Likely targets for Corbyn Defence cuts?

[Ken Scott]

Jeremy Corbyn hints at huge military cuts if he wins power: Left-wing Labour leadership favourite tells final TV debate he 'can't think' of any reason to deploy British troops.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3221543/Tories-throw-Labour-leadership-election-bid-wipe-party-says-leadership-hopeful-Liz-Kendall-final-TV-debate.html#ixzz3kmWgt2cV[/URL]

Without getting into a discussion on whether he's likely ever to be elected as PM, just where might his axe fall? Even if he reduced defence spending by half that would only be enough to run the NHS for about 8 weeks so he's going to have to make some pretty swingeing cuts in order to boost social spending. Army reduced to a Home Guard, RAF down to a few fisheries patrol aircraft, RN some coastal patrol ships? FI garrison gone entirely obviously although with their revenues from fishing licences & oil they could probably afford a dozen F16s flown by mercenary pilots to ward off their neighbours. They could even purchase all the kit going for sale cheap from UK PLC. They'd be plenty of manpower available too.

[newt]

You never know but with his Russians friends we might even get some really great aircraft!:ok:

[airpolice]

Newt, are you thinking of aircraft that are great, or that were great?

[NutLoose]

I predict he will never get to be PM as long as I have a hole in my ass.... And the chances of that healing over are pretty nigh impossible..

Myself, I'd increase social spending and give the unemployed more in the first year, but then scale it down in increments until by the end of year 5 you would get nothing.

[smujsmith]

Well said Nutty, whilst I have little doubt that the sheople of both Toffs and Liebore are at best "easily led", surely, no one could wish for a return to the politics of the 60s ? Ahh, thank goodness I'm old enough to be looking forward to ensuring my children get something from my impending demise. I know for certain, the options available for Britain's way forward in the coming years will be degraded with either party dominating. Politics, the refuge of the true scoundrel !!

Smudge :ok:

[Melchett01]

What would he cut? If you look at his website and the priorities section, Defence doesn't appear but Peace does. I suspect he would cut everything back to a gendarmerie type function whilst bolstering the likes of DFID and various other departments on the tree-hugging side of politics. Less talk quietly but carry a big stick, more stay silent and give your enemy your stick.

Corbyn is positively dangerous for this country on so many levels. Yes, he's a bit of a joke at the outset, and there are many that will enjoy seeing Labour become unelectable for years, but this is a sort sighted sentiment. With the backing of so many of the Unions, Corbyn doesn't need to become PM to wield power and influence. He can get the Unions to carry his big stick for him. He can shout from the Opposition benches with impunity, knowing he will never have to stand on the other side of the House; the Unions will do his dirty work for him and we will enter into a period of anarco-syndicalism where the Government will spend all it's time trying to counter Union disruption and action, spurred on by Corbyn's unique brand of 6th Form socialism. They won't have the time or capacity to do anything vaguely constructive or productive other than countering Union action. Further, Corbyn will represent only a small section of the Labour Party leaving large elements on the centre-left effectively unrepresented, clearly not a good state for a democracy to be in regardless of your political persuasion.

Laugh all we like now, but things could become very complicated very quickly if Corbyn gets in. And if he does, don't count on your new build AH-64s, F-35s or carriers any time soon.

[Wander00]

Don't panic Captain Mainwaring - first he has to be elected leader, then survive nearly five year to a general election, then win it - so I am not really even considering a Corbyn Government in 2020 if I am still here that is!!

[Hangarshuffle]

OK, I'll bite and defend Corbyn.
I watched him carefully on the C4 news electoral special a few nights ago. Thought that he and the other candidates were very good, in a pretty fluid and wide ranging debate.
Generally, he seems to be the kind of man who speaks his mind and generally holds onto his ideals. A "signpost" rather than a "weathervane" as Benn once said about grading politicos.
He has generally offered a completely differing, contrarian view to the 30 year old herd that's steered us to where we are today.
And where exactly British foreign policy is, and where its defence is....watching the crises unroll across he MENA and now into Europe...well this is exactly anyone's guess.
Could he be worse?


So for want of taking my old age along with people with differing nay radical ideas, well I'm all for it at times.
Love to debate further but battery dying (PC, not heart).
Keep on working for the Mail and Daily Telegraph (totally a horse**** paper these days) anyway lads!

[Biggus]

Unfortunately anyone under the age of about 40 won't remember the "good old days" Corbyn is talking about returning to, with his talk of re-nationalizing industries, re-opening coal mines, etc...

