|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 6, 2023 14:18:46 GMT
What do you see the realistic threats as to which we must defend against. If you want to massively increase defence spending, do you intend to fund this by spending cuts (on what), tax increases (on what) or more borrowing? Who knows? The government certainly don't. No one knows what's around the corner which is why our armed forces should be properly funded and prepared for any eventuality. This what insurance is for, preparing for any eventuality. As far as funding goes, the government are currently spending £3 billion a year on immigrants in this country, and £8 billion a year in foreign aid, or immigrants in other countries. There's an extra £11 billion and I'm not even the chancellor. There is an alternative to not having a properly funded armed forces. If the armed forces were suddenly needed for some large scale emergency, the money would be found. It would be borrowed at any cost, and we would spend the next 50 to 100 years paying it off. You are asking for a completely blank cheque. It doesnt work like that. If it did you would be building shelters to protect against meteorites and investing in equipment to fight invasion from space aliens. You have to make a reasonable assessment of likely threats in order to assess how mujch money to spend and on what. So I have to ask again, what do you see as the likely threats that we need to defend against. Without such an assessment it is impossible to justify even the spending we have now let alone ask for a 50% increase to 3% of GDP. By the way you have your numbers wrong again. The money we spend on people claiming asylum comes out of the foreign aid budget - you have double counted that. The entire foreign aid budget is only 0.5% of GDP so wouldn't fund a 1% of GDP rise in spending on "defence" even if we cancelled all spend. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 6, 2023 14:35:24 GMT
I think one of the issues is we've sort of lost track of what we want to be.... and what we think our role is in the world and then structuring not only a force but a policy towards that force in order to construct a viable doctrine for that force. For example, we are a nuclear nation...do we want to continue to be a nuclear nation? Do we accept the costs of maintaining a viable nuclear deterrent and the associated infrastructure needed to maintain its viability? Its a question of cost...we have people bleating about the NHS and wanting money for this and that....can we afford the men and equipment? The falklands expedition back in the day was a cluster fuck of monumental proportions but luckily we were up against a nation whose even more fucked-up military allowed us to come away with some semblance of victory. We couldn't do that today. We expend a colossal amount of the defence budget on Nuclear doohdads and monumentally useless aircraft carriers that seem to me at least to be a pointless waste of money. The Ukraine war will be a seminal moment in western military strategic thinking. I don't suppose the Ukraine military have much time for diversity and inclusion training and even assuming they did then I'm at a loss as to how that would benefit some terrified squad of light infantry as it works its way through ditches and fields to interdict a Russian trench line in Bakhmut? Maybe if they flounced up in brightly coloured skirts and pony tails swinging Dior handbags the Russians would laugh themselves to death? Who knows. Point being if we are going to have a military then it has to be one which knows what it's there for, equipped accordingly and trained to do what's asked of it rather than in today's scenario where we're trying to be all things to everyone. We have instances of procurements for equipment which start out as simple requests, however, once a committee gets involved a simple fighting vehicle has to become some hydrid modularised bastardised multi-role system that costs a fortune and doesn't actually fucking work anymore. War is very simple and we can see in the Ukraine a small window of what is going to be the future of how war is fought and unfortunately that the UK is no where near up to it.
