Your PM is unsure if he wants the RAF.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
From: Nomadic
Your PM is unsure if he wants the RAF.
Hoping that this topic remains about Military aviation, I note that the Brit PM is sseking a public debate about funding the UK military for his future sabre rattling
For the Mods - This is relevant to Military Aviation
For the Mods - This is relevant to Military Aviation
TAC Int Bloke
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
From: UK
He's opening the debate (
) about something that's been talked about in the Armed forces for a while, I think the short version is
Does Britain want to have a dominant role on the world stage?
Two choices,
a, No,
Stay at home, small defence force, loss of capability and assets but current funding levels just about suitable, bin nukes
b, Yes,
Big world role for the UK (still missing the Empire?) requiring increased funding, new equipment, enhanced training etc – all of which will go down like a lead balloon with the treasury and Mr G Brown
Of course governments of all political shades want option b, with the funding of option a,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm
) about something that's been talked about in the Armed forces for a while, I think the short version is Does Britain want to have a dominant role on the world stage?
Two choices,
a, No,
Stay at home, small defence force, loss of capability and assets but current funding levels just about suitable, bin nukes
b, Yes,
Big world role for the UK (still missing the Empire?) requiring increased funding, new equipment, enhanced training etc – all of which will go down like a lead balloon with the treasury and Mr G Brown
Of course governments of all political shades want option b, with the funding of option a,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
What actually happened was:
TB: How can we move the press agenda on from Bush's latest flash of strategic brilliance?
Spin Doctor: Release some tosh about a debate on Britain's future military role in the world.
TB: How can we move the press agenda on from Bush's latest flash of strategic brilliance?
Spin Doctor: Release some tosh about a debate on Britain's future military role in the world.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
From: Shrewsbury, UK
...or perhaps:
TB: Look [ernest concerned face, open hand gesture] they're not gonna go for the travel tax (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/) so in order to fund Cherie's hairdoos we're going to have to sell Trident.
TB: Look [ernest concerned face, open hand gesture] they're not gonna go for the travel tax (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/) so in order to fund Cherie's hairdoos we're going to have to sell Trident.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,394
Likes: 856
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
I'm sure it will be a productive debate with a whole mass of politicians and senior officers involved.
After all, our Trust-me-Tone is a renowned mass-debator, is he not?
After all, our Trust-me-Tone is a renowned mass-debator, is he not?
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: 180INS500
Pre-emptive strike on defence spending. Anything less than a resounding committment to a global role opens the door to 'savings' commensurate with the reduced capability. Bye-bye Typhoon Tranche 3 and Carriers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now, where is my shopping list for C-17. C130J, Merlin and lots of chinooks?
In all seriousness, if we had spent all the cash we have on this illegal war on reconstruction work in Pakistan after the earthquake, sent peacekeeping forces into Darfur and helped with a massive global airlift using our military forces after the Tsunami, would our international reputation still be in tatters? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps Blair should think about the "Force For Good" mission statement that we had thrust upon us by this pinko sissie socialist government.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: UK
Single Spey,
I think you're absolutely right. Blair himself might be in favour of a world role, but with his reputation this automatically prejudices the rest of the country against such a role. This 'debate' could easily be hijacked by Brown et al and used to justify colossal cuts in defence spending after a withdrawal from Iraq.
The last thing the Armed Forces want is this Prime Minister on their side.
I think you're absolutely right. Blair himself might be in favour of a world role, but with his reputation this automatically prejudices the rest of the country against such a role. This 'debate' could easily be hijacked by Brown et al and used to justify colossal cuts in defence spending after a withdrawal from Iraq.
The last thing the Armed Forces want is this Prime Minister on their side.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Single Spey,
I think you're absolutely right. Blair himself might be in favour of a world role, but with his reputation this automatically prejudices the rest of the country against such a role. This 'debate' could easily be hijacked by Brown et al and used to justify colossal cuts in defence spending after a withdrawal from Iraq.
The last thing the Armed Forces want is this Prime Minister on their side.
I think you're absolutely right. Blair himself might be in favour of a world role, but with his reputation this automatically prejudices the rest of the country against such a role. This 'debate' could easily be hijacked by Brown et al and used to justify colossal cuts in defence spending after a withdrawal from Iraq.
The last thing the Armed Forces want is this Prime Minister on their side.
Also looks as if he hasnt practised his speech... lots of erms.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 378
Likes: 2
From: london
Or you could take the issue at face value. Maybe he is responding to a 10-year lead-time to kit and crew capability.
Contemplate, after the demise of renegade-Saudi- and drug-funded energy gangsters, a disciplined, equipped sovereign taking up their game of influencing energy supply. Our friend the Shah did that to Holland, 1973.
So: Gulf States' role in energy supply security diminishes, (ex-USSR States') grows - Russia "observes" today in NATO/HQ. 2% GNP? We are junior in Big Issues - say, Spain's role in GW2. 3%? We make some noise. Solo? EU-Force? UK/US/Oz/Canada/some free Europeans (sound familiar? Not France, snug and warm in its nuclear-electric blanket). Try a standing UN Force? What to spend the money on is secondary to first defining our purpose. Ireland and Japan did very well, economically, by being defended through the Cold War by (inter alia, UK). What to do?
