Labour take on Defence - City AM article
Thread Starter
Labour take on Defence - City AM article + added Starmer
By Paul Mason - closely connected to the Labour party
TUESDAY 09 APRIL 2024 7:17 AM
That 2.5 per cent would put an extra £9bn on the defence budget and require either a penny on income tax or a penny on VAT to pay for it. To raise the budget to 3 per cent of GDP would need either the same taxes raised by 3p in the pound or significant extra borrowing. I know that’s a hard sell, but we have to face the facts. Russia is spending 40 per cent of its state budget, and 6 per cent of its GDP, to rebuild its armed forces. That’s not just to fund a new offensive in Ukraine, but to menace the UK and our Nato allies. And if Donald Trump wins the US presidential election in November, and reduces the USA’s commitment to Nato, then 3 per cent might be the minimum the UK needs to spend to hold things together in Europe.
The Ministry of Defence is currently £17bn short of the money it needs to pay for its 10-year equipment plan. Meanwhile, long-promised military commitments – like a warfighting division with enough tanks, artillery, missiles and drones to deter Putin from attacking our allies in the Baltic States – have simply evaporated. That’s why, in January, the outgoing head of the army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, warned that Britain’s ability to think and act strategically is being put at risk. The underlying problem is well known: a decade of austerity has hollowed out the armed forces; the £24bn Boris Johnson injected at the start of his premiership has – as one senior Tory put it – “been spent and didn’t even touch the sides”. Meanwhile MOD procurement is cumbersome, wasteful and geared to peacetime priorities. So the Treasury calls the shots.
Grant Shapps is right to say we could be in a “pre-war” situation. In that context we have to balance fiscal imperatives with those of national security.
In the 1930s, as soon as Britain realised both Germany and Japan were intent on aggression, the government formed a “defence requirements Ccommittee” to design the response. It said: deter Germany, appease Japan and build an air force big enough to stop German bombers and hit back at German cities. They made choices the Treasury didn’t like – and those choices mattered. As a result, Britain’s defence spending grew from 2.2 per cent of GDP in 1933 to 6.8 per cent on the eve of the Second World War. And even then, it was not enough to deter a German attack.
Rearming now, to the tune of at least 3 per cent of GDP, while creating the industrial capacity to do more if needed, has to be a cross-party commitment in the next Parliament. Why 3 per cent? Because austerity has left so many gaps in what our armed forces can do, recruitment so short, and satisfaction with service life so low, that 2.5 per cent would just be like throwing water onto a dry sponge. If we hike the MOD’s Budget by £9bn next year, and a further £20bn in 2026-27, we give ourselves choices. And we should fund it through borrowing.
Even using the OBR’s relatively conservative fiscal multipliers, debt would peak below 100 per cent of GDP and meet the government’s primary fiscal rule in Year 5. There will also be big potential economic upsides, too, if we hike investment defence production and R&D and – as Labour proposes – enact a deep procurement reform at the MOD.
There is an unresolved debate between military thinkers about what Britain’s main contribution to Nato should be. Some say that, as a historically maritime power, we should concentrate on expanding the Royal Navy. Others, like me, believe that land is where history is made. To re-establish our moral authority with our European partners and show leadership when it matters, the UK has to have skin in the game in land warfare. Given the way Putin fights, we should also urgently invest in the defence of our airspace against air and missile attacks, and the dispersal and hardening of our bases and critical energy infrastructure.
We’re spending at 1932 levels when we are facing 1937-38 levels of strategic risk. To move on, we need to start by admitting that fiscal rules are important but not decisive when it comes to national security. In the 1930s, a balanced budget would have been the sure-fire pathway to defeat.
Paul Mason is an author and journalist
TUESDAY 09 APRIL 2024 7:17 AM
Why Britain should be spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence
BY:PAUL MASONThat 2.5 per cent would put an extra £9bn on the defence budget and require either a penny on income tax or a penny on VAT to pay for it. To raise the budget to 3 per cent of GDP would need either the same taxes raised by 3p in the pound or significant extra borrowing. I know that’s a hard sell, but we have to face the facts. Russia is spending 40 per cent of its state budget, and 6 per cent of its GDP, to rebuild its armed forces. That’s not just to fund a new offensive in Ukraine, but to menace the UK and our Nato allies. And if Donald Trump wins the US presidential election in November, and reduces the USA’s commitment to Nato, then 3 per cent might be the minimum the UK needs to spend to hold things together in Europe.