As always the British officer corps is concerned with career advancement built upon taking the right courses in order tick the right boxes so they look good to the right people; mirroring what they think the political will of the day is I suppose. Forget the fact they maybe complete morons. I don't recognise today's Army, I don't know about you but to me its all to pally and matey and worried about image. Back in the day the only person that called the RSM by his first name would be the Colonel of the Regiment (by invitation from the RSM) everyone else would address him as RSM but not today. There has been some high profile reports over the years of people being bullied and disrespected - I mean it's never good and I never had it done to me but in my simple mind the military is designed to go to war and fight....if they can't fight back in barracks....I don't know....maybe perhaps it's not for them? This is turning into more than I thought so I'm going to shut the fuck up now...hopefully you get my point.? Maintaining a nuclear deterrent is expensive for sure, but it shouldn't be included in any debate about conventional forces. They're two very different things. A nuclear deterrent is important for show, in fact it's probably the only reason the UK still has a permanent seat on the UN security council, but in reality conventional forces are far more important particularly well trained professional and motivated infantry and combat support troops. Ref procurement, I seem to remember the delivery date for challenger variants was constantly pushed back due to cost. During the 1990's we were still using vehicles that had been in service for more than 30 years, 432's and Chieftain AVLB's spring to mind. They still worked, but they were very outdated and a modern army needs modern kit. In my experience some officers were only concerned about promotion, and I definately got the impression some VSO's were more concerned about that knighthood or a political career. Actually, I may be painting the wrong picture, most officers were OK and some were very good. I seem to remember anyone junior to the RSM which was all non commissioned ranks, called him sir. Officers called him RSM. Bullying has always been a contentious issue but not 'in' the forces, it's always civvies moaning about a culture of bullying or some aspect of bullying that in my experience didn't exist. Bullies weren't tolerated but one mans bullying is another mans banter, if a young man cant take the rough & tumble of basic training then perhaps he's not cut out for a life in the army and should consider his future, and putting girls in teeth arm units is nothing more than politically correct virtue signalling that will go tits up very quickly if they have to go to war. In the highly charged atmosphere of a training regiment the odd punch up was to be expected. I remember one CO used to say if the lads are going to fight I would sooner they did it in the NAAFI rather than in town, and they usually did but it was never anything serious. And yes, I do get your point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2023 16:01:23 GMT
Simple - because these kinds of jobs either mean very labour intensive work, or what you may call "back breaking work", or they include wiping peoples bottoms and bathing people. Of course you are going to say - its because of the wages Ok, so we could at least try to attract our own people to these jobs, increase the wages for someone working on a vegetable farm from National Minimum Wage ( £10.42 ) to say £12.00 per hour. Hey Presto - we just increased the farmers costs by over £3000 per year if they employ ONE PERSON, and guess what will happen ? .... the people who grow the same things in Holland, Ireland, France or Belgium will be rubbing their hands. And there it is - Labour supporter would rather import cheap labour from overseas than get businesses to pay the wages needed to get British workers off of welfare and into a job. Labour the friend of the working class my arse... more the friend of big business.. I have no idea how many people an average care home employs, I could guess at 10, though I reckon that 10 would be on the low side, but never the less it would mean that those care homes paying the NMW would see their wages bill rise by at least £30,000.00 per anum, or by £60,000.00 if they employed 20 people. That sum or figure would be passed onto the service user, and in many cases that would be the local authority, the NHS or the tax payer. But the point is that many care employers already are offering pay rates way above the NMW, some are offering Golden Hello Payments. Heres an advert from my local area which is currently live on-line >> Care Assistant- job post Bluebird Care Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire 990 reviews £14 an hour - Full-time, Part-time, Permanent Yet care homes around where I live are importing workers into the country because even at pay rates well above the NMW, British people still do not want these jobs. As far as agriculture and food production is concerned, who do you think pays for higher pay ?, and what does it do for our competitors producing the same things in Europe and Ireland. ? You need to face economic reality |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 6, 2023 17:09:14 GMT
And there it is - Labour supporter would rather import cheap labour from overseas than get businesses to pay the wages needed to get British workers off of welfare and into a job. Labour the friend of the working class my arse... more the friend of big business.. I have no idea how many people an average care home employs, I could guess at 10, though I reckon that 10 would be on the low side, but never the less it would mean that those care homes paying the NMW would see their wages bill rise by at least £30,000.00 per anum, or by £60,000.00 if they employed 20 people. That sum or figure would be passed onto the service user, and in many cases that would be the local authority, the NHS or the tax payer. But the point is that many care employers already are offering pay rates way above the NMW, some are offering Golden Hello Payments. Heres an advert from my local area which is currently live on-line >> Care Assistant- job post Bluebird Care Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire 990 reviews £14 an hour - Full-time, Part-time, Permanent Yet care homes around where I live are importing workers into the country because even at pay rates well above the NMW, British people still do not want these jobs. As far as agriculture and food production is concerned, who do you think pays for higher pay ?, and what does it do for our competitors producing the same things in Europe and Ireland. ? You need to face economic reality So the calls from Starmer and the rest of the Labour Party in Parliament for better pay for care home workers are not economic reality and should be resisted? "The report also proposes care workers getting parity with equivalent skilled staff in the NHS on pay bands, pension entitlements and employment terms over time, starting with the lowest paid."