The "good old days" that is of the 3 day working week, power cuts, rubbish bags piling up on the streets infested with rats, secondary picketing, etc....

I for one do remember.

THIS MAN IS DANGEROUS!!


At least Union membership is less significant than in the late 1970s:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313768/bis-14-p77-trade-union-membership-statistical-bulletin-2013.pdf

Indeed the main bastion of Union membership is now the public sector, 55%, compared to 14% in the private sector.

[Hangarshuffle]

And anyway as my computer dies, the Guradian video with Corbyn seems to be about never deploying UK military abroad again. Its not about cancelling UK defence.
(Traditionally New Labour gave defence quite a bit, funded quite a lot. Cons are the one's who have slashed it repeatedly and very recently "see eyes passum".


Having seen the UK military close up and been on numerous deploys at sea and in the MENA until recentlyish..maybe he's actually right? We are now very, very, very small and we cannot seem to muster enough the operate with any real credibility (or sadly any effectiveness-there are many reasons for that-an unwillingness to accept young lost Brithish lives being primary).
Sad but true, Britain in the mid 21st century is very small. Corbyn knows this.

[Herod]

Assuming he gets elected, we could be in for a few months of fun at PMQs. How long do you give it before the people who really care about the party organise a coup?

[Rosevidney1]

I'm in no way a fan of Mr Corbin but we as a nation badly need an informed debate on our defence requirements from all sides of the political spectrum. I am unfashionable in wishing we didn't have to carry the financial burden of nuclear weapons that we will never, ever use! What good are they in asymmetric warfare? That money could be far better spent on manpower using conventional weapons.

[bcgallacher]

It is highly unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn will ever fight a general election as Labour Party leader if he is elected to the position - before the election,sooner rather than later he will be deposed with a vote of no confidence by Labour M.Ps. It is fairly predictable that Dan Jarvis - in spite of his refusal to stand as leader for family reasons at this time - will be persuaded to stand for party leader.If this does not happen the Labour party will be consigned to history as a major political party.Mr Jarvis in my opinion is the only Labour MP that would be capable of leading a future Labour party as there is a sad lack of political talent in the UK at present - in all the parties for that matter.

[smujsmith]

Rosevidney, totally agree! Who are our Trident missiles targeted at these days ? I assume the Russians, because there's no other, obvious, target of national proportions. So, why have them? The cost of replacement would go a long way to procuring some very useful kit for the low level, religion based skirmishes we seem to be destined to fight for decades to come. No doubt, tactical nukes hold their validity, the trident deterrent has little or no effect on the religious zealot who believes it his duty to die for his God, believing in an afterlife full of virgins etc. Of course, having a nuclear deterrent gives us a seat at the table at the UN, and allows politicians like Cameron to big himself up on the world stage. It would be nice to think his military advisors are telling him, to spend the money more wisely.

Smudge

[Melchett01]

I wish I could share your collective confidence that despite the odds on Corbyn never being PM he won't be able to cause chaos through the Unions.

And with no 'wars' on and large scale military deployments (I'm talking HERRICK style and size) I can see the military being drawn into various MACP scenarios to keep the country running when the Unions walk out. Corbyn+Unions+SNP is a frightening prospect for any fair minded person in their right minds.

[Bastardeux]

We are now very, very, very small and we cannot seem to muster enough the operate with any real credibility (or sadly any effectiveness-there are many reasons for that-an unwillingness to accept young lost Brithish lives being primary).
Sad but true, Britain in the mid 21st century is very small. Corbyn knows this.

Except we aren't the minuscule nation you seem to think we've morphed into. We are recognised as wielding the most soft power on the planet; we're the 5th largest economy in the world, with less than 1% of its population; we have given the world some of its biggest technological advances of the 20th and 21st century; we're the nation that lead the charge on a rapid response to the collapse of Lehman brothers; the nation that has preserved its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council; we have enormous influence and resources. You wouldn't argue that Russia, India, France or Germany are insignificant would you?

Yes the military is much smaller than it used to be, but that is because we have chosen it to be; they get much less, as a slice of the pie, than they have had at any point since WW2. We have the resources to have a military twice the size, we just choose not to.