The Ministry of Defence is currently £17bn short of the money it needs to pay for its 10-year equipment plan. Meanwhile, long-promised military commitments – like a warfighting division with enough tanks, artillery, missiles and drones to deter Putin from attacking our allies in the Baltic States – have simply evaporated. That’s why, in January, the outgoing head of the army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, warned that Britain’s ability to think and act strategically is being put at risk. The underlying problem is well known: a decade of austerity has hollowed out the armed forces; the £24bn Boris Johnson injected at the start of his premiership has – as one senior Tory put it – “been spent and didn’t even touch the sides”. Meanwhile MOD procurement is cumbersome, wasteful and geared to peacetime priorities. So the Treasury calls the shots.
Grant Shapps is right to say we could be in a “pre-war” situation. In that context we have to balance fiscal imperatives with those of national security.
In the 1930s, as soon as Britain realised both Germany and Japan were intent on aggression, the government formed a “defence requirements Ccommittee” to design the response. It said: deter Germany, appease Japan and build an air force big enough to stop German bombers and hit back at German cities. They made choices the Treasury didn’t like – and those choices mattered. As a result, Britain’s defence spending grew from 2.2 per cent of GDP in 1933 to 6.8 per cent on the eve of the Second World War. And even then, it was not enough to deter a German attack.
Rearming now, to the tune of at least 3 per cent of GDP, while creating the industrial capacity to do more if needed, has to be a cross-party commitment in the next Parliament. Why 3 per cent? Because austerity has left so many gaps in what our armed forces can do, recruitment so short, and satisfaction with service life so low, that 2.5 per cent would just be like throwing water onto a dry sponge. If we hike the MOD’s Budget by £9bn next year, and a further £20bn in 2026-27, we give ourselves choices. And we should fund it through borrowing.
Even using the OBR’s relatively conservative fiscal multipliers, debt would peak below 100 per cent of GDP and meet the government’s primary fiscal rule in Year 5. There will also be big potential economic upsides, too, if we hike investment defence production and R&D and – as Labour proposes – enact a deep procurement reform at the MOD.
There is an unresolved debate between military thinkers about what Britain’s main contribution to Nato should be. Some say that, as a historically maritime power, we should concentrate on expanding the Royal Navy. Others, like me, believe that land is where history is made. To re-establish our moral authority with our European partners and show leadership when it matters, the UK has to have skin in the game in land warfare. Given the way Putin fights, we should also urgently invest in the defence of our airspace against air and missile attacks, and the dispersal and hardening of our bases and critical energy infrastructure.
We’re spending at 1932 levels when we are facing 1937-38 levels of strategic risk. To move on, we need to start by admitting that fiscal rules are important but not decisive when it comes to national security. In the 1930s, a balanced budget would have been the sure-fire pathway to defeat.
Paul Mason is an author and journalist
Last edited by Asturias56; 12th Apr 2024 at 07:17.
The following 7 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,867
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
The problem with the 10 year spending plan is it has rapidly become obsolete due to the massive shifts in technology learnt on the battlefields of Ukraine and Russia.
Rather like the Dreadnoughts of the past, certain equipment procurement is proving to be getting left behind during the rapid pace of development, tanks for one are proving vulnerable and until an effective measure Is found to protect them it is not going to get better, then you look at the numbers Russia is losing in a day, in some cases 40 plus, which make our stocks of a couple hundred tanks derisory.
Drones are paving the way on land sea and air, and I can see the west pumping millions into each UAV when what is needed are cheap disposable items that are impervious to jamming and capable of destroying the enemy.
Rather like the Dreadnoughts of the past, certain equipment procurement is proving to be getting left behind during the rapid pace of development, tanks for one are proving vulnerable and until an effective measure Is found to protect them it is not going to get better, then you look at the numbers Russia is losing in a day, in some cases 40 plus, which make our stocks of a couple hundred tanks derisory.
Drones are paving the way on land sea and air, and I can see the west pumping millions into each UAV when what is needed are cheap disposable items that are impervious to jamming and capable of destroying the enemy.