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 6, 2023 19:55:38 GMT
Maintaining a nuclear deterrent is expensive for sure, but it shouldn't be included in any debate about conventional forces. They're two very different things. A nuclear deterrent is important for show, in fact it's probably the only reason the UK still has a permanent seat on the UN security council, but in reality conventional forces are far more important particularly well trained professional and motivated infantry and combat support troops. Ref procurement, I seem to remember the delivery date for challenger variants was constantly pushed back due to cost. During the 1990's we were still using vehicles that had been in service for more than 30 years, 432's and Chieftain AVLB's spring to mind. They still worked, but they were very outdated and a modern army needs modern kit. In my experience some officers were only concerned about promotion, and I definately got the impression some VSO's were more concerned about that knighthood or a political career. Actually, I may be painting the wrong picture, most officers were OK and some were very good. I seem to remember anyone junior to the RSM which was all non commissioned ranks, called him sir. Officers called him RSM. Bullying has always been a contentious issue but not 'in' the forces, it's always civvies moaning about a culture of bullying or some aspect of bullying that in my experience didn't exist. Bullies weren't tolerated but one mans bullying is another mans banter, if a young man cant take the rough & tumble of basic training then perhaps he's not cut out for a life in the army and should consider his future, and putting girls in teeth arm units is nothing more than politically correct virtue signalling that will go tits up very quickly if they have to go to war. In the highly charged atmosphere of a training regiment the odd punch up was to be expected. I remember one CO used to say if the lads are going to fight I would sooner they did it in the NAAFI rather than in town, and they usually did but it was never anything serious. And yes, I do get your point. I think recruitment has been damaged due to Afghanistan and iraq and not being equipped well enough especially against IEDs. I also think bullying is a problem during initial training and this where suicides have happened. Our perceived role now is important too it seems more important to me to have aircraft and ships rather than large land based forces. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 6, 2023 20:01:29 GMT
Maintaining a nuclear deterrent is expensive for sure, but it shouldn't be included in any debate about conventional forces. They're two very different things. A nuclear deterrent is important for show, in fact it's probably the only reason the UK still has a permanent seat on the UN security council, but in reality conventional forces are far more important particularly well trained professional and motivated infantry and combat support troops. Ref procurement, I seem to remember the delivery date for challenger variants was constantly pushed back due to cost. During the 1990's we were still using vehicles that had been in service for more than 30 years, 432's and Chieftain AVLB's spring to mind. They still worked, but they were very outdated and a modern army needs modern kit. In my experience some officers were only concerned about promotion, and I definately got the impression some VSO's were more concerned about that knighthood or a political career. Actually, I may be painting the wrong picture, most officers were OK and some were very good. I seem to remember anyone junior to the RSM which was all non commissioned ranks, called him sir. Officers called him RSM. Bullying has always been a contentious issue but not 'in' the forces, it's always civvies moaning about a culture of bullying or some aspect of bullying that in my experience didn't exist. Bullies weren't tolerated but one mans bullying is another mans banter, if a young man cant take the rough & tumble of basic training then perhaps he's not cut out for a life in the army and should consider his future, and putting girls in teeth arm units is nothing more than politically correct virtue signalling that will go tits up very quickly if they have to go to war. In the highly charged atmosphere of a training regiment the odd punch up was to be expected. I remember one CO used to say if the lads are going to fight I would sooner they did it in the NAAFI rather than in town, and they usually did but it was never anything serious. And yes, I do get your point. I think recruitment has been damaged due to Afghanistan and iraq and not being equipped well enough especially against IEDs. I also think bullying is a problem during initial training and this where suicides have happened. Our perceived role now is important too it seems more important to me to have aircraft and ships rather than large land based forces. Bancroft, I'll be polite and say, you're wrong. I spent 22 years in the army and in my experience bullying is much more of an issue in civvy street than it ever was in the army. As for your thoughts on aircraft and ships - without the ability to put boots on the ground in numbers, having aircraft and ships is absolutely pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 6, 2023 21:06:20 GMT
