In a frank exchange during a House of Lords debate on Wednesday, former First Sea Lord Lord West of Spithead (Labour) described the state of the UK’s armed forces as “parlous” and warned that strategic planning must be matched by short-term investment in capabilities.

“Our armed services, I am afraid, are in a parlous state — it is no good pretending otherwise,” Lord West said. “They have been seriously hollowed out and they are nowhere near the capabilities that our nation thought they would have.”

While he welcomed increased defence spending, he stressed the need to prioritise near-term readiness: “There is a need to think in the short-term as well as the long-term… in case we are at war within the next couple of years.”

Responding for the Government, Lord Coaker (Labour) began with a reference to the Chancellor’s Spring Statement: “I thought that my noble friend was going to welcome the statement… that the Portsmouth naval base was to be renovated and improved, but there we go. And we are going to try to provide ships there, as well.”

Turning to Lord West’s main concern, Lord Coaker acknowledged the urgency: “Of course there are short-term efforts that we need to make.” He noted that action had already been taken on personnel issues including “pay, childcare and recruitment and retention” and that more investment was being channelled into industry to accelerate capability delivery.

“Investment is something that sometimes takes a little bit longer,” he said, but highlighted a new fund announced by the Chancellor to “speed up delivery from industry to the front line.” Coaker concluded: “Ukraine has shown that, and at the end of the day, we will have to learn from it but do it quickly.”

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

105 COMMENTS

  1. There are 2 fundamental issues:

    1. The powers that be PMs, Chancellors, Def Secs and Service Chiefs have turned a blind eye to the erosion of the services to the point of no return.

    2. Either through subversion or ineptitude the politicians in the last 40 years have undermined what it is to be British (devolution, law and order, national identity, identity politics) such that many young people (boys in particular) dont see anything worth fighting or dying for.

    No living British politician has experienced a serious military defeat or national surrender that involves national humiliation, subjugation, mass prisoners of war, reparations, civil brutality.
    They have been asleep at the wheel and failed both our ancestors and generations to come.

    We are ripe for a serious military defeat in the next few decades and there’s nothing we can do about it?

    • “We are ripe for a serious military defeat on the next few decades and there’s nothing we can do about it”

      The first part of that statement I agree with, the second part I don’t as we are in a very good position to either deter our core enemies or win, but it will take a lot of work and cost a lot.

        • I am making a good s­al­ary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing und­er a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,

          Here is I started_______ 𝐖­­­𝐖­­­𝐖.𝐖­­𝐎­­𝐑­­­­𝐊𝐒­­­­𝐓­­­­𝐀­­­­𝐑­­­­𝟏.­­­­𝐂­­­­𝐎­­𝐌

      • I’d tend to agree.

        The lethargy with getting cash into play and accelerating some obvious quick programs is overwhelming.

        The most overwhelming sound is that of the usual hand wringing.. …

        West is right amount one thing that I’ve been banging on about – spending a big chunk of the cash on quick delivery programs and no letting it get sucked into the massive Gucci projects that will deliver in 10 years etc…..

        • There needs to be a lazer focus on the now to 2030..23 can paint a picture of what the 2030s will be like..but we live now and that is what matters.

    • On point 2, there is a certain tragic irony to asking our young men to fight and possibly die for England, and then come home and be the only Englishmen on their streets

      • Very sad but very true, all our major cities are now populated by various ethnic groups who are NOT in the minority any more and have no interest in Britain or being British except to take the benefits of living here, likewise our youth have no interest in a national identity except to wave a plastic cross of st.George flag made in China when the footys on and put it back away afterwards, after they’ve been beaten and then resume with their anxiety/depression……….

        • Indeed. Just a neater demonym to use Englishman than…Britishman? The point remains the same, and is equally true for Welshmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen

      • A lot of the angst about Brexit is about identity issues. Many of the young do not want to fight for the old’s country after the old stabbed the young’s country in the back.

        I am an outlier for my age bracket (63) in that I identify as a Londoner and a European. I follow Team GB at the Olympics and England in Rugby and Football but I would never identify as English and only use British in the legal sense (That is what is on my passport). The fact that the discussion above is about Englishmen is revealing.

        Even more revealing is ‘ various ethnic groups who are NOT in the minority any more’. All ethnic minority groups together amount to just 18% of the population. If things look different to you you need to review what is distorting you vision (Spec savers maybe?)