Nutty
To an extent you are correct. However, having spoken to a ‘tanky’ friend of mine from the Queens Dragoon Guards a large part of Russia’s problem is how they have been using their tanks.
To me it seemed a little counter intuitive but tanks actually need to be supported by dismounted infantry to clear the way of booby traps and pesky people with anti tank rockets. They should not always be considered as the sledgehammer to directly crack the nut.
Obviously there is a bit more to it than that but the numbers of tanks that Russia has been losing is as much about how they are using them rather than just how many Javelins and drones the Ukrainians have.
Combined arms, well coordinated with proper equipment can be a lot more effective than Vladimir’s army with their Stalingradesque tactics.
We’re not completely obsolete just yet.
BV
To me it seemed a little counter intuitive but tanks actually need to be supported by dismounted infantry to clear the way of booby traps and pesky people with anti tank rockets. They should not always be considered as the sledgehammer to directly crack the nut.
Obviously there is a bit more to it than that but the numbers of tanks that Russia has been losing is as much about how they are using them rather than just how many Javelins and drones the Ukrainians have.
Combined arms, well coordinated with proper equipment can be a lot more effective than Vladimir’s army with their Stalingradesque tactics.
We’re not completely obsolete just yet.
BV
The following 6 users liked this post by Bob Viking:
Thread Starter
I think the point of a 10 year spending plan is the "spending" bit - you may change tack during it but at least you're committed to buying SOMETHING. If you look back at the UK pre WW2 they gradually shifted the buy from twin engined medium bombers to 4 engined and then from Stirling's to Halifax's to Lancaster's
It isn't just about increasing budgets, but about spending it sensibly.
We can't continue to go the way we have in the past with projects like NImrod MRA4 or the carriers, where a company bids for the job, MoD accepts the lowest quote, and then when the contractor misses the deadline and goes over budget we just keep throwing money at them. The contractors need to be held to account instead.
Contracts for infrastructure need to be taken in house - we have units full of electricians who are allowed to do something as simple as change a light bulb because Amey or Babcock or whoever have a contract to do that, but take 2 weeks to come out and do it - and charge the MoD for the bulb at about 10 times the price.
We can't continue to go the way we have in the past with projects like NImrod MRA4 or the carriers, where a company bids for the job, MoD accepts the lowest quote, and then when the contractor misses the deadline and goes over budget we just keep throwing money at them. The contractors need to be held to account instead.
Contracts for infrastructure need to be taken in house - we have units full of electricians who are allowed to do something as simple as change a light bulb because Amey or Babcock or whoever have a contract to do that, but take 2 weeks to come out and do it - and charge the MoD for the bulb at about 10 times the price.
The following users liked this post:
It isn't just about increasing budgets, but about spending it sensibly.
We can't continue to go the way we have in the past with projects like NImrod MRA4 or the carriers, where a company bids for the job, MoD accepts the lowest quote, and then when the contractor misses the deadline and goes over budget we just keep throwing money at them. The contractors need to be held to account instead.
Contracts for infrastructure need to be taken in house - we have units full of electricians who are allowed to do something as simple as change a light bulb because Amey or Babcock or whoever have a contract to do that, but take 2 weeks to come out and do it - and charge the MoD for the bulb at about 10 times the price.
We can't continue to go the way we have in the past with projects like NImrod MRA4 or the carriers, where a company bids for the job, MoD accepts the lowest quote, and then when the contractor misses the deadline and goes over budget we just keep throwing money at them. The contractors need to be held to account instead.
Contracts for infrastructure need to be taken in house - we have units full of electricians who are allowed to do something as simple as change a light bulb because Amey or Babcock or whoever have a contract to do that, but take 2 weeks to come out and do it - and charge the MoD for the bulb at about 10 times the price.
Obviously, there is usually a lot of waste and money is being poured down the drain. Bad news for the taxpayer (and the end user), but good for the Supplier, who I imagine, are happy to see things continue the way they are.
The following users liked this post:
Russia is pretty much where it was in Ukraine back in 2022, give or take a few metres, accruing catastrophic losses in both equipment and personnel. Putin may well unleash a bucket of instant sunshine if he felt the motherland was about to be invaded, but we are not in danger of the red army driving tanks up the champs elysee anytime soon.
