LondonLax Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The UK should spend what Germany does on defense. They have proven (with a much larger population) you don't need to waste as much money as the UK does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 So if the rest of Europe go to war as readily as ourselves, how come with the exception of France, we spend double per annum compared to any other country? Even France spends considerably less of its GDP than us. We maintain greater and more varied capabilities than our European neighbours excluding France, and they spend virtually the same amount we do. No they don't UK €43bil 2.56% GDP France €39bil 2.01% GDP Germany €33bil 1.34% GDP Italy €21bil 1.4% GDP and downwards thereafter Where are your figures from? Wiki has: UK: USD$62.7 billion and 2.6% of GDP France: USD$62.5 billion and 2.3% of GDP The UK should spend what Germany does on defense. They have proven (with a much larger population) you don't need to waste as much money as the UK does. German is in a totally different strategic, economic and political situation to the UK. You're comparing apples and elephants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 20, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 20, 2012 Where are your figures from? Wiki has: UK: USD$62.7 billion and 2.6% of GDP France: USD$62.5 billion and 2.3% of GDP Wiki Which in itself comes from the EDA which is I think as close as it gets to the horses mouth. Them being the 2010 figures, which one would imagine given the nature of the beast are the latest figures available Yours btw claim to be 2011 figures from some Swedish Peace Loving Pinko Organisation ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Where are your figures from? Wiki has: UK: USD$62.7 billion and 2.6% of GDP France: USD$62.5 billion and 2.3% of GDP Wiki Which in itself comes from the EDA which is I think as close as it gets to the horses mouth. Them being the 2010 figures, which one would imagine given the nature of the beast are the latest figures available Yours btw claim to be 2011 figures from some Swedish Peace Loving Pinko Organisation ;-) Statistics eh? Either way, there is not a lot in it between the spend of UK and France on defence and they are the only capable military powers in Europe. Should the euro federalists get their way then the UK and France will form the core of a united European military capability. The trouble with Europe is the serious military muscle to defend it has been provided by the USA since at least the 1960's. Our biggest concern should be that the US decides European defence is not worth its tax dollars, not whether we should tell the Americans to go whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 20, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 20, 2012 We maintain greater and more varied capabilities than our European neighbours excluding France, and they spend virtually the same amount we do.....We remain the most militarily effective ally of the US, in return we get access to the US intelligence gathering capability (which is unparalleled) and the latest in military technology. Whatever political bitching and derision is directed at the "special relationship", the reality of it is evident in our national security posture - and the benefits we enjoy due to that relationship. The idea of chucking that away in order to throw our lot in with a gaggle of totally unreliable EU countries is beyond crazy when view through the national interest of the UK. That changes of course if one thinks maintaining the UK as an independent social and political entity isn't a good thing in and of itself. I'd argue a couple of those points, not in a major way, but... France probably has more capability than the UK - certainly in areas like carriers and Maritime aircraft. To me their capability is more "in tune" with the modern world in many respects. As far as use or access to U.S intelligence - to what ends? We're basically given access to information to help them with their aims much of the time, perhaps, more than for altruistic purposes. Give the dog a bone and it'll follow your orders. Getting hold of their technology is far from easy - sure they may deny some of it to France, which doesn't have the same outlook, but are we selling our conscience for a fair price, if there should be a price? I genuinely don't see the major benefits we get, over France from the U.S. I think that actually the gov't realises this, to an extent. We're moving towards a lot more collaboration with the French, though whether it's a simple money driven thing, rather than a considered view, I'm not sure. And I'm also not sure it won't end in tears. We're basically in a position where our eyes are bigger than our stomach, in "projecting power" terms. It's ego fluffing for politicians and has been for a long time. Certainly since the witch and the end of the cold war. The U.S. is very protective of U.S. industry, and more so re defence industry. It's not so much about sharing, from my viewpoint. More about protection of U.S. jobs and U.S. advantage, politically and technologically. We'd do the same, in their position, maybe. But we get the rough end of it as things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 20, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 20, 2012 Statistics eh? Either way, there is not a lot in it between the spend of UK and France on defence and they are the only capable military powers in Europe. Should the euro federalists get their way then the UK and France will form the core of a united European military capability. Yes but the rest of Europe would have to pay their way n'est pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Grauniad article from a Lib Dem: Quite sad, on many levels. Addressing it is a bit like kicking a puppy, or tripping up someone using a zimmer frame. But we do need to identify the screamingly mad economic "analysis" going on here. Money is something external to government - there's either enough, or not enough. You can try to get more by taxing or reducing spending, but if that doesn't work, then you've run out of money and must cut back, just like a household budget or the guy in the street corner grocery. Wrong. If a government decides to spend more, it doesn't need to wait for tax receipts to arrive in cheques, cash, or even electronically. It just spends. So there are two problems. First, the Lib Dems don't understand quite how toxic they are electorally, and how little this little vid will do to counter that; second, they don't know how an economy works, yet are seeking to take charge