        • I was strongly against Brexit so don’t put me in some sort of little Englander camp. I believe in the UK, Britain but I am English, the same way a Scot is a Scot. Good for you that you can’t say English (in the same way Kryton could not say ‘smeghead’) Mr ‘British in the legal sense’, why are you on this site? Looking for offence and to get your correction pen out? You would never fight for this country, so move on to another site, before you go though, that little jape you made about spec savers, 18% is only what the census tells you, it’s not real. No illegal migrant in the black economy is completing a census form you goon, plus all the millions on work visas or as students that never go back. My city Sheffield is a good example, the universities actively seeks African and Chinese students, they are the majority at Hallam and they can also bring families with many never going back. 50,000 students in Sheffield with 500,000 population, then add census figures of non UK born that is 16%, then add 30 years of other huge influxes, then the illegals, and they are everywhere, walked past loads today, sleeping rough and roaming around. My mother did the last 2 census as an organiser (she’s a grafter even as a pensioner) and she would find 20 people living in a house with absolutely no one claiming to live there , whole areas like that. Don’t believe me, leave your nice little bohemia and I’ll give you a list of places to visit in my city and let’s see how you go.

          • If I would never fight for this country I must have been very confused during my 6 1/2 yrs in the old TA.

            Contrary to the delusions of Reform members, who in the run up to the last election made seven open calls for a military coup if Labour won. you do not have to be a right wing bigot to serve.

          • Interesting insights Wasp snorter, probably the most informative commentary on this post .

    • We had serious military defeats in Afghanistan / Iraq. Realistically they are the worst we are going to see in the foreseeable future. Even without US helping, Russia is not going to attack NATO as it would not stand a chance if the European nations actually reacted

      • The only risk is they do a crimea and test the water, with Europe again not reacting to it, giving Putin confidence that he can take on a small eastern nato bloc member without nato fully reacting.

          • Polands land army is large and well armed. They wouldn’t go after Poland first. Likely try a marginal region of Estonia etc. Not a full out attack, but something like they did with chrimea to test the water.

          • Disrupted not by military means but by political interference, fomenting internal conflict.

        • Steve, you suggest Putin might test the water by invading at least one of the Baltic nations. I am sure you know there is a NATO eFP force of at least a BG in each state. Putin would both invade a Nato nation and probably engage both indigenous forces and a multinational eFP unit or formation. Article 5 would immediately be called, and 32 nations would respond in one way or another.

          • In reality Putin is not just rolling the tanks in and taking potshots at the NATO battlegroups..unfortunately it’s a western obsession that all our enemies just line up their forces for a nice old battle so we can overwhelm them with expertise and enablers.

            Putin will attack the fringe of NATO with increasing Political warfare and grey zone attacks. He’s going to utilise the Russian populations of those nations to ferment civil strife and subversion, if it can then make any intervention seem grey..sending in peacekeeping forces, it can test NATO resolve….

      • hum…. are british forces sure to puch back a russian assault in, let’s say, Finland if others like France or poles busy in batlics?
        (question works the other way round of course)

    • RMJ. Interesting. People think the Service chiefs have God-like status and can do anything they like and also that they actually enjoy and plan for the demise of their Service.
      The reality – If PM and Chancellor decide to cut budget and headcount, the Def Sec and Service Chiefs then have to decide what to cut. They only cut due to the orders received from the 2 most powerful ministers in the Government.

    • Rmj, true that catastrophic military defeat such as you describe, has not been experienced, probably in living memory of any of us. However there are many, especially American senior officers, who considered we failed both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, due in large part to under-resourcing our endeavours.

      • And also restrictive RoE?

        They just wasn’t the political will for using the troops to their full effect?

  2. Of course they are hollowed out Mr West. You were one of the architects of that and the cheerleader in chief for all the cuts to the armed forces on your watch as you eyed up a paid sincere for your useless views in the House of Lords.

    SSBN extended patrols ? SSN availability? T23 issues? Fast jet squadrons? Pilot Training? Army equipment? The list is endless and it’s all on you.

    • Spot on, he’s got a bloody nerve. If I was a fellow Lord sitting in the chamber, I would call him on his bullshit.

      • It is certainly true that he was the architect of a force structure that could not be sustained on the budgets.

        This lead to accelerated hollowing out.

