Soddim,
I think there are far more “thinking” people in this country that would strongly disagree with Keegan’s clapped out, old, inaccurate rhetoric than you would like to think.
How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?
Take a look around you at what’s happening in the world. The busiest and most employed Air Force on the planet , the United States Air Force, is cutting 22,000 people and has admitted that it is going to drastically reduce it’s number of tactical fast jets, not that they use that ridiculous phrase, as they are using less than half of them to fulfil their global commitments.
The Swedish Air Force is also reducing to a fraction of their 1990’s fast jet numbers.
Increasing defence budgets in the major players in the so-called War against terror such as the US, the UK and Australia are being used to fight a very different campaign against a very different enemy.
We no longer face fleets of combat aircraft, surface ships and submarines contesting the worlds oceans or skies, or hundreds of tanks rolling across Europe.
I do agree that some of the decisions do not seem to make sense, why on earth, for example, are we apparently reducing the future Support Helicopter budget by a billion after the damming report on SH shortfalls by the NAO. This is an area that I thought would be substantially boosted, instead it seems it is to be further reduced.
We still retain 7 Tornado GR4 squadrons yet only ever seem to need less than three, surely funds here could be found for a more robust SH force?
Have to agree with BillHicksRules and Jackonicko on both the Tories and the Telegraph.
I am afraid as a substantial taxpayer I agree that it is the duty of ANY Government to spend the very minimum required on Defence, a penny more is a waste of taxpayers money. That minimum of course has to ensure an adequate defence.
We appear to be spending the correct amount, but on the wrong things.