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

Any references that we can see where the great man has actually said he wants a debate? (too busy @ work and all that to spend time looking right now)

He's opening the debate (:yuk:) 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, :ugh: :ugh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

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.

...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.

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?

You mis-spelt Mass-Turbator

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.:{

I wouldnt Exactly say tranche 3 is any major loss...
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.

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.

Looks as if the slime ball is on TV Now...

Also looks as if he hasnt practised his speech... lots of erms.

Can anyone tell us where we go to take part in this debate?

He has completely lost it.

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.

the PM wants a debate on defence where does he want the public to have it?

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 .... :uhoh:

IMHO
Since, to paraphrase a very wise man, the military take over when the politicians have failed, we would appear to need a huge armed force to cope with this shower of to##ers in power!:mad:

'Your PM is unsure if he wants the RAF.'

Our PM is? So are the rest of us!

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?

:confused:

It is in US Dollars. $64 Billion is approx £32 Billion.