        That said nobody thought that sub 2% was there to stay and that it would be a blip down that would be rectified.

    • Of course, from the 11970s onwards all the service chiefs have rolled over and accepted massive cuts to the armed forces, West should be ashamed of himself trying to make political capital at this time, maybe he should have made his views known when he was in post….

      …..

      • Tony, you never know what happens behind closed doors in Main Building. What is quite clear is that Dannatt and later Sanders were vocal about hollowing out. Sanders was overlooked for advancement to CDS, short-toured and beckoned to civvy Street.

  3. Why do ex officals who were responsible for the decline of our forces suddenly after retirement complain our forces are in a state 🫠🫠

    • There are only ever two figures responsible for the decline in our Forces….the PM and the Chancellor who cut funds and headcount.
      Def Sec and Service chiefs just take the poisoned chalice and decide how to make the savings mandated by restructuring Orbat and/or deleting platforms. I am sure they take no pleasure in it.

  4. “And we are going to try to provide ships there, as well.” it’s that kind of forward planning and clever thinking that puts the GREAT in Great Britain!

  5. In the end if HMG is serious about deterring or being in a position to deter in the next 4 years it needs to do a few core thinkings.

    Geopolitical
    1) ensure the UK is in a strong and meaningful military alliance or set of alliances that are focused on the UKs core geostrategic risks (North Atlantic, Mediterranean and western Indian Ocean, artic, south Atlantic, Africa)
    2) Focused attention on core existential and intractable enemies, ensuring all others are firmly neutral or friendly neutral.

    Economic and industrial
    3) good trade agreements with all allies, friendly neutral or neutrals
    4) independent of sovereign capabilities ( including supply chain ) or guaranteed resistance of supply chain and capabilities from political warfare activities ( can access be cut).
    5) increased industrial capacity in regards to supply of consumables ( munitions and other)
    6) increased industrial capability in regards to rebuilding post conflict

    Civilian
    1) robust unified approach to resistance to political warfare (making sure the population does not vote to give up because interest rates go up)
    2) robust security to resist kinetic type political warfare ( terror, sabotage etc)
    3) robust civil defence, essentially this should be built using a form of national service.. we need to be creating a society in which everyone has a wartime role.. they are trained for.
    4) robust civilian infrastructure ( food, energy, water infrastructure as well as medical and public health )

    Military
    1) preserve all present military capabilities..essentially stop removing any capability, unless it’s not sustainable at all.. so essentially rebuild and keep running every T23, Albions, waves, keep Tranche 1 typhoons running, life extend warrior, convert every challenger 2 hull available. This may mean so expensive rebuilding but if it can be done with a few years it should be done..
    2) development of a significant reserve force, with active recruitment into reserves. Again a form of national service but based on training specific cohorts of reservists.. very much linked to a civil defence national service programme.
    3) develop recruitment into regulars.. essentially revamping recruitment and career structures as well as pay and conditions.
    4) order some short term easy to build equipment..so fires for the army, APCs for army, massive increase in munition stocks etc
    5) move warship building to max effort to get as many T31/26s commissioned as quickly as possible
    6) crash order of typhoons and new F35s as these could be in service within 5 years..20 something of each.
    7) meduim rotor order swift ordering and delivery
    8) air launched ASM for typhoon and Merlin
    9) big order of cruise missiles

    You could do all that in the 1-5 year timeframe.

    The national service needs to be a part time training based national service for a wide age group..not a drag all 18 year olds into a year of hanging around .

        • I mean the large cultural and political span in UK is too diverse to have the coherence that makes possible a military like that.
          The society will not accept what you proposed.
          When you have morality/rules based on a religion with appropriate level of intensity – cannot be too much and interfere too much with peoples lives – it makes things easier. That disappeared.

          Can the society of today sustain a Blitz?

          • Broadly speaking your point is valid. The sense of national identity formed during WW2 persisted to 1970 ish. Most people felt a sense of belonging and an understanding that it was sometimes necessary for an individual to make sacrifices for the common good. Nations are formed by a coming together in common defence against an external aggressor. If you don’t have a real one you can make one up e.g. the EU. You ask could we sustain a Blitz today? Interesting question. We got through Covid because people acted for the common good. We all got vaccinated and accepted restrictions on our freedoms. Virus was our common enemy. It’s worth noting that the Uk is an outlier. Unlike other nations, our national health has not recovered despite or maybe because of Boris world beating vaccine.