of one. Ours, in fact. Held in check only by some little idiot whose only life experience outside family and party is folding towels at Selfridges. Oh ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Blandy, the MN is certainly in a better place right now than the Royal Navy will be for at least another 7 or 8 years. One carrier is certainly better than none, even if it does mean you effectively have have 0 for 3 to 6 months of the year. I have always seen France's issue in this area mind is in lack a credible escort capacity. They have four platforms that are up to the task. If anything the MN and the RN would slot together quite well with our escort, amphib and ASW capability with the CDG and Rafale. I am sure Awol will reply to you with his own views and in depth, but the point is only the UK and France take defence seriously in Europe and even we do not have the kit we should both have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 We maintain greater and more varied capabilities than our European neighbours excluding France, and they spend virtually the same amount we do.....We remain the most militarily effective ally of the US, in return we get access to the US intelligence gathering capability (which is unparalleled) and the latest in military technology. Whatever political bitching and derision is directed at the "special relationship", the reality of it is evident in our national security posture - and the benefits we enjoy due to that relationship. The idea of chucking that away in order to throw our lot in with a gaggle of totally unreliable EU countries is beyond crazy when view through the national interest of the UK. That changes of course if one thinks maintaining the UK as an independent social and political entity isn't a good thing in and of itself. I'd argue a couple of those points, not in a major way, but... France probably has more capability than the UK - certainly in areas like carriers and Maritime aircraft. To me their capability is more "in tune" with the modern world in many respects. As Ads has said, the CDG does give them a maritime fast air component that we are now lacking, but (assuming they are not pre-sold before they hit the water) the QE and POW carriers with whatever version of the F-35 we get will provide the RN with the best carrier capability outside the USN. Assuming bollitickers don't object to the slight diversion I'm interested to know how and why you think the French force structure is more "in tune" with the modern world? As far as use or access to U.S intelligence - to what ends? We're basically given access to information to help them with their aims much of the time, perhaps, more than for altruistic purposes. Give the dog a bone and it'll follow your orders. I don't think that's an accurate or fair characterisation of the relationship (particularly between the NSA and Cheltenham), but unfortunately this isn't really the place to explore that further. Getting hold of their technology is far from easy - sure they may deny some of it to France, which doesn't have the same outlook, but are we selling our conscience for a fair price, if there should be a price? You'll know more about this subject but my general understanding is that there is very little we can't get - I've also heard that the source code issues for F-35 have been resolved. It's not, IMO, an issue of selling our national conscience, more that our national interests frequently overlap. When that happens then putting our shoulder to their wheel to help achieve jointly held objectives is fair enough, but when they don't we shouldn't - see Iraq part II. I genuinely don't see the major benefits we get, over France from the U.S. Proven reliability when push comes to shove. I think that actually the gov't realises this, to an extent. We're moving towards a lot more collaboration with the French, though whether it's a simple money driven thing, rather than a considered view, I'm not sure. And I'm also not sure it won't end in tears. We both agree that the SDSR was a disaster predicated purely on saving cash. Decisions to develop new strategic partnerships in that climate should be viewed with extreme caution, imo. Not that greater cooperation with the French is a bad thing, on the contrary. However it is not and can never be a replacement for our combat proven existing arrangements. We're basically in a position where our eyes are bigger than our stomach, in "projecting power" terms. It's ego fluffing for politicians and has been for a long time. Certainly since the witch and the end of the cold war. As a nation we can choose to prioritise the funds to do whatever we feel is necessary to protect the national interest, but that should be based on a process of identifying what we want to do, figuring out what we need to do it, then allocating funds accordingly. Funnily enough exactly what Liam Fox told me would happen before the last election - *laughs bitterly* The U.S. is very protective of U.S. industry, and more so re defence industry. It's not so much about sharing, from my viewpoint. More about protection of U.S. jobs and U.S. advantage, politically and technologically. We'd do the same, in their position, maybe. But we get the rough end of it as things are. Of course they act in their own national interest, as should we. I'm not looking at this through starry, idealistic eyes, but as what can best guarantee the security of the UK. For me that means choosing the US over Europe every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2012 Guardian reports - click here for full article George Osborne's debt reduction plans took another blow last month as government borrowing hit its highest on record for any August. Public sector net borrowing excluding financial sector interventions – the government's preferred measure – widened to £14.41bn from £14.37bn in August 2011 – and is now the largest it has been since records began in 1993. That takes the deficit for the tax year to date to £31bn. But, stripping out the transfer of Royal Mail pension assets, the deficit has actually widened 22% to £59bn so far this year. George Buckley at Deutsche Bank said Friday's public finance data suggested the government will miss its targets by about £10bn or £20bn. The 22% increase in the deficit between April and August compares with the government's target of reducing the deficit by 4.6% this year. With the UK mired in recession, benefit payments rose while key sources of income – such as corporation tax – fell. The public finances data show corporation tax since April was 10% lower than the same period last year. Overall tax