Govt. has a problem in getting to voters past the roadblock of sound bite-scribblers ("carpet-bombing"), with no knowledge of history, blagging unprepared to tight deadlines, trying to get their words/minutes out, the other guy's spiked. They do that by conforming to the paymaster's party line...and sloppily researching by picking up rants here.
Contemplate, after the demise of renegade-Saudi- and drug-funded energy gangsters, a disciplined, equipped sovereign taking up their game of influencing energy supply. Our friend the Shah did that to Holland, 1973.
So: Gulf States' role in energy supply security diminishes, (ex-USSR States') grows - Russia "observes" today in NATO/HQ. 2% GNP? We are junior in Big Issues - say, Spain's role in GW2. 3%? We make some noise. Solo? EU-Force? UK/US/Oz/Canada/some free Europeans (sound familiar? Not France, snug and warm in its nuclear-electric blanket). Try a standing UN Force? What to spend the money on is secondary to first defining our purpose. Ireland and Japan did very well, economically, by being defended through the Cold War by (inter alia, UK). What to do?
Govt. has a problem in getting to voters past the roadblock of sound bite-scribblers ("carpet-bombing"), with no knowledge of history, blagging unprepared to tight deadlines, trying to get their words/minutes out, the other guy's spiked. They do that by conforming to the paymaster's party line...and sloppily researching by picking up rants here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Or you could take the issue at face value. Maybe he is responding to a 10-year lead-time to kit and crew capability.
Contemplate, after the demise of renegade-Saudi- and drug-funded energy gangsters, a disciplined, equipped sovereign taking up their game of influencing energy supply. Our friend the Shah did that to Holland, 1973.
So: Gulf States' role in energy supply security diminishes, (ex-USSR States') grows - Russia "observes" today in NATO/HQ. 2% GNP? We are junior in Big Issues - say, Spain's role in GW2. 3%? We make some noise. Solo? EU-Force? UK/US/Oz/Canada/some free Europeans (sound familiar? Not France, snug and warm in its nuclear-electric blanket). Try a standing UN Force? What to spend the money on is secondary to first defining our purpose. Ireland and Japan did very well, economically, by being defended through the Cold War by (inter alia, UK). What to do?
Govt. has a problem in getting to voters past the roadblock of sound bite-scribblers ("carpet-bombing"), with no knowledge of history, blagging unprepared to tight deadlines, trying to get their words/minutes out, the other guy's spiked. They do that by conforming to the paymaster's party line...and sloppily researching by picking up rants here.
Contemplate, after the demise of renegade-Saudi- and drug-funded energy gangsters, a disciplined, equipped sovereign taking up their game of influencing energy supply. Our friend the Shah did that to Holland, 1973.
So: Gulf States' role in energy supply security diminishes, (ex-USSR States') grows - Russia "observes" today in NATO/HQ. 2% GNP? We are junior in Big Issues - say, Spain's role in GW2. 3%? We make some noise. Solo? EU-Force? UK/US/Oz/Canada/some free Europeans (sound familiar? Not France, snug and warm in its nuclear-electric blanket). Try a standing UN Force? What to spend the money on is secondary to first defining our purpose. Ireland and Japan did very well, economically, by being defended through the Cold War by (inter alia, UK). What to do?
Govt. has a problem in getting to voters past the roadblock of sound bite-scribblers ("carpet-bombing"), with no knowledge of history, blagging unprepared to tight deadlines, trying to get their words/minutes out, the other guy's spiked. They do that by conforming to the paymaster's party line...and sloppily researching by picking up rants here.
Think you will find that is already the case, check case in point Iran pricing Oil in Euro and not $, that DID NOT go too well with the spams....
Other case in point, the US's shocking growth in M3/M4, all bought up by the Chinese. They could cripple the spams overnight by dropping the dollar for other currencies/ reinvesting in china.... the balance of power is most definately changing, and its not in our favour ....
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: UK
Just a Question
I was reading the BBC's take on the The PM's 'debate' and I thought that £64bn defence spending in the table at the bottom looked a little high. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm
This compares to £33bn defence spend according to the MOD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...ceSpending.htm
Now call me picky, but this figure the has BBC looks a little high, or is there £31bn in the pot that noone is telling us about
Any ideas?
This compares to £33bn defence spend according to the MOD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...ceSpending.htm
Now call me picky, but this figure the has BBC looks a little high, or is there £31bn in the pot that noone is telling us about
Any ideas?
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: UK
I was reading the BBC's take on the The PM's 'debate' and I thought that £64bn defence spending in the table at the bottom looked a little high. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm
This compares to £33bn defence spend according to the MOD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...ceSpending.htm
Now call me picky, but this figure the has BBC looks a little high, or is there £31bn in the pot that noone is telling us about
Any ideas?
This compares to £33bn defence spend according to the MOD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...ceSpending.htm
Now call me picky, but this figure the has BBC looks a little high, or is there £31bn in the pot that noone is telling us about
Any ideas?