The UK already spends 2% of gdp on defence, and spends that appallingly; an additional 1% of gdp won’t fix a bungling procurement system that seems to exist purely to provide the NAO with entertainment value.
The simple truth is, the UK is fulfilling its nato obligations, at a time when others aren’t. The awkward truth is, many of those not fulfilling their obligations are those most at risk, if by some feat of magic, Vlad summoned up a capable military and pointed it West. When the EU nations are all spending 3% on defence, you’ll have my support for a 1% uplift, but even then I’ll be in a minority I think.
The nation has been battered by Covid and systemic mismanagement, and people are more worrier about paying their mortgage, rather than an army they can see bogged down in a country 1000 miles away.
The other sentiment I hear a lot is why we didn’t need conscription or increased spending when the Russians were racing across the border - yet now they are calling up potwashers and prisoners, we need to conscript a generation that isn’t going to comply? What if they identify as a non-soldier? Are women and trans getting called up? If not, the diversity mob will be out in force..,
The UK already spends 2% of gdp on defence, and spends that appallingly; an additional 1% of gdp won’t fix a bungling procurement system that seems to exist purely to provide the NAO with entertainment value.
The simple truth is, the UK is fulfilling its nato obligations, at a time when others aren’t. The awkward truth is, many of those not fulfilling their obligations are those most at risk, if by some feat of magic, Vlad summoned up a capable military and pointed it West. When the EU nations are all spending 3% on defence, you’ll have my support for a 1% uplift, but even then I’ll be in a minority I think.
The nation has been battered by Covid and systemic mismanagement, and people are more worrier about paying their mortgage, rather than an army they can see bogged down in a country 1000 miles away.
The other sentiment I hear a lot is why we didn’t need conscription or increased spending when the Russians were racing across the border - yet now they are calling up potwashers and prisoners, we need to conscript a generation that isn’t going to comply? What if they identify as a non-soldier? Are women and trans getting called up? If not, the diversity mob will be out in force..,
The following users liked this post:
It isn't just about increasing budgets, but about spending it sensibly.
We can't continue to go the way we have in the past with projects like NImrod MRA4 or the carriers, where a company bids for the job, MoD accepts the lowest quote, and then when the contractor misses the deadline and goes over budget we just keep throwing money at them. The contractors need to be held to account instead.
Contracts for infrastructure need to be taken in house - we have units full of electricians who are allowed to do something as simple as change a light bulb because Amey or Babcock or whoever have a contract to do that, but take 2 weeks to come out and do it - and charge the MoD for the bulb at about 10 times the price.
We can't continue to go the way we have in the past with projects like NImrod MRA4 or the carriers, where a company bids for the job, MoD accepts the lowest quote, and then when the contractor misses the deadline and goes over budget we just keep throwing money at them. The contractors need to be held to account instead.
Contracts for infrastructure need to be taken in house - we have units full of electricians who are allowed to do something as simple as change a light bulb because Amey or Babcock or whoever have a contract to do that, but take 2 weeks to come out and do it - and charge the MoD for the bulb at about 10 times the price.
I was watching a Defence Select Committee hearing recently where it was asserted that the French get 30% more capability per pound spent than we do. Whether it's 20, 30 or 40 doesn't really matter, but it does make you wonder how we've got ourselves into this state.
I was watching a Defence Select Committee hearing recently where it was asserted that the French get 30% more capability per pound spent than we do. Whether it's 20, 30 or 40 doesn't really matter, but it does make you wonder how we've got ourselves into this state.
Defence procurement is difficult. Most of that difficulty is caused by a combination of funding annuality, the split between RDEL and CDEL (often not enough of the former), scope change as alluded to up thread and lack of suitably qualified people. That's before the politicians get involved.
Look at Jones current vendetta against Boeing. According to Jones, Wedgetail should not have been contracted - instead some other (as yet unidentified) solution should have been chosen. Similarly the latest Chinook buy is somehow an affront to other unspecified manufacturers who have the equivalent ready to go.
In both cases, the issue is not Boeing, but actually service and MoD personnel trying to manage funds on an annual basis and incurring escalating costs while doing so. John Healey is wrong about just about everything, but he did pick up on the reduction in RDEL which will continue to cripple defence until policy is changed.