receipts for the tax year to date inched up 0.4%, just a fraction of the 3.9% rise the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting for the year. The figures leave the Treasury's calculations in tatters and could force Osborne into an embarrassing climbdown at his autumn statement in December.... Like I said, they mess everything up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Yeah, it's not ideal that they came in on a ticket pledging to reduce borrowing and have actually increased it. We haven't seen any positive benefit from the extra borrowing they have done, it just covers the unintended consequences of the cutbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Andrew Mitchell. What a w**ker. I think his qualified apology (denying 'effin 3 times at a rozzer) just makes things worse. He should resign, his patronising, sneering and arrogant attitude is indefensible and represents everything people rightly hate about the Tories. Utter knob head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 15 % have currently said they would vote for another party .. that could be Greens, UKIP , Monster raving or whoever it maybe more and more people go that way I had a look at the Green party manifesto the other day , some of it is completely barking but possibly if they could join the real world and be less Green they could become a serious party at some point i actually liek the greens leader. she really does come across like a leader of a country. i unfortunately am one of those ignorant people who thinks if i vote greens it will be wasted as they wont ever get into power but you are right some of the things that are proposing are madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 About 10 years ago the Australian equivalent of the Lib Dems had a massive bust up and died a death as a political force when previously they had been the 3rd party and often held the balance of power. Into that vacuum stepped the Greens who took up the mantle as the 3rd largest party. Could the same thing happen over here? With the English/Welsh Green party having an Australian leader I imagine she will be well aware of the path the Australian Green party took to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 i actually liek the greens leader. The new one, or Caroline Lucas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Andrew Mitchell. What a w**ker. I think his qualified apology (denying 'effin 3 times at a rozzer) just makes things worse. He should resign, his patronising, sneering and arrogant attitude is indefensible and represents everything people rightly hate about the Tories. Utter knob head. Well said Mr Without Leave. He epitomises eveything the public revile about Dave's Tory Government. We're all in it together? Bollocks. 'They' look down on 'Us'. We are the plebs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Andrew Mitchell. What a w**ker. I think his qualified apology (denying 'effin 3 times at a rozzer) just makes things worse. He should resign, his patronising, sneering and arrogant attitude is indefensible and represents everything people rightly hate about the Tories. Utter knob head. Well said Mr Without Leave. He epitomises eveything the public revile about Dave's Tory Government. We're all in it together? Bollocks. 'They' look down on 'Us'. We are the plebs. Well that's what pisses me off. A good friend of mine from his pre-political days is the Tory MP for North Warwickshire. A more honourable, patriotic and decent man you couldn't wish to meet. Men like Andrew Mitchell make everyone think Tories are all the same arrogant fuckwits who believe they are entitled to rule, and they're not all like that. The fact this has happened in the same week two female officers laid down their lives in Manchester just makes me want to vomit/punch the granny out of this tool even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 About 10 years ago the Australian equivalent of the Lib Dems had a massive bust up and died a death as a political force when previously they had been the 3rd party and often held the balance of power. Into that vacuum stepped the Greens who took up the mantle as the 3rd largest party. Could the same thing happen over here? With the English/Welsh Green party having an Australian leader I imagine she will be well aware of the path the Australian Green party took to get there. It could. In favour is the growing disenchantment with the bigger political parties, and the weakening of traditional tribal loyalties. Greens are pretty much untainted with the things which put many people off politics, because they have not been a good career choice for political careerists like the Blairites and the Cameroonies, which has been a great benefit to them. Against is the difficulty Greens have in getting heard on things other than environmental issues, so that many people are unaware of other policies and perhaps see them more as a pressure group than a political party to vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Men like Andrew Mitchell make everyone think Tories are all the same arrogant fuckwits who believe they are entitled to rule, and they're not all like that. No, they're not all like that. But quite a lot of them are, especially the ones who have most power and influence. When I meet ones who aren't, and who have achieved high standing in the tory party without being like that, I'm pleasantly surprised - but still surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Men like Andrew Mitchell make everyone think Tories are all the same arrogant fuckwits who believe they are entitled to rule, and they're not all like that. No, they're not all like that. But quite a lot of them are, especially the ones who have most power and influence. When I meet ones who aren't, and who have achieved high standing in the tory party without being like that, I'm pleasantly surprised - but still surprised. You'd like my mate. Youngest Major in the Royal Army Medical Corps with a great career in front of him. Resigned on principle when we decided to invaded Iraq in 2003, but has fought against the parsimonious system on behalf of veterans support groups as a parliamentary candidate, and since then as an MP. Expect he'll lose his seat next time (unless his constituents appreciate his role fighting against HS2 for them) due to his PM being a throbber, but he's not the only good guy. Tobias Ellwood is another 'good' Tory, an officer in my Battalion while I was serving. I don't doubt that there are plenty more of them too, sadly they are led by fucksticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts