The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said the Government will provide £2.2 billion of funding for the Ministry of Defence over the next two years.

Sajid Javid said the figure represented a real-terms increase of 2.6%.

According to the Government in a release:

“£2.2 billion in additional funding made available for the UK’s world-class Armed Forces will ensure they can continue to modernise and meet the ever-changing threats to national security.

This ensures the government will continue to exceed its commitment to grow the defence budget by 0.5% in real terms, with the UK continuing to exceed the NATO target.”

In his announcement to the House of Commons, Javid said:

“We are one of only seven countries to meet the 2% commitment to NATO. Today we will go further still, with an additional £2.2 billion of funding for the MOD.

And a real terms increase of 2.6% for their budget next year.

Increasing again the share of our national income we spend on defence and national security. This year is the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings. We pay tribute to the sacrifices of the extraordinary generation of British soldiers who fought and died during that campaign.

And today I can announce £7 million of funding for the Normandy Memorial Trust to complete their memorial overlooking Gold Beach where so many troops came ashore.

And we will also support the veterans of today’s wars as well, as we confirm the funding today for the new Office of Veterans’ Affairs.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. £1.2bn….assuming the 3 services get roughly equal share of the cash then that’s around £4bn over 10 years for the RN. 2 extra T26’s and the rest on recruitment and retention perhaps?

  2. From that MoD document pictured in the article…

    “up to an additional £1.2 billion to ensure the UK’s world-class Armed Forces can continue to modernise … This includes prioritising key capabilities such as cyber, shipbuilding and the nuclear deterrent;”

    So what to make of that? Surely the reference to nuclear deterrent must mean that whatever part of the extra £1.2 bn is going towards that is purely to fund cost overruns (black hole) in the budget for the existing plans since I’d be pretty sure it’s not going to expand the scope of the program beyond the announced 4 SSBN and however many tubes, missiles and warheads will be provided for under the CASD program (which is fine by me, even servicing that minimum capacity is difficult).

    Cyber is no big surprise but that reference to shipbuilding is interesting. I really hope that’s not also a case of the extra funding being needed to plug a hole in existing budgets to keep them on track and does imply a genuine increase of scope in certain areas e.g. one or more of (1) more T31e, (2) slightly more budget per vessel for T31e to make them more credible, or maybe (3) ensuring that we do get 3 FSS built rather than the possibility of only 2 which was floated when the £2 bn FSS budget was announced a year or so ago. I’m sure there are plenty of other areas it could go towards as well.

    Although still hoping for more in the future I’m glad to see that defence wasn’t totally overlooked in this spending review.

    • The suggestion is should Boris win this upcoming election – A significant increase is earmarked for Defence getting up towards what Jeremy Hunt was pledging during his leadership bid – Crica £15 Billion over 5 Years to take the spend on Defence to 2.5% of GDP by fiscal year 2024.

      I would imagine if that is true this £2.2 Billion would be part of that and to expect an additional £10 Billion+ over the next 4 years or so. A welcome boost allowing us to plug the ‘black hole’ (crica £7 Billion at the minute I think?) for planned spending with a good increase on top of that for additional capabilities.

      • That would be good, and for things like shipbuilding just the sort of spending that creates a pretty potent in-country economic stimulus for the UK economy which will be helpful and far more healthy than the debt-fuelled consumer spending boosts to the economy that we’ve seen in the past.

        Going up to 2.5% is about a 19% increase on the current claimed 2.1% (?) which, at about £42 bn (?) currently is an extra £8 bn in 2024 alone so, if £15 bn does get allocated to get us there over the next 5 years, that leaves £7 bn over the entire 4 preceding years so pickings might be quite thin in those earlier years (unless HMG really are anticipating a significant recession in which case contracting GDP means less money to achieve the 2.5%; let’s hope that’s not the case).

      • Yeah for sure BoJo the clown is going to put £15 billion extra in to defence. I’ll put that up with every promise ever made by a Tory trying to win an election.

        • If you look carefully Martin you’ll notice the word ‘suggested’ at the very beginning of the post.

          Come an election we’ll get the opportunity to see a manifesto which outlines spending and we’ll see if it is in there for real.

          No other party would do any better – Defence doesn’t win votes – it’s not particularly high on anyone’s domestic agenda in fact. Our Armed Forces could do with the boost to meet future requirements so it may be more of a necessity rather than a vote winner – more so for a Brexit facing party looking to trade more outwardly than present and build new relationships, than a ‘2nd referendum’ or ‘revoke article 50’ party.

          As for trusting Tory’s – Good luck with trusting Labour or the Lib Dems – The lot of them are as crooked as each other. And I wouldn’t vote for any 3 of them frankly at the minute. BoJo is a reckless burke, Corbyn would crash and burn if he could settle on any single direction long enough to hit anything & the Lib Dems would sell their souls like they did in 2010 to get on the opposite side of the house for their hour in the limelight so no thanks. I’m on the first spaceship to Mars. Si Thi.

        • And similar chuff promises by those clowns on the left! The left allways promise the world, but forget to say how it will be paid for. Jeremy and the puppet squad have promised just about everything to get elected, and suddenly they have decided not to bother…..strange!

    • I fear it might be. It is pretty easy to promise future funding and then invent reasons as to why you need to withdraw that funding. I mean it is not as if Boris is not well known for fabricating lies and turning 360. If all the money that the Government is currently promising was just lying around then surely the previous Government would have spent at least some of it? So either it is a false promise or it is money that could potentially put us back in a financially bad position especially given the money also needed to mitigate a brexit disaster.

      • Lee, my understanding is that the money or ‘financial headroom’ has been due to the economy performing (over the last 4-5 years) apparently better than expected and it being sat on rather than spent due to Brexit uncertainty as opposed to being spent at the first opportunity.

        Still, I do fear it is mostly electioneering and bridge building with the American administration as Julian says below.

        The likelihood is that the extra money will go some way towards accounting for upcoming departmental shortfalls due to the economy stagnating not only due to Brexit but the global slowdown in general so it may have little effect other than to allow the relevant departments to continue as they presently are. It was after all under Hammond originally intended as a Brexit Boost fund to be used as and where required post Brexit.

        Who knows.

    • I would say it’s less about electioneering and more about keeping Trump/Bolton happy. My reason being, since when has defence carried votes amongst the British electorate? This audience being a notable exception of course!

      • I wouldn’t be so sure. Defence and specifically the navy have been in the public view a lot more recently. Being seen as taking threats abroad seriously and caring about veterans could be a very nice feather to have in your cap

  4. All parties should sign up to a real increase in the defence budget, year on year, not just over 2 years. It should then be enshrined in law.

    Otherwise the next shambles comes in and dismantles it at a whim. I’m looking at you Corbyn McDonnell.

    This is welcome, but let’s see the detail.

    More people, more T31, more RFA, or as Julian suggests improvements to what our vessels are equipped with is the order of the day.

    Cyber is classified and any money there disappears into its own black hole.

    • You are right, the government can not give billions over two years, without thinking, there must be a military programming act that gives a goal to achieve in terms of the percentage of GDP allocated to defense and clear and costed projects.

    • I’m not a Corbyn supporter but remember the unnecessary and damaging cuts since 2010.

      Still, quite odd I find myself thinking Trump is right about European NATO taking up more of the burden……

      • I know HF. Both parties make deep cuts. I myself remember the despair of the endless cuts under Labour 97 2010. I was not attributing blame, just expressing my fears.

      • I’m not a Corbyn supporter nor Tory, but cuts were, unfortunately, very necessary. The further from Labour’s disastrous period in office time takes us, the more opinion will soften on just how deep of an economic hole we were left in. Sadly, defence had to shoulder its share of the pain. What the Tories have got badly wrong is cutting without reform, leaving institutions still addicted to massive waste but starved of funds, resulting in huge frontline losses. Defence is no exception to this, and as there has been no competent attempt to reform how the public sector budgets, I expect much of the announced spending to produce nothing of use.

        (Taxpayers Alliance conservatively estimate HMG waste at £120bn per year excluding unfunded liabilities)

        • You are blaming the financial crisis on Labour not the banks, here and abroad, who caused it. I didn’t agree with Labour’s dereg but Cameron and his party said dereg hadn’t gone far enough ! The first bank to fail was Lehman’s in the US – you can’t pin that on Labour. It was acknowledged by Labour that there would have to be cuts in the future but first the economy would have to be boosted. The cuts the tories made were purely ideological, aimed at pushing their failed (for most people) make the rich even richer, trickle down ‘economics’. I remember Osborne, having harped on about the need for cuts found around £860m down the back of the sofa to placate the fuel lobby by freezing fuel duty. Meanwhile, under ‘austerity’ (cuts in services & capability in every sector, tax cuts for the rich) national debt has ballooned.

          As for the TPA, they claim to be non-partisan but are a Tory front organisation whose agenda is not efficient use of money by the government but tax cutting and asset stripping for the benefit of the wealthy. Off topic but as you brought it up….

          • Not sure what you mean. What mask was that ? What ‘blow’ did you think you were striking ? The only mask that seems to have slipped is that you’re ‘not a tory’. Only a tory could have posted that it was Labour ‘overspending’ that caused the world financial crisis in 07/08 because that’s the canard peddled by tories and the right wing press since it happened.

          • Quite staggering ignorance……

            Putting things firmly back on topic, I do wonder, given the inevitability of a general election, how a possible Tory/Brexit coalition could affect the spending promises on defence in particular, given the hard left elements in the Brexit Party.

          • You haven’t explained how my ‘mask’ has slipped, or what blow you think you’ve landed as a coup de maine. You’re not ignorant, you know you’ve posted a load of rubbish. Look up who Stiglitz, (Nobel laureate for Economics) blames for the financial crash – the dishonesty and rule bending of the financial sector. A tory/brexit coalition ? Farage, formerly Brexit’s ‘leading light’ has not been able to get himself elected to Parliament. Such a coalition would destroy what’s left of the tory party as it’s moderates desert at the prospect. If that’s what you count as insight I’d go back to polishing your weirdstone.

        • “but cuts were, unfortunately, very necessary”

          This was my comment from the other week

          This train of thought about how austerity was needed is a dying thought in the UK and one that’s not used by the overwhelming majority of economists today that have actual statistical data to make an analysis, where as the austerity argument was based on economic predictions, we can now, after its finished, analyse it, and the facts are in every country that imposed austerity, the harsher the measures the slower the economy grew, this is printed on a graph on the IMF website, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard more or less issued an apology for advising countries to impose austerity.

          The deficit has been reduced by a combination of cuts and more/higher tax receipts collected by the treasury, anyone can look at the statistics and see the deficit being reduced by the treasury receiving more money in a certain quarter without cuts, therefore you can say with confidence, that even if you imposed no cuts from 2010, all the data is saying the economy would of grown faster, and the treasury would of had more money coming into it nearly every single quarter since 2010, would the deficit have fallen? absolutely, would it of come down as much? probably not but the difference is not massive and that’s not really the point, the point is austerity is proven to be a political choice, not a fiscal necessity.

          Austerity went against all the prevailing economic thought, John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1937 “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”

          The only reason austerity was imposed was because of economic research which was discredited a few years ago, this economic research was mentioned be George Osborne in 2010 as proof that austerity was needed, namely the research by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University. After their work and work by other austerity economists were discredited, and when countries realized austerity was actually hurting their recovery the ideology was dropped in every country apart from the UK. Austerity ideology was literally laughed out of the rest of the western world, economists have made excuses and told lies trying to distance themselves away from it, it’s a bankrupt ideology.

          But one thing i will say is this, i do not blame the Conservative government, because Alistair Darling was also about to impose austerity, as the whole political establishment was hoodwinked into austerity by the IMF and the ECB, all taken in by economic research which is now discredited.

          I said this on here a few weeks back but this country is deficit mad, it’s like we have not been running a budget deficit more or less every year since the late 70’s, we have, and the obsession with eliminating it ASAP needs to stop, i backed Boris Johnson’s spending plan by borrowing, because it can easily work, the deficit can slowly reduce into a surplus with modest spending increases and a growing economy with high employment. We should not be afraid to borrow for vital public spending and stimulus.

          “The further from Labour’s disastrous period in office time takes us, the more opinion will soften on just how deep of an economic hole we were left in”

          Disastrous? it was not perfect but the majority of Labour spending went on healthcare, new hospitals, healthcare centers, infrastructure, nobody was complaining when they were getting built

          Just remember that the Conservatives used to scream at Blair across the dispatch box that Labour had too much regulation on the financial sector, the Conservatives voted with Labour for every financial deregulation, and of course George Osborne vowed to match Labour spending in 2007

          I really don’t get where this comes from, no wonder they never used to give everyone the vote if this is peoples perception

          I’m a Labour voter but i give credit to some of Thatchers policies, they were actually good for the country, same with Cameron, I know it’s hard to believe for some but whatever colour the people who are voted in power are, their sole aim is not to make the country worse, they all want to make the country better they just have different views, methods and ideology on how to get it done, it does not work for everyone but it does work for a lot of people on all sides

          Try have some perspective Alan, it works wonders

          • He has no perspective, he’s just a troll, possibly a paid one from one of these spurious ‘think tanks’ and foundations’ funded by the illiberal elite – quite often from abroad – to frighten the horses.

          • Borrowing £150 Billion a year at 10% of GDP, was Not sustainable in the medium or long term, so had to be brought down quickly to near £100 Billion and on a downward path, as the economy grew again.

          • Keynes was not the all knowing final arbiter of economics, therefore neither is Keynesian economic theory.
            For example if one subscribes to Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economic one would say “stop spending money you don’t have”.

          • I didn’t say he was

            I just used a quote that makes sense from him

            But even so, Keynesian economic theory still influences the West, and shaped the west’s economics, it’s well studied and respected.

            Of all the replies, I have to say, I really didn’t expect one about the one sentence quote in the middle, questioning the use of the 20th centuries most influential economist, the guy who designed modern macroeconomics

            So strange

            And are you one that subscribes to that? do you want the US to stop borrowing?

          • No I am more a adherent of the Chicago School of Economics. Meaning not against VERY limited intervention in the economy. What I agree with in Austrian theory is the belief that their is nothing new under the sun and the buisness cycle is as unavoidable as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

          • That kind of economics is why we have global recessions, the market left deregulated cannot be trusted, I would rather the people I vote for in office who’s job it is to look after the country as a whole play more of a part than people, sometime not even fellow nationals, making decisions where the lining of his own pockets is his main aim

            This thought is all well and good until the s**t hits the fan and then the state has to intervene, so we tell the state to f**k off and leave us alone most of the time because it goes agains “free market economics” then when corporate governance fails and they are in the s**t they go begging cap in hand to the state to solve the crisis, I think that tells you all you need to know

            That Austrian theory is pretty bogus because after we have recessions we can always look at the run up and identify the causes and see how if things were done differently it could of been avoided, but we have little rich men in Austria telling us it’s normal for people to lose their homes and jobs and life torn apart, it’s all part of the “cycle” absolute rubbish

          • No recessions happen because that is how buisness works expansion and contraction. As seen by the fact that governments who follow the recommendations of Keynesian economists STILL have recessions.
            Also in Austrian theory the statement is mor along the lines of “I see the cause, what of it?” Every action by governments only causes unanticipated reactions by economies. You can fix one cause and merely trigger another.
            The economy except for efforts to curtail monopolies and keep foreign companies from unduly preying on the market, is best left alone as much as possible.

          • That’s not how business works at all

            You go to a group of investors for your new business and tell them that after a few years of growth you’ll start losing money rapidly, the bottom will fall out, you will have to make redundancies and get financial assistance to stop it getting worse and try turn it around

            You would be laughed out the office the a boot up your a””e for good measure

            Just because in modern macroeconomics it seems as though there is a pattern based on probability that the US therefore the U.K. and the rest will have contraction, does not mean that “that’s how business works”

            Some recessions are inevitable, but some are avoidable

            Take the last one for example, there was no state interference until after the recession had hit, so you can’t say that it would not of worked because it wasn’t even tried, and the markets reacted well when states did finally intervene

            What you’re saying is theory only, and it’s one I don’t agree with

          • If Investors did not ask about my plans for dealing inevitable bad times I would be worried about how they got their sanity.

            Governments cannot prevents recessions they can only CAUSE them. For an example see Venezuela. If civil servants were competent at running businesses and the economy they would be small business owners and CEOs. Only the willfully ignorant or the ideologically blinded trust government officials with the economy.

          • What inevitable bad time? I know business owners that have grown since they started 15 years ago and always made a profit, you’re trying to say that business is expansion and then contraction and that is wrong, you can make sure you have things in place to help through bad times, if there is bad times, but as a business owner you do everything possible to avoid it, and if you do go through it you can guarantee that a top down change in the business will take place, but a business contracting is not inevitable, only the wilfully ignorant think that

            I’m not sure why you brought business into this anyway it is only someway comparable to a countries economy, and certainly not in the vain you’re talking about

            I would never, ever use Venezuela as an example of state intervention or any talk of how a country is run, to do so is frankly stupid

            How you can have the brass neck to say “ideologically blinded” when it’s easy to see that your version of free market capitalism is the only thing you can see or contemplate, I don’t expect anything less from Americans, who as a country, are ideologically fixated on capitalism as its part of the nations identity, the American dream.

            No one said the state would control the economy, it’s your built in fear of state control from the Cold War and now China that you think the idea of even a bit more regulation from the state would spell Armageddon, and me even bringing up the intervention has you pull the inevitable Venezuela card.

            In the two largest recessions in the last hundred years it was a change in monetary policy by the state and intervention financially from the state that got us out of the mess.

          • I use business for the economy because business is the economy. You know the exchange of goods and services the making of the green stuff with the pictures of dead Presidents.
            How would you characterize Venezuela other than government intervention? Divine intervention?
            The two largest recessions in the last hundred years were solved by time and market corrections beyond the control of the government. Or you are one of shallow charlatans who believes World War II ended the Great Depression? Then you are suggesting perpetual warfare as a way to solve economic crisis. That would be rather unsustainable not to mention having a few moral issues.
            I do not fear socialists or government interventions into the economy, I despise them. There is significant difference between the two. This is a conviction that comes from observed reality.

          • You never at all, you said business is expansion then contraction and i corrected you, now you’re stating the complete obvious saying business is the economy, bloody hell my head hurts with you

            I would not use Venezuela because like i said at the very beginning (if you were even paying attention) is “I would like the state to play more of a part” that does not mean on the scale of Venezuela does it, far from it in fact

            The great depression was ended with government monetary policy, tax cuts, opening up of trade, all decided and enacted by the state

            The great recession was ended with massive state intervention by the US government

            You despise it because of your fear, its rooted in you, fear of the other side, fear of the “enemy” the fact that you use the word socialist and keep bringing up Venezuela for some reason just confirms it, that’s the problem with ultra staunch wings of either side of the political spectrum, they are not free thinking and have no rationale thought, it’s never a debate always an argument, that’s why you despise instead of listening and more importantly, respecting another point of view, left and right wing, two cheeks of the same a**e

          • “It’s never debate only argument”, pot meet kettle.
            The danger of allowing government intervention is the proponents are always one more regulation or one more spending program away from fixing what they see as a problem and are then shocked when the whole thing collapses on their heads.
            Hmm not free thinking or possessing of rational thought? I doubt we define the concept the same way. But you are entitled to your own opinion.

          • And still boring and repetitive the second time lad! The majority of Labour spending was with money they didn’t have on projects they thought would buy votes, or on equipment for wars they got us involved in and couldn’t extract from without bad press!

          • You mean too much for a Lego muncher to understand

            The majority of every government spending for over 200 years has been with money they didn’t have, including each and every conflict we have ever been involved in

          • You really need to work in your repertoire! Still low score but I expect that’s what your used to! Never mind eh lad!

          • Not actually true, before WW1, governments raised new taxes to pay for wars, and they did borrowe as well, but after a war had ended, budget surpluses were accrued over a long period to repay most of the National Debt. Most of the debt from the Napoleonic War was repayed, it just took a very long time to do so.
            But since WW1 No attempt has been made to repay most of the National Debt.

          • Yes it is and no we didn’t

            We raised taxes to pay the interest on the new borrowing we were doing, you may have heard we raised taxes to pay for wars etc, but the reality is the taxes were raised so we could pay off the interest on the borrowing

            We have borrowed for every major conflict for over 300 years, probably more.

          • The Fact is the UK repayed Most of the National Debt from its peak in 1815 at 260% of GNP, down to 25% of GNP in 1914, not just on the interest.
            Of cause there were small spikes in borrowing along the way down, but it was mainly down hill until 1914.

    • Welcome, I did expect anything. I too am worried if Labour get in. I reviewed their RUSI presentation last year, yeah 2% but it we would lose key capabilities and focus to focus on peace keeping and humanitarian roles, it would be like the foreign aid budget boast :).

  5. This is only as worthy as the current government remaining in power? Judging by the past few days that may be shorter than some would like. I get the impression that Boris’s gang would support UK defence more rigorously than some other parties? However, that’s only an impression. If as I fear for future defence budgets, an early election could result in a more liberal-minded parliament. If that be the case, such an election could possibly not come at a worse time for the MOD.

  6. So basically this staves off any further cuts for another 12 months or so, assuming a new Government doesn’t row back on this pledge. Only sustained and guaranteed funding increases will enhance capability. A good start mind.

  7. So almost half’s going on pensions! We havent always included dam pensions in the defence budget have we! With all the mass cuts we still manage to spend almost the same! Clever accounting.

  8. As some below have said, I take this with a large grain of salt. Johnson is smart, but has not historically shown himself to be trustworthy to any geat extent when it comes to pledges etc. These spending increases come alongside the “end of austerity” and spending on a number of different deparmtents across the board; to me that smacks of election point-making.
    Besides, with the economy looking set to shrink for a second quarter in a row, what he’s bascially doing is rowing back on all the justifications the Tories have made since 2010 about balancing the books and now borrowing more. I have only a layman’s grasp of macro economics, but I believe this to be the case. Once again, suggesting something of an election stunt rather than anything he’s particularly committed to continuing.
    That said, if there genuinely is more money available for UK armed forces then I think Julian has a good line on it.

    • He gets a lot of stick on twitter from paper journalists because he’s seen as stepping on their “professional” toes. In my humble opinion his pieces are far more informative than anything I have read in black and white for a good while.

  10. Hmmm, not as good as first thought once you look at the breakdown. Massive chunk set for pensions (have these not already been allowed for in the current budget?), and the rest spread out across multiple areas leaving little for actual an increase in capability.
    After watching BJ yesterday, I am left in no doubt what so ever that he is totally untrustworthy and knows full well the damage a no deal Brexit will do. This uplift will end up only covering the reduced budget due to a likely recession from a hard Brexit and leave us where we are now.
    I just hope we can find a way through this and leave in a way that doesn’t screw us over. But the fact is that the EU will never drop the back stop unless we come up with a viable alternative, which I doubt there is. Therefore we have two choices, a hard leave with all the arguing between ourselves and the EU for years to come and the fall out in Ireland, or accept the backstop but never really leave the EU and tie our hands and loose the benefits that a full but orderly Brexit could deliver.
    It seems that there is not going to be a satisfactory way out of this.

  11. I very much think the RN would get better value to procure VLS Astutes(with silos).
    And to develop FC/ASW to as future deterrent.

      • It will be a matter of adding an extra compartment(merging).
        on the ones not completed, the whole program is behind anyway!
        It will be almost certain that Trident will be cancelled under Corbyn, he will do anything he to do so!

        • I can’t see this realistically happening with so much other stuff competing for limited budget. I do hope though that the Dreadnought design team will move almost immediately on to the design for an Astute successor where it would make sense to make use of the Dreadnought Common Missile Compartment which I believe was at least intended to have the capability to do more than just host Trident and to also be adaptable to host multiple cruise missiles and even special forces equipment. If all that flexibility did make it into the final CMC design then it would make a lot of sense to integrate at least one 4-tube CMC into the next generation SSN especially given that the Dreadnought program partly funded the development and the Dreadnought designers will have worked with it already.

          Then, if we want to dream, if that next-gen SSN design does get started quickly so that the next gen SSN builds could get underway immediately after Dreadnought is far enough along to free up space at Barrow (which is presumable still a way off) then just possibly, if budget were available at the time we might, even given the glacial pace of most MoD RN builds seem to now adopt, have time to build up to a more-than-7 SSN fleet by the time the last Astute is retired.

  12. When you think about it, spending more on cyber is the perfect answer to all MOD / policitcal problems. No one can prove or disprove that the money has actually been spent, as it’s virtual and so you can state grand statements like X billion towards cyber security without risking anyone brining you up on what the money is actually being spent on and where is the output, because this all secret

  13. The liberals in Britain are just like the liberals in America. They are more interested in opening the borders to migration than they are in national defense and protecting their own citizens. Liberals know that every migrant they allow in will almost certainly vote for them if/when they ever become able to vote.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here