Those that say we are a tiny, insignificant nation, are not only wrong, they're in danger of talking us into a total withdrawal from world politics

[Ken Scott]

I don't believe that a Corbyn is unelectable - it's not so long ago that he was something of a 'joke' candidate allowed in to widen the debate before a 'proper' person took the post - now he looks like winning. In 5 years time if the electorate is tired of 'austerity' (despite an ever increasing debt) and fed up of DC/ Osborne they may well vote for Labour. Defence is rarely a major issue at elections and as some of the above comments show there are plenty of people who could be taken in by his sincere and reasonable manner and make him PM. At that point a great deal of what we know in the UK will go, not just in defence. The man is an anti-American republican who believes in uni-lateral disarmament in favour of a high tax state with pretty much all major service industries nationalised. It's no wonder the unions love him & their support would prevent Labour MPs removing him even if those that didn't support Corbyn had been allowed to retain their seats in the preceding 5 years.

[Rotate too late]

Could I just say that even though what I know about politics would fill an egg cup, his "leadership rivals" lack any sort of charisma, have an enormous amount of baggage from the Blair/Brown years and are seen as typical politicians, ie slimy little no marks that don't give a toss. As ever the one that shouts systemic change the loudest will win. If he becomes leader just wait for the press to dig up his history.....it'll be a bloody good read!

[TaranisAttack]

He would cut everything military related and transfer it to foreign aid. He's very dangerous, and largely incompetent too, and when he gets in they'll probably kick him out in a coup.

@NutLoose
They export manufacturing to China, then complain about unemployment.

@Melchett01
The Tories are the ones helping Corbyn to get in because they essentially screwed over the young in favour of pensioner's votes, instead of governing in the interests of everyone.

@smujsmith
If Trident is abolished, we will get ZERO extra conventional kit. Some extra money will go into foreign aid and diplomacy to compensate for "lost power", and the vast majority will go into other departments like the NHS. If anything it would enable bigger cuts to conventional forces as they would argue the UK no longer has a global role, and so can do away with things like air refueling and much of the RFA.

[Wensleydale]

What would be left of the military? After a radical change:


The army reduced with Government House (what was called Buckingham Palace) housing the life time elected president protected by a picket line of the 1st Miners' Brigade "Orgreave Memorial Company", known by the nick-name "The Bully Boys".


The Royal marines band replaced by members of the Dockers' Union volunteer band.


The RAF now known as the Flying Pickets, consisting of just the president's private air-liner. Meanwhile, the national aerobatic team, "The Red Flag Arrows" has been grounded because of on-going disputes over pay, conditions, pensions, and anything else that they can think of to get their extra 35%.

[The Old Fat One]

the road to PM...

win leadership contest (better than 50/50 at the mo)
unite labour party (maybe, after the night of the long knives)
gain credibility with the non hard left electorate (never been done in the last fifty years or more - think Foot & Kinnock)
Survive as labour leader through several major political events (scottish elections 2016, EC referendum 2017, maybe (prob not) another scottish ind ref.
Lead a credible, effective, well-funded election campaign (neither Foot nor Kinnock could do it, and in Kinnock's case with half the electorate literally hating the tory party post thatcher)
Convince the swing voters (ditto)
Win the election (which not only means doing all of the above, but also relies on the tories screwing up large with middle Britain).

Odds of all of the above 10 to 1 ??. Worth a punt if you are gambling man; not worth staying awake at night worrying about it IMO.

[skydiver69]

Perhaps a more pertinent question is will there be anything left for him to cut, except from the nuclear deterrent. 85,000 full time troops, 6 or 7 FJ squadrons, 28 surface ships doesn't leave much scope for downsizing.

[Biggus]

skydiver69,

How about cutting down to 20,000 troops, 2 FJ Sqns and 4-5 frigates and numerous small patrol boats? Is that sufficient scope for you?

[Martin the Martian]

It is true that many of the people supporting Mr. Corbyn have never known what it was like in the 1970s; indeed, many of them have known little other than the Major-Blair-Brown-Cameron years which all roll into one. A lot of them are sick to the back teeth of austerity, and would not want to see the likes of the other candidates running the party.

So I think that he is likely to be elected party leader and, as has been pointed out, with the backing of the unions behind him many MPs will think twice before attempting a coup. Many of those MPs have been elected because of union backing as well, which they will be reminded of. I also think that a left wing Labour party will be much more attractive to many of those who have left in the New Labour years because of the move towards the centre-left, and they can command a lot of support as well. And as for those saying they would not serve in a Corbyn cabinet... crap. Of course they will.

PMQs could be interesting if Corbyn wins the leadership, as he is no Milliband and is less likely to be intimidated by Cameron. I think there will be less bluster and less opportunity for Cameron to score cheap points.