          • Actually less manufactured consensus in that virus would be better. But the virus was perceived as common enemy by everyone.
            Like if we are in a SF story and suddenly an alien menace threats Earth. Most human wars would stop.

            In WW2 at Blitz time there were armaments factories sabotage by the Leftist unions affiliated with Communists. They only changed their stance when Hitler attacked Soviet Union.
            We in Portugal still have more death rate than before COVID, this despite COVID taking a lot of vulnerable. There is a loud silence around it.

    • Re Military point 1, no don’t rebuild T23. They are beyond help. They were designed for less than 20 year life. There is a general expectation that naval ships are designed & built for at least a 30 year life & you may with a little bit of luck, when you have to, of extending it by 5 years or so. If you do in fact design & build a ship for a 30 year life, it’s likely true. If you design & build a ship with an 18-20 year life & then replace it on schedule – all well & good. Except all the people who came up with this brilliant plan are no longer there when the time comes to buy replacements.

      • Unfortunately DJ. We have no or little choice to now throw good money after bad..you can keep a ship going it just depends on the level of rebuilding. But we cannot magic new frigates before the mid 2030s beyond what we are now building and we cannot under any circumstance let the numbers drop below what they are now..which unfortunately means spending a lot of cash to dig out the hole.

  6. No, no.. Britain did what every western democracy ( apart from the USA) did after the Soviet Union collapsed and reduced spending on forces no longer needed. Russian forces reduced even more sharply with its surface fleet allowed to rust away, its army to fall apart.
    Instead of concentrating our reduced budget on effective self defence, Blair moved the priority to expeditionary warfare. So instead of GBAD we got two giant aircraft carriers. Instead of modernized AFVs for peer warfare, the army got UOR vehicles for Afghanistan of little use in the longer term.
    Even with the early signs of Putin’s readiness to use brute force, the strategic balance continued to shift against Russia as NATO expanded further East. Russia’s former satellites,from Estonia to Bulgaria, are now arrayed against their former masters. Russia has been fought to a standstill by Ukraine with Western supplied PGMs destroying vast numbers of tanks, AFVs and air assets.
    UK forces have indeed suffered from an inadequate budget and perhaps even more by poor procurement decisions and delays. But over the next few years, the army will have been completely re equipped and re organized, the frigate force replaced and up armed, and the number of nuclear warheads greatly increased.
    In conventional warfare, Russia is vastly outmatched by European NATO forces and is reliant on Iran for drones, jailbirds, Chechens and North Koreans to replace personnel losses.
    West, one of the prime culprits in hollowing out the RN to get his carriers, talks rubbish most of the time. The continued increase in the defence budget that started under Johnson is gradually making good most of the deficiencies that were allowed to develop from Blair onwards. A bit more urgency would of course be welcome.

    • We are NOT gradually making good.

      There was no continued increase in the Defence budget under Sunak. in fact there were cuts. Instead Sunak manipulated the headline numbers, just as Cameron had done, to make it look like there was an increase. Even though Reeves has actually increased the budget, it’s nowhere near enough to stop the decline, which still continues. Perhaps by 2027 there may be enough money to halt further decline, but if it’s as announced, still not enough money to reverse it. In fact it’s hard to point to an area of the military that isn’t in a worse state now than it was five years ago. [The Fleet Air Arm bucked the trend, due to orders made in 2012 made after retiring all the Harriers in 2011, a very long capability gap. Anyone else got one?]

      On current plans, the frigate mess will take a decade to sort and still faces further decline before it bottoms out between 2026 and 2030. During this period it’s possible we’ll drop to 5 or 6 frigates from 13 at the start of the decade. More generally, we’ve lost about 30% of the surface fleet over 100 tons and far more to come as the Hunt class is decommissioned. As for the Army being re-equipped, perhaps it’s easier to equip a brigade or two than several divisions. The lack of numbers is even more sapping to capability than the age of the equipment. So too few soldiers, too few tanks, the demise of the IFV, all sacrificed on the hope that deep fires will cure everything. Have we even ordered the RCH 155, which are supposed to be in service “by 2030”?

      We have five to ten very hard years ahead for the military and waiting two more years to even stop the rot is madness.

