keep Miliband and his merry men happy and to provide energy at a far greater cost than other European countries. Child benefit changes from the benefits budget? £3bn extra by 2030.
Laudable or otherwise there’s loads of £ out there. £7bn a year spent on illegal immigration. Ok, maybe there’s no choice but it’s interesting that the money is found without batting an eyelid, no problem.
So when Starmer Reeves and the rest of them whine about no money, I just wish they wouldn’t. It’s all about priorities. Fine. Just be honest about it.
The reason our energy costs are so high is because of the price of gas, it's got sod all to do with the energy subsidies which are far lower in the UK than other countries who pay less for their energy.
Illegal immigration costs come from the foreign aid budget which is ring fenced at a set percentage a year that has already been reduced recently as it is.
But you're right, it is about priorities. And the fact that people want everything without having to pay for it. I think we're talking roughly a grand per taxpayer per year to increase it to the 3.5% of GDP. I wonder how many people would be happy with that?
The Defence of the Nation on 09:03 - Jun 13 by chicoazul
Tories - in power for 14 years Labour - in power for 2 years Naturally everything is Labour’s fault
I don’t disagree with what you are alluding to/saying Chico. The threats were there long before the U.K. betrayed its guarantees to Ukraine in 2014 and for self interest and aching stupidity it was ignored. They are accountable for that.
But we are in to two years of Labour now. They make the decisions now, not cheese eating lardarse or his alien Barnard Castle sightseeing friend.
The requirement to act in the interests of the country in terms of defence was staring them in the face two years ago. They agreed with the latest review findings 100% and have like so many things stuffed it in the bin. They chose party and votes over the national interest. That’s on them, not the criminal tories or Blair’s shower or the cretins before that.
Sitting there at Trooping the Colour today trying to look all important, serious and statesman like doesn’t cut it or change the fact that he’s not interested and doesn’t care at worst, useless and a token puppet at best.
0
The Defence of the Nation on 12:46 - Jun 13 with 258 views
The Defence of the Nation on 11:53 - Jun 13 by Churchman
I don’t disagree with what you are alluding to/saying Chico. The threats were there long before the U.K. betrayed its guarantees to Ukraine in 2014 and for self interest and aching stupidity it was ignored. They are accountable for that.
But we are in to two years of Labour now. They make the decisions now, not cheese eating lardarse or his alien Barnard Castle sightseeing friend.
The requirement to act in the interests of the country in terms of defence was staring them in the face two years ago. They agreed with the latest review findings 100% and have like so many things stuffed it in the bin. They chose party and votes over the national interest. That’s on them, not the criminal tories or Blair’s shower or the cretins before that.
Sitting there at Trooping the Colour today trying to look all important, serious and statesman like doesn’t cut it or change the fact that he’s not interested and doesn’t care at worst, useless and a token puppet at best.
If you want to become really annoyed about the nations defences look into the tank contracts the cost of the latest carriers and the nuclear black hole. Procurement at the MoD has been useless for decades and nothing changes whoever is in power. I don’t blame Starmer at all for not wanting to give the incompetent rseholes a never ending credit card that we all pay for.
[Post edited 13 Jun 12:48]
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
The Defence of the Nation on 12:46 - Jun 13 by chicoazul
If you want to become really annoyed about the nations defences look into the tank contracts the cost of the latest carriers and the nuclear black hole. Procurement at the MoD has been useless for decades and nothing changes whoever is in power. I don’t blame Starmer at all for not wanting to give the incompetent rseholes a never ending credit card that we all pay for.
[Post edited 13 Jun 12:48]
How true. Procurement has been appalling. Some of my cricket going chums worked in that world and and are somewhat defensive about it.
I visited the MoD and did some work in there getting know a few people and it always felt, to put it politely that it was in need of reform, updating, made fit for purpose. It’s a very need to know, ‘closed’ place and very far from the operational military that I have a little bit of ancient knowledge of.
I accept part of the problem is political interference and actually cost saving which wound up either costing more or leaving kit in hangers or the bin.
The problem of this and pathetic procurement though has little to with government decision to cut in real terms defence spending and keep defence at the bottom of the priority list when threats are mounting.
I stand by what I said over Starmer's/Reeves’ lies on this.
Edit: and yes, I did get to see Henry 8th Wine Cellar. One of the few remaining elements of the old Westminster Palace.
[Post edited 13 Jun 13:10]
0
The Defence of the Nation on 14:46 - Jun 13 with 191 views
I haven't read this until now. Nor have I looked at replies, so I may be repeating people.
I think it is an overstretch to say the Labour Party don't care. John Healey is part of the labour party and just resigned. He clearly cares. I can't remember the last time a Defence Security resigned over a principal, despite it being warranted.
There have been multiple counts now where Starmer has said something and done something different in regards to the war in Ukraine. Eg: 1. Healey quotes Starmer back to him in his resignation letter on spending. 2. Sanctions loopholes 3. Not seizing Russian shadow fleet ships.
Starmer needs to go. Not only needed now, but also so there is a credible alternative in office before the next election, or we'll end up with a Russian sympathizer that will betray the defence nation.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
The Defence of the Nation on 14:46 - Jun 13 by Kropotkin123
I haven't read this until now. Nor have I looked at replies, so I may be repeating people.
I think it is an overstretch to say the Labour Party don't care. John Healey is part of the labour party and just resigned. He clearly cares. I can't remember the last time a Defence Security resigned over a principal, despite it being warranted.
There have been multiple counts now where Starmer has said something and done something different in regards to the war in Ukraine. Eg: 1. Healey quotes Starmer back to him in his resignation letter on spending. 2. Sanctions loopholes 3. Not seizing Russian shadow fleet ships.
Starmer needs to go. Not only needed now, but also so there is a credible alternative in office before the next election, or we'll end up with a Russian sympathizer that will betray the defence nation.
Of course they don’t care. Empty promises is not caring. That’s just making a noise to keep the dogs away. Individuals might care like Healey and the others that have walked away but as a matter of policy,
Labour are not interested. What evidence is there in the last two years that says otherwise? If there is anything I’ll happily put my hand up and accept that Im wrong on this.
On a priority list of 1-10 it might make 11. All actions are directed at boosting the Party’s vote and what they and many people consider priorities. That is not protecting the people of this country.
0
The Defence of the Nation on 15:29 - Jun 13 with 158 views
The Defence of the Nation on 17:04 - Jun 11 by Swansea_Blue
You don’t really defend a nation through defence spending though in the modern age. It’s only a small part of the overall security picture imo, and a last resort/deterrent. When was the last time we had to physically repel an attack against us using the military? Things like cyber and terrorism that are a much more of a regular threat and do more to undermine, threaten and financially attack us.
Not that I’m disagreeing that the cuts haven’t been bad, but I don’t think we should be prioritising money on arms over the wellbeing and wider security of our population.
We need to be able to put boots on the ground in Ukraine when the war is over to prevent a more costly 3rd war against Ukraine. That is in addition to our commitments in Estonia.
Planners originally suggested sending 10,000 troops to Ukraine. That's been scaled down to "less than 7,500" already. To support that a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio is recommended. Ideally we should be gearing to support a rotationary number of 40,000 troops in Ukraine.
That is a peace-time number. If Russia looks at that and think they can burn through it, as there is nothing sitting behind it, then it isn't a credible deterrent.
We also need to modernize the army to deal with the threat of drones, and better integrate into European armies forces.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