As for a Corbyn government... well, I wouldn't go that far yet, but I don't think it will be such a walkover for the Conservatives as everyone is saying. In any case, who knows what the political landscape will be in 2020. Cameron will not be fighting the election as party leader, and we could have Osborne as PM instead (dear Lord, really?).

But the question is, what will the armed forces look like under a Corbyn government?

Well, we already know that Trident is out, and there will be no expeditionary forces and no NATO commitments. Probably no UN commitments either. So as far as the Royal Navy is concerned, no carriers, no SSBNs and probably no Type 23 replacement. Type 45s and Astutes will stay, but reduced in numbers, with an increased emphasis on home waters. Bulwark and Albion might stay, Ocean out. No F-35 for the FAA, and a big reduction in helicopter numbers. Marines to stay, but vastly reduced in numbers and SBS absorbed into SAS.

The Army will lose a lot of capability, and will become essentially a home defence force comprising of mechanised infantry with artillery. Complete withdrawal from Germany, Falklands and probably all overseas bases, no attack helicopters, no tanks and far less of everything else. SAS shrunk in size with

As for the RAF, no offensive capabilities, so no F-35s, and Typhoon reduced to a couple of squadrons at most (30-40 aircraft). No need for large transports, but Voyagers retained due to contractual obligations, and SHF reduced to proportional size for the army. E-3s out, RC-135s out, Sentinels probably out, no drones of any kind at all. Red Arrows disbanded, BBMF to private operators. RAF Regiment disbanded/taken over by the army, Fylingdales closed.

That is extreme, but with no NATO or UN roles and no expeditionary forces, what else do you need for home defence only?

[AutoBit]

Well look on the positive side. Those of us that are left following the mass cull by comrade Corbyn could form a Union and then go on strike for better pay and conditions. A return to AFPS 75, no night flying (unless I get a special night flying bonus - like the Tube drivers), 3 day weeks and more leave.

If my CO makes me do something I don't like I can complain to my Union rep and refuse to carry out said instruction if I believe it breeches my contract. Late night call outs as Orderly Officer or OOD would be subject to a 'late call out bonus'. I will have at least 24hrs off following any such duty regardless of call outs. I will turn up to work 30mins before the brief (not before 0800 or after 1700 or see Late call out bonus), and if my jet is not ready within +/- 20 mins of the published take off time, any new take off time must be agreed with me first. I reserve the right to refuse any amended take off time without reason if it falls outside of the +/- 20 min window.

Any weekend duty or dets that span weekends ( and public holidays), even if not 'in work', if away from my home station shall be considered 'at work' and therefore subject to special overtime pay rates. All postings must be agreed with me at least 6 months in advance and I reserve the right to refuse said posting without reason.

I would like to nominate myself as the first General Secretary!! (With appropriate pay rise of course)

;)

[Biggus]

Ok, here goes....

First of all, I'm not politically right of Attila the Hun, nor is this an attack on M-t-M, but when he says sick to the back teeth of austerity I'm afraid one of the things I think is, what exactly is the truth about this "austerity" everyone complains about?

Austerity is an easy word to throw at both this, and the previous, government, by the likes of Corbyn and Sturgeon, etc to score points. But what is the reality behind the phrase?

There is no doubt the UK government has a substantial debt, in terms of % of GDP, that can't just be ignored, or more money printed to get around. When you're paying more in interest to service your debt than your Defence Budget, and your credit rating drops making borrowing more expensive, you're on the slippery slope downwards. Any national debt above 40% of GDP is generally considered unhealthy and unsustainable in the long term - the UK's is currently 89%.

United Kingdom Government Debt to GDP | 1980-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp)

So the government is trying to reduce its spending, which is recognised by most sane people. Even Gordon Brown was criticized as taking the public for fools with his talk of "TORY CUTS" vs Labour "Difficult decisions" in the 2010 election campaign.

Did the Tory/Liberal government make drastic cuts? Well actually not as much as they wanted to, as the annual budget deficit is still above the initial targets.

How have these "savage" government spending cuts effected the man in the street?


Over 40% of households in the UK have Sky TV.


93% of adults in the UK have a mobile phone. Facts & figures | Ofcom (http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/)


Unemployment levels are back down to those last seen in 2006.
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=unemployment+rate+uk


Walking down the average high street, how many Costa Coffees and Starbucks have closed down due to lack of customers?

Then there's the "growth of food banks" due to government austerity argument. Well first of all, even the wealthiest countries in the world have food banks:

Food banks remain even in oil-rich economy | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/referendum/article4198737.ece)

There's also the argument, which most people are afraid to make as they will be vilified for doing so, of "..if you build it they will come....".