      • Last week saw an entire fleet of Puma2s cut without replacement. Same goes for Typhoon T1s.. and our traditional recruiting sergeants remain silenced in favour of diversity campaigns. Apart from a few NSM and the trickle of F35bs I can’t see any evidence of a nation gearing up for potential conflict – more the opposite. RU will be capable of regeneration within a couple of years based around a combat hardened and drone experienced.

      • The fact is that we are slowly, too slowly, replacing or upgrading a lot of old platforms. Several of our key missile systems, both defensive and offensive, have proven their effectiveness in Ukraine. Even if the defence budget were increased to 3% of GDP now, the immediate benefit would be quite small- a modest acceleration in the frigate programmes, earlier delivery of new or rebuild AFVs. But it takes time to ramp up production as Germany, less indebted and with a much bigger industrial base, has found.
        Do we need more than 19 modern escorts, especially if we can barely crew the current fleet? Do we need a bigger army to defend the UK? It might be more useful to aim for a big increase in reserves. There have been suggestions that a further batch of Typhoons will emerge from the SDR and that should help to reinforce both air defence and strike capability.
        Rather than worrying too much about an all out conventional attack by Russia( they would be comprehensively defeated), we probably need to do more to counter the sort of operations we know Moscow likes to conduct: cyber attacks, disinformation, murdering opponents, damaging infrastructure. As well as upping our defensive game in these areas, we need to improve deterrence by ensuring we have the means to retaliate. That should include long range PGMs ( any news on Brakestop?)

        • Yes, it takes time to ramp up production. That’s why you need to start now, rather than use that as an excuse for procrastination. If we could get 19 modern escorts tomorrow by flipping a switch, the issue wouldn’t be as urgent. We can’t.

          As for not worrying about Russia because they would be comprehensively defeated if they made an all out attack (probably true) why not worry about them doing what they’ve been doing for the last 25 years? If insurrection and civil war breaks out in one of the Baltics and Russia sends troops in to protect the large Russophone minority, will we declare war on Russia? Will France? Will Germany? Does it matter whether we can prove Russia started the conflict in the first place? If Russia moves 100,000 troops into Latvia would NATO’s response be overwhelming? If NATO fails to respond militarily to an Article 5 event, NATO is dead. Which is why some people think Putin will try it in a couple of years. If NATO responds, maybe Russia will pull out, but the bickering between NATO nations in deciding what to do will be Putin’s real prize.

          Without American leadership, NATO is rudderless. Britain could step up if it had enough Defence resources. It doesn’t.

        • Peter, our army’s main role is not to defend the UK; that is the fall-back option in a war of national survival and when there is serious threat of invasion. Their main role is to defend the landmass of the Euro-Atlantic area with allies and to conduct expeditionary warfare.

        • Just had a little look around on Brakestop, but I can’t find anything much since the launch stuff six months ago. A recent blog mention with no progress info. MBDA put out their own RFI for suppliers of engines, launch, airframe and assembly a couple of months after that. Given that MOD were looking for proposals in by January and a test firing this autumn, things have gone into silent mode or it went back for a requirements adjustment.

          Given Ukraine’s Palianytsia missile/drone reputedly covers many of the requirements already (but with a 100kg warhead), I’ll keep my fingers crossed that it’s not impossible and has just gone behind the scenes. We’ll hear about it again nearer the end of the year, I’d guess.

      • Much of the increase in the Defence budget is covered by more of the SIA (Single Intelligence Account) being included in the Defence budget. Starmer made it clear that much of this will be included in the Defence budget in future. Its debateable whether the actual armed forces will see any increase in spending from the putative increase.

    • “..the strategic balance continued to shift against Russia as NATO expanded further East. Russia’s former satellites,from Estonia to Bulgaria, are now arrayed against their former masters…”

      A good job the satellites had foresight to join NATO, by choice, Not forced! Some before the Emperor putin reared his ugly head!

    • “…one of the prime culprits in hollowing out the RN to get his carriers, talks rubbish most of the time…”

      A good foresight made, at least at ordering the carriers!

    • “The fact is that we are slowly, too slowly, replacing or upgrading a lot of old platforms.” For a prolonged period we didn’t replace aged equipment (across all services) when we should have because we didn’t fund the armed forces properly.