Maintaining a nuclear deterrent is expensive for sure, but it shouldn't be included in any debate about conventional forces. They're two very different things. A nuclear deterrent is important for show, in fact it's probably the only reason the UK still has a permanent seat on the UN security council, but in reality conventional forces are far more important particularly well trained professional and motivated infantry and combat support troops. Ref procurement, I seem to remember the delivery date for challenger variants was constantly pushed back due to cost. During the 1990's we were still using vehicles that had been in service for more than 30 years, 432's and Chieftain AVLB's spring to mind. They still worked, but they were very outdated and a modern army needs modern kit. In my experience some officers were only concerned about promotion, and I definately got the impression some VSO's were more concerned about that knighthood or a political career. Actually, I may be painting the wrong picture, most officers were OK and some were very good. I seem to remember anyone junior to the RSM which was all non commissioned ranks, called him sir. Officers called him RSM. Bullying has always been a contentious issue but not 'in' the forces, it's always civvies moaning about a culture of bullying or some aspect of bullying that in my experience didn't exist. Bullies weren't tolerated but one mans bullying is another mans banter, if a young man cant take the rough & tumble of basic training then perhaps he's not cut out for a life in the army and should consider his future, and putting girls in teeth arm units is nothing more than politically correct virtue signalling that will go tits up very quickly if they have to go to war. In the highly charged atmosphere of a training regiment the odd punch up was to be expected. I remember one CO used to say if the lads are going to fight I would sooner they did it in the NAAFI rather than in town, and they usually did but it was never anything serious. And yes, I do get your point. I think recruitment has been damaged due to Afghanistan and iraq and not being equipped well enough especially against IEDs. I also think bullying is a problem during initial training and this where suicides have happened. Our perceived role now is important too it seems more important to me to have aircraft and ships rather than large land based forces. I think a lot of people confuse bullying with discipline. The fact is that many millenials have never been told what to do in their life, so when they pitch up at basic training and have weeks of people shouting at them and telling them what to do they see that as bullying. The me-me culture that exists now is obviously going to hit a brick wall when you join a military society than is based on rank. As an NCO your feelings as a private dont matter a shit to me and for an Officer my feelings as an NCO wont matter shit either - you carry out what you are told to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 6, 2023 21:10:13 GMT
I think recruitment has been damaged due to Afghanistan and iraq and not being equipped well enough especially against IEDs. I also think bullying is a problem during initial training and this where suicides have happened. Our perceived role now is important too it seems more important to me to have aircraft and ships rather than large land based forces. Bancroft, I'll be polite and say, you're wrong. I spent 22 years in the army and in my experience bullying is much more of an issue in civvy street than it ever was in the army. As for your thoughts on aircraft and ships - without the ability to put boots on the ground in numbers, having aircraft and ships is absolutely pointless. Well that would depend on what you see as the purpose of the UK military. If we are to get involved in more foreign wars like Iraq then you are perfectly correct - however if the basic purpose is defence of the nation, then prioritising the Air Force and Navy is what is needed. FWIW I cant see future governments not wishing to get involved in foreign conflicts. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 7, 2023 7:05:49 GMT
Bancroft, I'll be polite and say, you're wrong. I spent 22 years in the army and in my experience bullying is much more of an issue in civvy street than it ever was in the army. As for your thoughts on aircraft and ships - without the ability to put boots on the ground in numbers, having aircraft and ships is absolutely pointless. Well that would depend on what you see as the purpose of the UK military. If we are to get involved in more foreign wars like Iraq then you are perfectly correct - however if the basic purpose is defence of the nation, then prioritising the Air Force and Navy is what is needed. FWIW I cant see future governments not wishing to get involved in foreign conflicts. Quite, as I said previously the government should make up their minds whether we have a properly funded and manned armed forces that have reach and are capable of global commitments, or a UK based defence force. It seems to me they want the Kudos of a large armed force, on a defence force budget. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 7, 2023 12:03:52 GMT
I think recruitment has been damaged due to Afghanistan and iraq and not being equipped well enough especially against IEDs. I also think bullying is a problem during initial training and this where suicides have happened. Our perceived role now is important too it seems more important to me to have aircraft and ships rather than large land based forces. I think a lot of people confuse bullying with discipline. The fact is that many millenials have never been told what to do in their life, so when they pitch up at basic training and have weeks of people shouting at them and telling them what to do they see that as bullying. The me-me culture that exists now is obviously going to hit a brick wall when you join a military society than is based on rank. As an NCO your feelings as a private dont matter a shit to me and for an Officer my feelings as an NCO wont matter shit either - you carry out what you are told to do. Yes it is a good point and I recall this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_at_Deepcut_army_barracksI watched an Officer and a Gentleman recently that old romantic film with Richard Gere trying to pass initial exams to become a US fighter pilot. In it as punishment he is forced to train holding a rifle above hie head for all day and then put on duty scrubbing the floors, I think most these days would throw in the towel with that kind of treatment so unless there is a public enquiry we would probably never know about Deepdale and even then only if people spoke about a topic that might implicate their employers. |
|