Has the UK government cut pensions, reduced the NHS budget? Yes, there have been attempts to reduce the welfare budget, but ultimately a country pays what it can afford. The reality is that not every country in the EU even pays some of the benefits we have taken for granted in this country for many years.

Compare so called "austerity measures" in the UK with what is actually happening in Greece, Portugal, etc. Now that really is AUSTERITY.

As for the public being "fed up" with austerity measures, ("it's been years now"!) , it's easy and quick to get into debt, but it takes a long time to get out of it. The only quick way out of debts is to make much more DRASTIC CUTS - how about no NHS funding at all for a couple of years, that would save a significant amount, but would the public have stood for that?

So, behind the opposition/opportunist politician's throw away line attacking the government about "austerity", is it really a case that some southern European countries actually have "austerity", but the UK merely has "austerity light"?


Standing by for incoming!!

[Rosevidney1]

Well said, Biggus. People may eventually learn the meaning of the word 'consequences'.

[glad rag]

Thousands have died soon after being found ?fit to work? by the DWP?s benefit tests - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-4000-people-have-died-soon-after-being-found-fit-to-work-by-the-dwps-benefit-tests-10474474.html)

The first big lie, unemployment figures or rather those allowed to actually claim benefit more like it; totally manipulated by the "civil" service under ministerial directive.

Disabled, including children being sanctioned, whist the fat cats and those sycophants who believe they serve the system, crow on about how things are better. Better for whom?

Defence cut to the bone with vanity, eyewateringly expensive projects still allowed to run.
Foreign aid whilst we have people dying on the streets.

I'm sure there are more examples that will show just how fortunate we are today... "austerity light" you can thank the Lib Dems for that, because the tories would have had the same done to the UK population

BTW as for corbyn...just another deluded politician.

[ShotOne]

"Sick of austerity.."? Come on, who isn't; would anyone rather be poor than rich? The most bonkers aspect of the Corbynites is their idea that simply stating Austerity is over will make the money tree start sprouting. That way lies Greece; a post-Corbyn financial collapse will harm our defence way more than the inventory of equipment cuts

[Finningley Boy]

In all seriousness, if he became Prime Minister, and that is increasingly likely never trust the British electorate to always take every facet of a would be leader into consideration, and if he was to escape to influence of every advisor civil servant military and intelligence chief, then I imagine we will lose everything, Nuclear deterrent for certain, all FJ units, both carriers de-commissioned, and no realistic combat role for any element of H.M. Forces.

What I imagine would be left, would be air transport, rotars, vessels like HMS Ocean I imagine will survive to be engaged in emergency aid and rescue missions with a much smaller Army, again geared toward helping out folk deluged by floods or buried under Volcanic ash or earthquake rubble. He strikes me as politically principled enough to do something foolish like deploy same to help victims fleeing IS with no weapons, not as much as truncheon with a woolly cover, that's when it'll become really interesting. How his being in No 10 would impact upon Putin's subsequent moves on the chess board would also be quite interesting, not to mention the reaction to how all unfolds by whoever is in the White House at the time!?

Now I've made this post without checking those prior, I imagine I've fallen approximately into line with received wisdom.:ok:

FB:)

[The Old Fat One]

if he became Prime Minister, and that is increasingly likely

no wisdom there mate, received or otherwise.

[Finningley Boy]

TOFO,

Back in May the idea of someone of Mr Corbyn's reputation and political stripe becoming the leader of anything other than some lefty student union was felt as likely as the possibility he could become Prime Minister, as we're now certain that he'll be leading the Labour Party after the 12th September then it is entirely possible, in this country today, although far from certain, that he could be Prime Minister in 2020. All it will take is his continued appeal as an honest man and a bit of luck explaining away some of his hippier comments in the past and an unpopular Tory Government in the run up and he stands a fair chance of becoming Prime minister. The public who vote in 2020 won't be anything like those who voted in 1983. Further, if a Corbyn Government is so much nonsense, then I can't understand that the question asked on this thread has any point to it.

FB:)

[The Old Fat One]

All it will take is his continued appeal as an honest man and a bit of luck explaining away some of his hippier comments in the past and an unpopular Tory Government in the run up and he stands a fair chance of becoming Prime minister.

With respect, that is not how elections work. A percentage of the country vote labour and always will; a percentage vote tory and always will. Elections are won and lost on the swing vote. In order to win the swing vote (historically) the "trending party" need a leader with broad appeal. That is why radical left wing politicians don't win elections in the UK.