      It was planned neglect. 2% of GDP is not enough to maintain conventional forces, a nuclear deterrent and overseas bases. Government is all about choices. Political leaders decided that raising the foreign aid budget and underfunding the defence budget was a good and rational thing to do. The current state of the armed forces was entirely predictable. Those grand politicians of the past who made these brave decisions have either got to stand up and defend why they think this was the best outcome or instead apologise for their incompetence in not understanding what they were doing when they decided a reality detached, political target of GDP spend was a sign of them doing a good job.

  7. In the short-term, if bad things are going to happen, we need to stockpile hundreds of thousands of rifles and tens of millions of rounds. Personal equipment to go with it. This is the very minimum.

  8. Irrespective of his history, Lord West is right about this. The money needs to come now, not two years from now. The Chancellor sweetened the pot a little this year, which is better than nothing, but it’s nowhere near enough to make the necessary difference. We aren’t going to get 3% today, which ideally would be how we should start off, so at very least we need to set out the path to 3% by the end of the parliament, and starting right now.

    • The issue is our economy is in a mess. Like it or not the last government oversaw a economy in stagnation for over a decade and wasted huge amounts of tax payers money privatising everything.

      It’s difficult as the current government only choice to spend on defence is to borrow, but they know the media will destroy them if they do, even if the same media blind eyed the last government doing it even pre COVID.

      Policitcs is politics, and unless there is an clear and imminent threat, policitcsns and media will play party policies.

        • I mean has army recruitment gone well under capita or has NHS waiting queues gone well. Yeah money has been wasted.

      • Our Prime Minister has £9bn for Mauritius but can’t find £6bn for the British military. How about we slow down quantitative tightening, like the US and the EU have? There are plenty of methods to sort the economy, which involve taxing the uber-rich a bit. How many more years will be give to the financial orthodoxy that is failing us? Our children deserve at least the same chances we had.

        The Labour Party has to say the hell with the media! They have four years to nail their colours to the mast and do what they think is right. Perhaps they’ll lose the next election, but at least they’ll have done something. Attlee wasn’t re-elected, but he’s often seen as the most successful Prime Minister of all time. It’s not how long you cling to power that counts. It’s what you do with it.

        • The conservatives gov agreed the deal with Mauritius, labour just finalised it. Deals like that don’t take weeks to agree so it’s not possible that labour actually agreed it.

          • Nothing prevented them from Disagreeing with it and not implementing it once they came to power though did it? They were quick enough to scrap the previous Gov. policy on Rwanda weren’t they?

      • The issue is not the media destroying them for increasing borrowing, but the markets. See how far yields on the 10Y gilt shot up at the Autumn and Spring Budgets for evidence. More borrowing is out, it is completely impossible from this point on. Taxing more is also nearing the point of smothering the economy. Cuts are the only path left. Kill the triple lock, slash welfare to the bone, end what is left of foreign aid.

        • We’ll have to agree to disagree on some of that. If the US and the EU can get away with less quantitative tightening, so can we. 10 years gilt increases didn’t happen on the Spring and Autumn budgets. The most recent major climb started in September, long before the statement and peaked finally in mid-January and could easily be ascribed to Trump (and often are by smarter people than me). After the Spring statement rates actually fell.

          Your general point is well taken though. More borrowing at these rates is best kept to a minimum. Taxing the uber-rich on unearned income will stimulate the economy not stifle it. Asset prices are too high and that’s depressing everything.

          • I don’t agree with your takeaways at all in the first paragraph around the cause and timing of yield spikes, but it’s semantics based on your timeframe.

            Increase taxes further and you will guarantee that the hurdle rate of any investment in this country is prohibitively high, drying up investments. Taxes people more and aggregate demand goes down and once again economic activity collapses. In my opinion the only way forwards is to cut state spending, use the excess to stimulate productive investment.

            Certainly I agree with you that asset prices are too high which has exacerbated inequality and impoverished a vast number of people. Borrowing more is out. We’re in a bloody pickle thanks to years of inept politicians unwilling to look beyond the election cycle!

          • @Levi This isn’t about the aggregate. I think the point about tax increases is they have to be targetted. You are right when you say taxes stifle investment, so they have to go where we want to reduce investment, such as property portfolios. Investment in property rarely builds more houses, it just pushes the prices ever upward. We are in danger of most asset prices crashing anyway at some point. Time to use tax for a little readjustment. I know private pensions could be hit, but if it frees the country, it would be worth it.

      • Economy is in a mess. That’s why it is really important that government resources are prioritised and directed at the things which we must have and not at the things which are nice to have. Net Zero expenditure is a nice to have. We could have a capability gap on Net Zero and redirect government expenditure to British Defence manufacturers and away from Chinese Windmill builders. At the same time we could deregulate domestic oil and gas production to reduce energy costs.
        Also I’m pretty sure a UK version of DOGE would discover all sorts of flabby expenditure across Whitehall. I mean lets start with Rory Stewarts wife and look at all the other NGO funding. I bet there’s a lot of posh metropolitan pork out there which could easily be redirected to doing something actually useful.
        The government may also want to try the odd bit of governing once in a while and try to fix longstanding and costly problems like illegal immigration. If the law isn’t fit for purpose change it. If the UK benefits system is a magnet then block it to illegals. I find fixing the odd problem every once in a while is better than allowing them to build up and crush you. However that would require a political class who actually want to take ownership of problems as opposed to the current cowardly lot who “larp” as leaders and only talent is delivering performative politics.

        • Starmer has changed the law. It’s even more unfit for purpose now, unless the purpose was unchallenged mass immigration by those lacking the skills, knowledge, education, language and culture to contribute to Britain.

        • Unfortunately deregulation of oil and gas would not reduce energy costs due to the way the energy market is in the uk works .. electricity prices are essentially set from the most expensive generation source in line in that 24 hour period.. and as there is always a bit generated by ship imports of liquid gas.. they could lower the price immediately by similar settings the price at the mean costs.

  9. We all know Lord West is correct , however has always they never speak up when in Office but that’s another story . Talk about time to invest it may be worth looking at our Steel industry ,specially if he wants more ships 🙄

  10. Another who lacked the moral fibre to speak the truth when he was in a position where people have to listen. No wonder we’re fooked with all these weak senior leaders.

  11. And the various CDS have let it happen. None resigned in protest over defence cuts imposed by any recent UK government. Guess the ex First Sea Lord was more interested in his pension

  12. What a hypocrite.
    .
    .
    He oversaw a major hollowing out of RN assets and now he thinks investment is necessary!

      • If only they had the spines to hand back their titles / lordships as an admission of their ineptitude (I won’t limit that to just their military service!).
        .
        .
        Gone are the days when service leaders would resign rather than be the toe-clipping architects for cutting the military to suit poor political fiscal management (sic) and creating a public embarrassment for HMG and possible public debate.

  13. The UK has lost “capabilities.” It is bad enough not having enough, tanks, ships, aircraft, guns, but what is really stupid is when you let the capabilities (strategic assets, design IP, skills, etc.) atrophy.

    For example, for new stuff, the UK needs to come up with a top secret secure facility (underground) that has a design team that can produce all sorts of drones en masse. No point in producing millions of drone now and sticking them in a warehouse. Far better to have an agile capabilty that can quickly innovate and produce at large scale. Also stop foreign investors taking over UK defence companies, and don’t pretend that our main defence industry is British when vast swathes of it are not.

    Similarly for the other strategic capabilities that the UK needs. Where are those new Tornado, or CH4 MBT orders Mr Starmer? …

        • “You’re only supposed to blow the bloody doors off”.

          Probably not related but I heard he had relatives at Rourke’s Drift ???

          His brother Dick often mentioned Brom after that little skirmish.

          • Morning Rear Ad! I drove past Rorke’s Drift on my way to Isandlwana about 30 years ago. The battlefield at the latter has a much greater atmosphere especially as it was in the company of the late great David Rattray! I also have a friend who is related to Captain Raw who was killed at that bigger skirmish. Being a naturally modest fellow I don’t normally like to talk about such things but your comments stirred some memories…:)

  15. Good Day, just a note, Germany is now on a war footing.
    Thats according to the BBC. Quote, Germany decides to leave history in the past and prepare for war!
    Perhaps the UK should wake up and do the same before its to Late!
    Nick

  16. I don’t think its an April fools joke but Janes is showing the Puma’s are being retired but has a replacement been chosen yet? Will the Puma’s be up for possible donation to Ukraine?

  18. Who has a better view of the state of our armed forces, Lord West, who rose to the top of our arm forces, as the ex-head of the Royal Navy and ex-Chief of the Defence Staff, also a Labour peer. Or, Lord Croaker, an ex teacher?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here