Tory "cuts"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by cornishgolfer, Sep 16, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It was to be expected and really do you expect any better from Gordon or the Prince of Darkness. The only reason they have not started cutting now is because they need every vote they can get.

    I really wonder just how long the St Kilda range will survive after an election, which will be a shame as my grandfarther was involved in setting the place up.
     
  2. "The Shadow Chancellor said two Royal Navy supercarriers, transport planes and Typhoon fighter jets could be scrapped.

    At the same time, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth revealed Labour could CUT the Trident nuclear submarine fleet from four to three to save costs.

    And he bowed to The Sun's barrage of criticism by declaring "Afghanistan First" for defence spending."


    So, when we eventually pull out of Afghanistan we'll be left with a small ground army that's a one trick pony. We'll have flushed the rest of our military knowledge and capability down the toilet and should we ever be called upon to engage in military action against anywhere else but a land-locked Middle Eastern country I reckon we'll be right royally fcuked.

    Thanks politicians, with the way you treat our armed forces, your handling of the economy and the country's finances, the subsequent increase in unemployment, our 24/7 surveillance state, your own personal greed, your lies and deceit; you've really learnt how to screw our country up. MPs are nothing more than professional con artists, and I reaffirm my belief that 'Westminster' is institutionally corrupt.
     
  3. It comes as no surprise to me that the Conservatives are looking to scrap the two aircraft carriers. I used to think that many in the Tory party were traditionalists who favored a strong military role in the world for the UK but they are also a party whose core ideology advocates minimal public spending. The scrapping of two aircraft carriers is too easy not to be carried out. The public won't miss them and billions of pounds will be saved in one go. What would the Royal navy look like without a carrier force? That's what I want to know, seeing as it appears all but inevitable.
     
  4. Meanwhile in Afghanistan the British have just provided top-cover for one of the most corrupt elections in living memory. An institutionally corrupt Karzai government populated by drug dealers and war-criminals has now been falsely elected at the expense of long term British defence requirements. Amazing; well done Bliar. Well done Broone. :thumbright:

    RM
     
  5. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    To be fair, you also need to give credit where credit is due: at the same time as the happenings that you describe they've managed to significantly improve the salary, pension and benefits system of a critical sector of society.... that's right, elected MPs at Westminster.
     
  6. Tory cuts ....I think you missed the 'n' out ?
     
  7. My sentiments exactly, shipmate. This will be the final nail in the coffin for the UK with regard to our ability to influence and project power on the global scene - and let's face it, we've been punching above our weight since Suez.
     
  8. Ffs this makes for worrying reading as i'm going in as an AET in 2 months! 8O
     
  9. My concerns exactly. With two carriers scrapped it stands to reason that the entire structure of the navy might be in question. Why would you need air-defence destroyers and other medium sized escorts without a carrier? An overhall of the navy's role in a Strategic Defence Review would undoubtedly mean less ships and less MANPOWER once the idea of a carrier taskgroup was swept from the table.

    I'm applying to join and I really worry when I hear about cuts as I'm giving up a heck of a lot for what I've been lead to assume is a secure job for at least 18 years.

    Has there ever been a SDR that the navy benefited from?
     
  10. It isn't just the Tories who are a threat to the new carriers - how much faffing around has gone one under Labour - delays, prevaricating over airframes to go on the damned things and so on. If they hadn't been such mind boggling incompetents we would have been past the point of no return by now anyway (with the only option being to try to sell them to Canada!!!)

    IF whichever Government decides that we actually DO need to be able to project power via fixed wing carriers then we should be able to mop up one or two of our US cousins cast offs that will be due for retirement or replacement by then - or perhaps a Russian or French beastie or maybe even just stick some tin and tarmac on top of an old VLCC.

    FFS I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the saying thsat the RN keeps doing what it needs to do regardless because we have the incredible ability to "make do".

    And anyway, popular belief is that we couldn't win the Falklands back again even if we got new carriers because everything else is so downsized so let's try to avoid hauling that old chestnut back out of the fire.
     
  11. I must admit it didn't surprise me either, in fact I have always thought that the carriers were very unlikely to last more than a few days past the next election who ever was in power. We can expect all the pain from the election till 2012 atleast, they will need a few years to bride the public to vote for them in 2015. That applies who ever gets in.
     
  12. In all honesty we are no longer a world power.
    We should never have gone into Afghanistan and if we are honest to ourselves do we really need aircraft carriers.
    When we did need them (the Falklands conflict) they were not available.
    Time to rethink the strategy of the UK armed forces.
    What we really need is a defensive force not an offensive force.
    A rethink on our security as a nation should be our number one priority, Afghanistan does net even enter the national security equation.
     
  13. Slim

    I agree we need a re-think about our defense posture but Afghanistan is a thorny issue depending on whether you believe the Blair-Brown argument or not.

    There are other far less capable (militarily) nations involved in Afghanistan and doing a good job (eg Canada) on the basis of taking the fight to the enemy rather than waiting for it to come to us.

    That is what power projection is all about. Frankly I have no idea what the best option is or should be biut I know you will never get to it if the motivation for change is to cut spending!
     
  14. Slim

    I don't disagree that we need to balance our defence needs with our defence funds, something that as far as I can see has not been done since I joined the RN. We cannot continue to expand requirements and cut funds as we seem to continually do.

    As for Afghanistan, I for one do see it as a threat to our secirty, far more than Iraq ever was even if the WMDs had been there. The Taliban and Al Quaeda are and have been for many years but one and the same. They both peddle the same perverted Islam to justify their Jihad against humanity. Pakistan tried to do a deal with them and got badly burnt in the process. It is in our national interests to see the Taliban and AQ defeated
     
  15. Maxi
    We are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are being funded by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries.
    While this funding is still in place we have no chance of winning the war in Afghanistan, in fact even without this funding we will lose.
    So lets secure our borders and fight them on our grounds.
     
  16. Re: Labour "cuts"

    You can't cut what is not there to start with, this country is completely bankrupt for it's first time in history - thanks you ****** Brown
     
  17. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    So. What are we gonna do about it, chaps?

    levers
     
  18. Exactly what Guido Fawks was going to do, there is no other way.
     

Share This Page