The following 2 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
I'd probably start by questioning the veracity of that assertion. If it was made by Penfold, Spellar, Jones or Nice But Tobias, I'd treat it with a degree of scepticism. It's not like the HC DSC is stuffed with intellectual giants, nor indeed that all of its "witnesses" are not "witlesses".
Defence procurement is difficult. Most of that difficulty is caused by a combination of funding annuality, the split between RDEL and CDEL (often not enough of the former), scope change as alluded to up thread and lack of suitably qualified people. That's before the politicians get involved.
Look at Jones current vendetta against Boeing. According to Jones, Wedgetail should not have been contracted - instead some other (as yet unidentified) solution should have been chosen. Similarly the latest Chinook buy is somehow an affront to other unspecified manufacturers who have the equivalent ready to go.
In both cases, the issue is not Boeing, but actually service and MoD personnel trying to manage funds on an annual basis and incurring escalating costs while doing so. John Healey is wrong about just about everything, but he did pick up on the reduction in RDEL which will continue to cripple defence until policy is changed.
Defence procurement is difficult. Most of that difficulty is caused by a combination of funding annuality, the split between RDEL and CDEL (often not enough of the former), scope change as alluded to up thread and lack of suitably qualified people. That's before the politicians get involved.
Look at Jones current vendetta against Boeing. According to Jones, Wedgetail should not have been contracted - instead some other (as yet unidentified) solution should have been chosen. Similarly the latest Chinook buy is somehow an affront to other unspecified manufacturers who have the equivalent ready to go.
In both cases, the issue is not Boeing, but actually service and MoD personnel trying to manage funds on an annual basis and incurring escalating costs while doing so. John Healey is wrong about just about everything, but he did pick up on the reduction in RDEL which will continue to cripple defence until policy is changed.
Sorry I began to question my own memory there. I actually heard it said on Newsnight a few weeks ago by Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis. It was Newsnight on 8 March, if anyone's interested, which is available on iPlayer. Quite depressing.
Hmmm. Tusa potentially falls into the "witlesses" box. He's clearly acting as a mouthpiece for Penfold - almost word for word script. Namechecks Ajax and Wedgetail and then suggests the list is endless. Barrons was slightly more credible in that he alludes to the annuality issue in terms of how spend is controlled - and the effect that said control has on project timescale and cost. Interesting that they wheeled out Meg Hillier to confirm that the Deterrent programme was actually within its budget at £38Bn - although it was presented - natch - as an overrun.
The following 2 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
I guarantee you now that the Treasury under the incoming Labour government won’t spend a penny more on defence. It will be a case of do more with what you have.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Shock, Tusa on an anti-Boeing, LM, and GD campaign. It would be nice to see who has Defence Analysis on a retainer. It’s up there with the utter drivel that comes out of RUSI these days.
And don't hurt any feelings of anyone while doing so. If the Rocks want to go SF, they can form the Special Diversity Service, which will be badged as an addition to the UK ORBAT, bringing enhanced equality and soft power for all.............
Does anyone publish what percentage of GDP is spent on other big ticket items in Government - 3%can sound alot or a little without other references
For example what percentage do we spend on the NHS-a failing NHS is surely a much bigger threat to life of the average Brit than a loony Russian.
What percentage do we spend on our hapless transport infrastructure
It does seem to be sensible to spend some more money 1 percent more or one third more going from 2 to 3 . But will we spend it on the right things. A couple of carriers that don seem yo to work do not look like they were a good buy -how many armed drones could you buy/make from the cost of just one.
i know little about the military world but tanks seem to be going the way of horses and maybe even choppers too, both can be taken out by one guy with the right weapon .
Then there's people, I would guess there is absolutely zero chance of conscripting any one and who would fight for a country governed by the current lot who would be too busy steering defense contracts towards companies their brother, mother next door neighbour has shares in or buying dud body armour from China to resell to the MOD.-in fact how much stuff have we actually bought from China and is any of it in secondary level military use? How many 18-30 y/o olds would fight for a 21st century Britain with all it sproblems and Brexit betrayal or would disenfranchised young white males we read so much about think Vlad, Trump Xi etc , or those like him , are their kind of guy anyway.
