PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives - Defence Doesn't Matter?


pulse1
24th Jan 2015, 10:07
I have just been sent a questionnaire by David Cameron. It asks me what matters most to me and my family and what I think matters most to the country as a whole.

It lists 17 issues, from Affordable Housing to Welfare Fraud, and asks for my top 3. There is absolutely no mention of defence.

I cannot make up my mind whether this means they have no interest at all, or whether they are afraid that, if they included it, it would show that no-one else is interested.

Before I send him a rude reply I thought I would see how others interpret it. Any offers?

joy ride
24th Jan 2015, 10:33
Just about everything in UK is now owned by Mega-Multi-National-Tax-Avoidance Corp Inc., so what's left to defend?!

Windy Militant
24th Jan 2015, 11:43
As the old Joke Goes " Idi Amin was asked about defence, his reply was "De man will come wid de Hammer and nails to fix de fence!"*

Any way hasn't Call me Dave arranged for his mate Derrik O'Bama to look after us!:p


*Monty Python I believe

Fox3WheresMyBanana
24th Jan 2015, 12:06
Just about everything in UK is now owned by Mega-Multi-National-Tax-Avoidance Corp Inc., so what's left to defend?!

BVI and the Caymans ;)

Maybe Jersey & Bermuda too.

Gertrude the Wombat
24th Jan 2015, 12:16
Perhaps the thinking is that as defence is the first duty of government it can be taken for granted and is not up for grabs.

But more likely their marketroids have told them that it's not appearing on the radar in this campaign, and it's not something about which they've got any particular story to tell, so it's not worth talking about.

wings folded
24th Jan 2015, 12:23
This thread should be merged with the Number of Posts thread.

I reckon one post every two yards should be adequate for de fence.:p

ExXB
24th Jan 2015, 13:24
It lists 17 issues, from Affordable Housing to Welfare Fraud, and asks for my top 3.

Is that Affordable Housing for you personally, or for everyone on the planet?

Is that Welfare Fraud for you personally, or for everyone on the planet?

Just curious ...

All sarcasm aside why should they be asking if fraud is an issue for you? Of course it is an issue - fraudsters are breaking the law. What is the real issue is the government-in-power's apparent inability to deal with crime. But that would be them, wouldn't it?

Gertrude the Wombat
24th Jan 2015, 13:51
What is the real issue is the government-in-power's apparent inability to deal with crime.
It's a cost-of-quality thing.

Simply from the economic point of view, you want to minimise the total of

(a) losses due to fraud
(b) cost of preventing fraud

which will not be at the point where (a) is zero, because to get there (b) would have to be infinite (so there would be no money left for health, defence, roads, ect ect).

Point is that this straightforward arithmetic gives you an amount for (a) which the tabloids then shock-horror-headline as the amount of fraud that the government deems "acceptable". So in practice any government has to waste taxpayers' money by putting extra into (b) in order to recover a smaller amount by a reduction of (a).

How much extra money is wasted in this way is where the political judgement comes in.

Two's in
24th Jan 2015, 14:06
After 10 years of bleeding the country dry (in terms of both lives and money) fighting wars with no objective or clear purpose, Dave probably suspects that the public may be suspicious of any move to pour even more into the defence black hole. Of course, history tells us the forthcoming neglect of defence technology and capability will only be recognized when the next unforecast threat pops up on the radar. By then we will be fully equipped to fight a low-tech counter insurgency having no air capability, so when it's a high-tech, air dominant enemy we face, we can relive the Battle of Britain all over again.

It's just so predictable and disappointing.

G-CPTN
24th Jan 2015, 14:28
Whilst I realize that it is immoral to ask soldiers to expose themselves to unnecessary risks to their lives due to inadequate equipment (ie poorly armoured vehicles), the convoys of vehicles being returned from Afghanistan seem excessive - vehicles that are now destined to be disposed of at a fraction of their cost (and with no realistic application).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30964712

Groundgripper
24th Jan 2015, 15:14
Just cross out the ones you think are irrelevant or of zero importance, add your own preferences and re-number appropriately.

1) Defence

2) Defence

3) Defence

should be a good start.


GG

airship
24th Jan 2015, 17:35
The UK, an island nation, increasingly insular and regarded so by many fellow Europeans, hasn't had a navy worthy of the name for quite a few years. The French (who do have a real nuclear-powered, sea-going aircraft-carrier with real war-planes aboard and able to conduct real missions) haven't taken the opportunity to invade (yet). So what is this "defence" requirement you're all waffling-on about?

papajuliet
24th Jan 2015, 18:50
Judging by the flippancy of most replies, Defence doesn't mean much to the posters on this thread either.

MG23
24th Jan 2015, 19:21
Who do you think is going to invade Britain any time soon?

ISIS and Putin seem the only half-believable candidates. You can't beat Russia with a few F-35s, and much of ISIS already has British passports.

toffeez
24th Jan 2015, 19:35
How long before ISIS are able to invade the EU (Cyprus)?

rh200
24th Jan 2015, 20:00
How long before ISIS are able to invade the EU (Cyprus)?

How long for the US to run out of money to stop paying the wages of the people running the money printing presses to pay for $100 000 bombs to drop on a Toyota landcruiser.:p.

Actually that could be an interesting statistic, is the rate of ISIS supporters growing quicker than the rate of bombs dropping on them?:E.


As for defense and its priority, you could view it two ways.

1) Where conservatives, its always number one, hmm maybe number two after economy. (Philosophical viewpoint there, chicken or the egg thing):confused:


2) Where in a huggy fluffie world with no major aggressors on the horizon (ROFL :ugh:) as such defense is being given the appropriate priority.

You should also keep in mind, as I have said before, for anything important they are not your armed forces, they are NATO, as such they are yours in name only. Unless you find a party you want to partake in and some of your friends don't want to come:p