Anything is possible because weird stuff happens - saying it is "likely" or a "fair chance", is ignoring history and the political structure of the UK and its electorate.

Corbyn is popular amongst the radical left - that is small minority of the UK electorate and even if that popularity spread into a broader appeal (which it won't) he would still be hampered by the reality of the first past the post electoral system, which counts constituencies, not people. Exactly how many seats do you think any hard left party will ever win in rural England?

[Finningley Boy]

TOFO,

You are of course quite correct in your description of how British elections are fought and won. Up until a year or so ago, the idea that any one political party, let alone a radical left wing one could garner sufficient votes in a first past the post election as to take 56 instead of their usual rational allocation of three or four or five, was utterly ludicrous. But it has happened in Scotland, to a ridiculous degree! 56 out of 59 seats now held by the SNP! One of them, to a 20 year old student! Taken from a senior moderate Labour MP.

And now, a party we presume had had enough of the political wilderness, Labour, is surging forth on a tide of euphoria for Jeremy Corbyn! I'll say this, any witless young tory who thought it clever or funny or a dig at the lefties by handing over their three sovs just so they could vote for Jeremy because they though they'd F up Labour's chances at the 2020 election could just very well have contributed to the very last thing they'd wish for, anything can happen, including a well orchestrated campaign to get Corbyn into number 10, there were women in England who honestly were frustrated because they couldn't vote for Nichola! TOFO, it could happen, nothing is sacred.

FB:)

[tmmorris]

Thousands have died soon after being found ?fit to work? by the DWP?s benefit tests - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-4000-people-have-died-soon-after-being-found-fit-to-work-by-the-dwps-benefit-tests-10474474.html)

The first big lie, unemployment figures or rather those allowed to actually claim benefit more like it; totally manipulated by the "civil" service under ministerial directive.

Disabled, including children being sanctioned, whist the fat cats and those sycophants who believe they serve the system, crow on about how things are better. Better for whom?

Defence cut to the bone with vanity, eyewateringly expensive projects still allowed to run.
Foreign aid whilst we have people dying on the streets.

I'm sure there are more examples that will show just how fortunate we are today... "austerity light" you can thank the Lib Dems for that, because the tories would have had the same done to the UK population

BTW as for corbyn...just another deluded politician.

You need to listen to the radio 4 show 'More or less: behind the stats' available as a podcast, before you start quoting stats on people dying after losing their benefits. As the presenter says, plenty of people die after eating their breakfast...

[newt]

Well said Biggus! I for one am well right of Genghis Khan and believe the word austerity should be banned! It is meaningless when applied to our financial circumstances! The phrase that really bugs me is " a fair and just society". It is trotted out day after day and really means nothing except to the fluffies who believe it might actually happen!:ugh:

[SWBKCB]

First of all, I'm not politically right of Attila the Hun, nor is this an attack on M-t-M, but when he says sick to the back teeth of austerity I'm afraid one of the things I think is, what exactly is the truth about this "austerity" everyone complains about?

Well said, Biggus. People may eventually learn the meaning of the word 'consequences'.

Ask somebody under 25 - they feel they're taking the "consequences" for actions they aren't responsible for.

[glad rag]

Ask somebody under 25 - they feel they're taking the "consequences" for actions they aren't responsible for.

Correct. The problem is name me a party that the young feel they can associate with?

[Rotate too late]

Indeed, which is why I feel the services value to the argument is so undervalued, it gives employment to pretty much every walk of life, a career ( such as it is) and could take you a few steps up the class ladder should you choose, therefore giving your children a step up. I speak from experience, its not all good, but it ain't bad either. Remembering that the vast cohort for the services is in fact under 25.....for now.

[FODPlod]

You need to listen to the radio 4 show 'More or less: behind the stats' available as a podcast, before you start quoting stats on people dying after losing their benefits. As the presenter says, plenty of people die after eating their breakfast...

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people died within two or six weeks (take your pick) of having their benefits stopped as this included all those whose benefits were stopped during the two/six week period after their death. The FOI refers.

Also unsurprisingly, the authorities were unlikely to record the number of people dying after their benefits were stopped. Why would they and how could they?

[glad rag]

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people died within two or six weeks (take your pick) of having their benefits stopped as this included all those whose benefits were stopped during the two/six week period after their death. The FOI refers.

Also unsurprisingly, the authorities were unlikely to record the number of people dying after their benefits were stopped. Why would they and how could they?

And why should they care either?