Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
I don't want to say " I told you so" but I will, at the beginning of the Libyan 'conflict' (war is no longer PC) I said I thought that the govt may have to do a "Thatcherlike u-turn" after the Falklands and review proposed defence cuts. Well that's exactly what Cameron is doing judging by todays reports in the press.
Mr Cameron is understood to be "actively engaged" in reassessing the planned reductions in personnel and equipment, the Daily Telegraph said.
It is understood some of the Strategic Defence and Security Review's (SDSR) recommendations, which included cuts to all three services, could now be postponed or even reversed.
PaulB mentioned on another thread the UK's no show in other troubled states indicating the lack of a carrier as one of the reasons. Spot on
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
This is good news. It means there will have to be more cuts elsewhere but Defence should be the highest priority of any government.
We never learn in this country, going back centuries, time after time we embark on Defence reductions only for events to show they are wrong.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#3
Oh blast it goes right against the grain but I have to agree with blue Barry. I'll have to go to confession and ask for forgiveness...
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#4
Im thinking you need some catholic self-flagellation round about now Marek
!!
Late on Sky News last night they had the usual press review where they review the upcoming days newspapers...and they show the morrows headlines. I think it was the Daily Telegraph which leads today with the headline
"Review of Defence Spending" or words of close approximation.
Oul wag Roy Hattersley, one time minister in an ancient Labour Government, who was one of the bods reviewing the papers, came out with a good one..
He said...so far we are having a review of the education cuts, a review of the NHS cuts, and now a review of the Defence cuts...if we keep on like this we are going to end up back where we started !! ba bom
ps: lumbering back thru memory. didnt John Knott, barely remembering this, a defence Minister under Thatcher at Falklands time, didnt he have to resign over defence cuts or something. Im sure one of you guys can fill in my memory gaps.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#5
naughty roy hattersley lol
looks like they in a mess
more hardship to come
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#6
Well,Well,Well,We should call him "You turn DAVID"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
i can remember john knott giving daily press conferences during the falklands conflict, always looking like he didn't fancy the job.
after it was over he was never heard of again.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
John Nott did resign over the Falklands accepting full responsibility, as the Sec of State, for mistakes by the MOD in the run up to the Falklands War.
Those were the days when Ministers were expected to do such things, take responsibility that is, something abandoned when Labour come to power. We are yet to see if this honourable precedent will be resumed by the coalition, I hope so.
#9
Well done Barry another atack on labour , save it for when there back in power , you shouldnt have to long to wait .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
It was a factual statement Mark. Labour Ministers had to be dragged screaming from their jobs.
As I suggested in my post - we are yet to see if the coalition will return to the honourable example set pre-1997. I will critisise them as well if they do not.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#11
I don't think the Governemnt will change their mind on scrapping old war-junk:
Nato has officially stated that the complaining rebels in Libya are as much likely to get a blasting from NATO warplanes if they attack civilan centres as anyone else in that area! (words of Rear Admiral Harding).
Sorry Marek
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
the problem about the about turn on defence spending is that cuts will have to be made elsewhere.
there will be great howls of anguish from those affected forcing yet another u turn from dave and chums.
the public now know that if they shout loud enough our betters will give in.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Dont count on that Howard.
Defence is a special case. For 13 years it was the only department that could not count on an open chequebook and was starved of sufficient cash to carry out the jobs demanded of it. The last government made orders worth £38bn without providing the funds, a lot of that being important expenditure.
Conservative MPs understand Defence far better than Labour ones simply because there are substantially more Conservatives with a defence background and it is much closer to their hearts than it is to Labour who are more interested in social workers. Therefore DC and GO are far more open to supporting defence spending than most other things. The defence cuts caused more headaches for the government among Conservative backbenchers than anything else, not to mention the Party in the country.
So dont expect defence to set any kind of precedent.
In other areas the government will just have to be a lot tougher and quite rightly so. The cuts are simply not deep enough.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#14
I went round the wrong way of a round about some years ago but was lucky to get away if it. The BLUES are always going round the wrong way at round abouts but unlike me they will not get away with it all the times sooner or later they will crash and that will see the end of them.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
Barry and Marek: Gentlemen, you may both find that oil-prices are going up so drastically, that most EU oil-importing countries might have to reduce their arms-spending even more now than planned a few months ago, before the figjhting in Libya broke out! It is the exact opposite of what you believe to be the case.
Oil wars will send Britain and most of Europe even more bankrupt before you can say Jack Robinson. Other than "spend nore money on arms!"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
on the other side of the coin if oil prices rise dramatically, it will be a lot easier for them to buy arms from us.
many of the oil producing countries have internal problems that can only be dealt with by brute force as evidenced by recent and forthcoming events.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
#17
QUOTE FROM BARRY W: "John Nott did resign over the Falklands accepting full responsibility, as the Sec of State, for mistakes by the MOD in the run up to the Falklands War. Those were the days when Ministers were expected to do such things, take responsibility that is, something abandoned when Labour come to power. We are yet to see if this honourable precedent will be resumed by the coalition, I hope so." UNQUOTE
John Nott did not resign. He very reluctantly offered his resignation but was kept on by Margaret Thatcher. As Howard says, he made regular appearances on TV during the Falklands Conflict which must have particularly galling to the Navy which was fighting the war which his announced naval cuts had precipitated. He retired from politics the following year and was knighted.
You may be thinking of Keith Speed, the Navy Minister. He strenuously opposed Nott's proposed cuts prior to the Falklands and finally felt constrained to make a speech to that effect in the House of Commons. He was thereupon asked to resign and, when he refused, was personally dismissed by Margaret Thatcher.
Alternatively, you may be thinking of Lord Carrington, who did indeed resign as Foreign Secretary. John Nott's take on this was: "The Falklands had been invaded and I was the Defence Secretary. I therefore felt some responsibility. I said: 'This puts me in an impossible position. Peter Carrington looks like an honourable man and if I don't resign, I'll look like the dishonourable one.' So I sent my resignation over. But Margaret Thatcher persuaded me to stay on, saying the Falklands were really the responsibility of the Foreign Office."
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
Thank you Ed.
It was indeed Lord Carrington who was Sec of State for Foreign Affairs.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
There's only one factor to add: Libya is not the Falkland Islands.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#20
MERCENARIES are being used to gather intelligence in Afghanistan in a creeping privatisation of the war against the Taliban.Private security firms used to offer bodyguards and police training, but Hereford-based Minimal Risk has now been contracted to take over intelligence work normally done by regular troops.
Six security firms have earned more than £240million in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past five years and costs are rising as the MoD spent just £15million on private security in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006.
Ruth Turner, of charity War on Want, said: "Britain has increasingly come to rely on private military firms."Yet ministers have left firms like these unaccountable for hundreds of human rights violations."This emerged as David Cameron was forced to look again at his unpopular plans to cut defence budgets.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)