if GB hadn't systematically eroded military capability when he was chancellor there would currently be some fat that could potentially be trimmed.
Please could you expand on that statement because I remember many occasions (well before GB was chancellor and the Labour party came to power) in the eighties and nineties, where it was stated that there was no more “Fat to Cut” after Sqn after Sqn and Base after Base was closed down.
Ok we were not fighting a war in Afghanistan then, but we still had a considerable commitment across the world and it did not take a Rocket Scientist to work out where the world was slowly but surly heading.
Tanks, Aeroplanes and Ships aside, I believe that the average serving member of the armed forces is far better equipped then it was just 10 years ago in terms of personal equipment, communications and generally being looked after (and don’t get me wrong, they all fully deserve it). However, I must point out that this has all had to be paid for by somebody. If the labour party went into massive debt in some attempt to put many wrong things (arguably highlighted by the press) right because we were fighting two difficult wars, then so be it.
Today’s Government has the potential to ruthlessly cut the armed forces (and other areas) to a dangerous level but they have the luxury of being able to blame the last governments’ so called incompetence for doing it and most people believing that they are right.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I find this situation quite worrying.
Whenurhappy:
Many thanks for that and good to hear it