Overall a very difficult situation the only solace i can think of if anything really does heat up is that our serving men and women will genuinely do their best as they have done throughout history
For example what percentage do we spend on the NHS-a failing NHS is surely a much bigger threat to life of the average Brit than a loony Russian.
What percentage do we spend on our hapless transport infrastructure
It does seem to be sensible to spend some more money 1 percent more or one third more going from 2 to 3 . But will we spend it on the right things. A couple of carriers that don seem yo to work do not look like they were a good buy -how many armed drones could you buy/make from the cost of just one.
i know little about the military world but tanks seem to be going the way of horses and maybe even choppers too, both can be taken out by one guy with the right weapon .
Then there's people, I would guess there is absolutely zero chance of conscripting any one and who would fight for a country governed by the current lot who would be too busy steering defense contracts towards companies their brother, mother next door neighbour has shares in or buying dud body armour from China to resell to the MOD.-in fact how much stuff have we actually bought from China and is any of it in secondary level military use? How many 18-30 y/o olds would fight for a 21st century Britain with all it sproblems and Brexit betrayal or would disenfranchised young white males we read so much about think Vlad, Trump Xi etc , or those like him , are their kind of guy anyway.
Overall a very difficult situation the only solace i can think of if anything really does heat up is that our serving men and women will genuinely do their best as they have done throughout history
Thread Starter
You have to tackle Health & pensions if you want to get serious wriggle room - which of course the voters will hate you for
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,867
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
One.
If I was running the country the first thing I would do is to cease homing illegal immigrants…. period!
Housing them is simply giving those that haven’t arrived an incentive to come.
Two.
I would use part of that funding to house all those U.K. citizens that are living rough out on the streets, giving them an address means they can pick up their lives, open a bank account and get benefits as they rebuild towards future employment.
Three.
I would use part of those savings for rebuilding the Military and stop some of the stupid waste we see,
Ajax, who in their right mind would buy an APC then double its weight with modifications, one of the best in the World is the Swedish CV90, they should have purchased them at the outset as is, cheaper, proven, and available.
Nimrod, well where do we start, who in their right mind would fly them down to the south coast, take the wings off and then truck it back halfway up the country… and that’s even before the other ludicrously…. Fitting computer designed wings on 40 year old hand built fuselages and wondering why they do not fit straight on, specifying an engine never designed to be buried deep in a wing and wondering why it isn’t happy.
Building Carriers that lack an angled deck or catapults, thus limiting them to one aircraft type, without enough of those to fill the ships, Carriers that the Royal Navy have to whore themselves around the World to get sufficient support vessels to form a flotilla.
Keep telling the public that we can do the Job with fewer but more capable ships which is fine until you need one in the Red Sea and another elsewhere, but do not have the fleet size to do it.
If I was running the country the first thing I would do is to cease homing illegal immigrants…. period!
Housing them is simply giving those that haven’t arrived an incentive to come.
Two.
I would use part of that funding to house all those U.K. citizens that are living rough out on the streets, giving them an address means they can pick up their lives, open a bank account and get benefits as they rebuild towards future employment.
Three.
I would use part of those savings for rebuilding the Military and stop some of the stupid waste we see,
Ajax, who in their right mind would buy an APC then double its weight with modifications, one of the best in the World is the Swedish CV90, they should have purchased them at the outset as is, cheaper, proven, and available.
Nimrod, well where do we start, who in their right mind would fly them down to the south coast, take the wings off and then truck it back halfway up the country… and that’s even before the other ludicrously…. Fitting computer designed wings on 40 year old hand built fuselages and wondering why they do not fit straight on, specifying an engine never designed to be buried deep in a wing and wondering why it isn’t happy.
Building Carriers that lack an angled deck or catapults, thus limiting them to one aircraft type, without enough of those to fill the ships, Carriers that the Royal Navy have to whore themselves around the World to get sufficient support vessels to form a flotilla.
Keep telling the public that we can do the Job with fewer but more capable ships which is fine until you need one in the Red Sea and another elsewhere, but do not have the fleet size to do it.
Britain’s bill for housing asylum seekers will climb to more than £5bn a year by the end of the next parliament
The following 3 users liked this post by NutLoose: