In the House of Commons, John Healey, the Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne and Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, vehemently criticised the government’s defence strategy and spending.

He was supported by Matt Rodda, Labour MP for Reading East, who raised concerns regarding the retirement of the Hercules fleet.

Healey opened his remarks by asserting that the government’s spending on defence as a percentage of GDP indicates its priorities. He stated, “It was 2.5% of GDP in 2010. We have got nowhere near that in any of the 13 years after 2010 under the hon. Gentleman’s Governments.”

He acknowledged some positive changes in the 2023 integrated review but emphasised that these were mere rebalancing acts and not substantial reforms. He said, “that was a rebalancing of defence plans, not a reboot.”

Healey went on to criticise the UK Government for reducing the size of the Army, mentioning that “the Government are cutting the Army still further, to its smallest size since Napoleon.” He contrasted this with NATO’s efforts to increase its high readiness force and cited Germany’s commitment to boosting its defence budget by over €100 billion.

He further admonished the government for breaking the promise made during the 2019 election, “We will not be cutting our armed services in any form. We will be maintaining the size of our armed services.” He provided evidence by stating that there are “45,000 fewer full-time forces personnel,” and added that “one in five Navy ships has been axed, and over 200 RAF planes have been taken out of service.”

Matt Rodda then took the floor to ask Healey about the retirement of the Hercules fleet and its implications. He asked, “Does he agree that today, it is particularly worth mentioning the potential capability gap with the retirement of the Hercules fleet?”

Healey agreed with Rodda and emphasised that the questions regarding the replacement of Hercules with the A400 have still not been answered satisfactorily by Ministers.

Healey also shed light on the waste in procurement, asserting, “since 2010, we have seen Ministers waste at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through MOD mismanagement in procurement, with £5 billion wasted since 2019 when the Defence Secretary took up his post.”

He closed by posing questions to the Minister regarding the Command Paper, asking, “Will the defence Command Paper put an end to the Defence Secretary’s hollowing out of our armed forces? Will it halt deeper Army cuts? Will it pick up Labour’s plans to conduct a NATO test of major defence programmes to ensure that we meet our NATO obligations?”

There was no response offered in the debate.

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

157 COMMENTS

  1. Why no response? Are they aware and ashamed-particularly given the money wasted during Covid? When did the defence of the realm drop so low on our priorities?

    • As I recall Labour said Covid funding wasn’t sufficient, Starmer criticised Tories ending lockdown early! So show both parties are really not fit to govern.

      • I must admit both main parties are just as bad when it comes to their primary duty, Defence of the Realm. Unfit to govern is an accurate assessment in my humble opinion. I wonder how Farage would do as PM or should we just go straight for a military run state.

        • Er No. Not a good idea. Labour is simply critising the Government in a effort to undermine it like it does in every area. If it has any posibility of working Keir will try it. It bears no relation to what they might do in office. There will be little if any pressure from their base to spend very much if anything on defence. Keir may need to commit to not increasing taxes so defence spending could well be a target.

          In reality the UK needs a credible deterent which it has especially when considered as part of NATO. How much would people feel we need to spend and what would we cut to achieve it?

          • And what we need to remember is had Labour won the last election Starmer would have been championing Cobyns defence of the realm, vast increasing defence spending on pens and paper to write strongly worded letters to……………………..

            the US to stop sending arms to Ukraine.

  2. Labour that great funder of the UK military….!

    Successive UK governments have cut defence but Labour have done it more then the others. I have no confidence that a Labour government would build up our armed forces.

    • Historically both of the main parties have cut defence spending and capabilities at some points and invested at others.

      Unfortunately it’s not something the general public get angry about or notice so its not a vote winner and politicians across the political spectrum or only really interested in popularity and balancing this years budget.

      • It’s not a popular topic with the electorate because they are mostly kept ignorant of the terrible state of our armed forces. The blame for that must rest with the Monarchy, top brass and the veterans community. The only people who could capture the electorates attention and back up their warnings with facts, figures and photographs.

      • The last 44 years we’ve hardly has an real challenges around defence. It not been a feature of Tory or Labour policy.

        • Erm.
          44 years
          Falklands – couldn’t do it now
          Northern Ireland – ditto
          Gulf War 1 – ditto
          Sierra Leone – maybe
          Fmr Yugoslavia – maybe
          Gulf War 2 – not a chance
          Afghan – ditto

          No, you’re right. 100%

          • I don’t see why the UK military could not ‘do’ the Falklands now?

            I don’t think the Argentine military could take the Falklands now.

          • The greatest difference & enabler for us being “able” to do a Falklands now is the far worse state of Agentine forces. Their navy & airforce is too small to overwhelm the garrison down there. Unless the PLA help the Argies, which is not too far from a possibility. Very matey with China is Argentina.

          • While I agree the UK forces has shrunk badly. In fact the worse the threat the more our capability has shrunk.

            However – You list.

            “Falklands” Not sure how you work out “we could not do it now”

            With a garrison in place and could be reinforced, we could do it again.

            With the F35B and HMS QE – probably more firepower than last time. Now counting Typhoons that could fly from the Falklands.

            Northern Ireland” Why could we not do that – I think at most UK had 10,000 troops there, I am sure that could be matched.

            The two Gulf Wars, well I agree and the same with “Afghan “

            The rest we probably could.

            Having said that with a country of over 60,000 and rich, it’s dereliction to have an army more tiny than ever in modern times.

            RN has two carriers and not enough escorts. Ships seems to just vanish, the 19 destroyers and frigates is a myth.

            As for Labor, what have they ever done? closely followed by the Tories.

          • Hi

            I did not mean defend the Falklands, I wrote do a Falklands.

            Now, if you read Big Boy’s Games, Big Boy’s Rules and served inside some units, you’re looking at circa 70K involved in ‘security.’

            Do you think we could stand up that many now?

            Daniele and I have reached a consensus both main political parties are a shower…

          • I think at a push we probably do a Falklands. at a push, I think we have 76,000 troops plus marines.and 34,000 Volunteer Reserves.

            To answer your question – Falkland,s is one matter, Partnering the US in a Gulf type operation – It would be on a tiny scale if we tried.

            To be honest I am not sure our rotten political parties would even try.

            Both political parties are dross – worst in my lifetime and I can’t see it getting better.

            I remember Boris in his review saying MOD was getting a large cash boost – What was that spent on? did it ever happen?

          • NSM. Mk41. CAMM on T45. Army uplifts to come, especially in artillery. NCF, Artificial Intelligence, Space Command, Tempest, AUKUS SSNR thus, Barrow, Faslane, Raynesway. Typhoon radar, munitions stock increases, Boxer order to number 1,000 plus, and on an on. Much also vanishes in inflation and delays/cock ups.

            Yes, there was an uplift. Twice, one by BJ and one recently from Sunak, but way below what BW was requesting.

            And yes, both are utter dross and as bad as the other.

          • Impressive list – Most of Tempest cost will be in the future. AUKUS will pay for itself. A lot of things are going on as you say – But fact remains we only have 76000 regular troops. 18 Frigates and Destroyers. Hercules C-139 gone. 1000 Boxer’s good – shame about how much was wasted on Ajax before it finally may be OK, Which proves you right on delays/cock ups.Inflation will come down,

            True to say since Thatcher, no government has taken defense seriously

            If war was to happen, we would have to have large numbers on conscripts if it was major.

          • The British Army’s £5.5 billion armoured vehicle has a new in-service date of 2025.

            • Full operating capability: Between October 2028 and September 2029

            When the programme began in 2010 the initial expectation was for it to enter service around 2017. This had shifted to 2020 when the manufacturing contract was awarded in 2014

            $5.5 Billion and was expected to enter service around 2017..

            It is late by 15 years.

            After all the delay – it’s to be hoped it’s worth the money.
            https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9764/#:~:text=The%20British%20Army's%20%C2%A35.5,in%2Dservice%20date%20of%202025.

          • Its not just the money though is it..its the time taken to deliver and the impact that has on the structure of the forces and what and how they deliver. Time is a resource in its own right and failure to deliver to timescales has a financial impact regardless of other fiscal costs.
            For example if they said if was gong to be another 5 years what would the impact be…what about another 10..at what point would you say fk it and move on.
            Ajax has failed to deliver against it’s time based requirements..and just saying it’s under budget is not really an excuse for the impact that has had..and continues to have.

          • Ok let’s bin it after all this time, it is a disgrace I agree but if we do then that is the money wasted! How long would it take to source and buy a replacement afv?CV 90 we would go to the back of the queue to buy them by that time Ajax should be ready 🤞

          • Falklands Conflict – we clearly could not bomb the enemy strategically, and we haven’t yet got enough STOVL aircraft embarked on carriers. Is that what you mean? I don’t think we would need as many surface ships as in 1982 as modern ones are more capable.

            Northern Ireland – we would have to re-create the UDR, but if we did, we could surely do Op Banner again.

          • Graham

            Regular forces: 1 fielded Bn needs 3 in rotation.
            The PSNI of old (RUC).
            Army Air Corps (breathe Daniele!)
            UDR
            Them
            14 Int et Al.
            5 and 6, GCHQ
            Royal and RN
            Civi support.

            We couldn’t do another Op in N.I. at the scale needed but, the IRA could and with the latest tech, we’d be mincemeat.

          • Yeah, there were 2 Infantry Bdes in the ORBAT HQNI I recall, don’t remember how many Battalions each, we no longer have them spare.

            NI today has 2 regular Bns usually stationed at Palace and Theipval Barracks, plus the varied AR units.
            Army also has EOD elements, Royal Signals ECM specialists, what remains of 5 AAC, other minor bits and pieces, and the successor to 14, reportedly, has a detachment.

            You say we’d be mincemeat, and mention tech, yet that works both ways, the tech of the intelligence services is of a magnitude far greater than in the troubles. We knew who they were then, we’d know now. And the HUMINT side still applies.

            The Security Service also have a large presence, which is also the back up HQ for the service. So we are not naked by a long way.

            To do another Op Banner would require pulling Inf Bns off other tasks.

          • Daniele, we had three infantry brigades under GOC NI – 3x (headquartered in Armagh), 8x (HQ in Londonderry), 39x (HQ in Lisburn).

            In Dec 1989 for example – (source is Wiki/Headquarters Northern Ireland) there were:
            3x – 1 x reg bn, 3 x UDR bn
            8x – 1 x reg bn, 1 x TA Bn, 4 x UDR bn
            39x – 2 x reg bn, 1 x TA bn, 3 x UDR bn

            10 x UDR bns in this example ie UDR were the mainstay back in the day which was why I said we would have to recreate the UDR for Troubles#2.

            In the above example there were 4 reg bns and 2 TA bns.

            Under the roulement rule of 5 (not 3) we would need 20 reg and 10 AR Bns to replicate the Dec 89 deployment as an enduring commitment, which we have. Our total Orbat today has 33 reg and 16 AR bns.

            So we could do it, but with re-roling here and there (nothing new about that), and would probably use a RM Cdo once in a while.

            To surge as per Op Motorman, we would need vast numbers of reg Inf bns for a very short period – not sure we could easily do that, but maybe if they were in GB on low priority tasks and had done some IS trg.

            The IRA would take time to ramp up from virtually a standstill – to get funding, to recruit, train and get weapons and other kit (hi-tech and lo-tech). Only the old-timer Provos would have any ‘combat experience’. Also, would they have such support from their community, second time around – people are used to peace and relative prosperity.

          • Thanks for the detail Graham. The operation would in effect be the sole effort of the entire army, such are the reductions.
            Yes, I believe the UDR was the largest regiment of the army?
            I don’t think there would be the same scale of trouble, no.

          • Yes, UDR was at its peak some 11 battalions – incredible. I especially take my hat off to the Roman Catholic members – very brave.

            In my service days, I can’t recall an Infantry Regiment being generally more than 3 or 4 battalions.
            But RRS is 5 bns (3 x reg, 2 x AR) plus an incremental coy – and The RIFLES is 7 bns (4 x reg, 3 x AR). Best not to be over-awed – they are only large because of amalgamations etc

          • David,
            I mentioned that we would have to recreate the UDR – at their peak they fielded 11 battalions. British Army has 33 regular and 16 AR battalions – albeit in different roles.

            What does your list mean? The PSNI is the RUC rebranded but so what? Army Air Corps – they still exist but no longer have fixed wing compared to the time of The Troubles – are you saying the AAC could not now do the job they had in NI because they have lost a few B-N Defenders? 14 Int – superseded by the SRR – whats the problem? GCHQ still exists. RM and RN – they still exist. Civi support – we still have MoD civvies.

            We don’t know what scale would be needed (would the IRA be as numerous and effective as before?) and certainly I could not see how we could ramp up to 28,000 (even with 11 battalions of new UDR), which was the peak numbers but that number was not representative of the whole Op Banner era.

            So I would say we could not now replicate the peak activity, but could probably do the steady state situation but only with new UDR, at least one RM Cdo, many Reservists and some British Army battalions deploying having re-roled. Let’s face it – if the Troubles re-emerged we would have to find the Security Forces manpower!

          • Read my my comment above in line with the comment i responded to. The problem is the politicians believe these were all dealt with adequately. A lot of them we had a choice to participate or not, so to a politician that’s means there’s an option. And let’s get back to the point of the riginal poster even though Tories have been in power more would any of that list driven massive change in defence spending from labour. I’d say no.

        • Depends what you mean by challenges? Challenges in finding budget to meet commitments? Challenges in recruiting and retaining establishment levels of manpower? Challenges in buying sufficient numbers of affordable equipment?

          • I mean not me personally but our politicians. We know there challenges but these are not going to reflect badly on politicians so they’re ignored.

      • Yes I thought I was clear that neither of tge main parties have got a good record on defence – all have under funded. However I think you will find that Labour on average spend less on defence. Also I am not sure Labour can be trusted with the nuclear side given their ex leaders admission that he would never push the button. Also Labour would likely do deals with the SNP that could make Scottish independence more likely – weakening NATO and our defence further. Defence in the hands of Labour would be a farce. The would also ditch British projects and sellout to the EU/Germany/France… Tempest would be killed off and the best bits absorbed into the French project….

        I do not trust Labour with UK defence….

          • If Labour does get in I will look forward to being pleasantly surprised. A 2.5% plus increase to the defence budget. Nothing would make me happier… I do not care what party funds the military well so long as someone does for a change.

          • Well, they have committed to the NATO level – now if only that was pushed to 3% we’d have pina coladas all round 🙂

      • And i don’t remember a tory party take us to war on a lie. RN state is due to labour building to carriers but no escorts or support ships. blame can be found at all. so dont bother

      • So what has been Labour manifesto pledge in the last 3 elections. 2% as I recall? And if there wasn’t the Ukraine war it would still be 2% I suspect, as would the Tories I’ll add. I don’t think either party can claim any moral high ground on defence tbh.

      • The tory cut is worse when adding in the fact they moved trident into the core budget as well.

        Add in the context as well. In the labour era the world looked a more stable place and cold War spending levels really were hard to justify.

        What the austerity channel money into the old boys coffers party has done is unforgivable.

        • The world was more stable under Labour? We fought the two most significant wars our military has taken part in this century under Labour (Iraq and Afghanistan). They caused huge damage to our armed forces and are responsible for the deaths of many UK military personnel through fighting two long wars with a peacetime defence budget. In fact, they even cut the defence budget in real terms while fighting those wars. Gordon Brown had to apologise for lying about that to the Iraq enquiry.

          • They are not in remotely the same scale as the potential conflicts we are confronted with now! Nor were they taking place for a significant length of the labour term in office.

            The reason they did so much damage to our forces was specifically due to that. They were equipped and re-roled for guerilla insurgency conflict not peer level conflict which is the focus now.

            Now we find ourselves facing that conventional threat again with forces that for years were forced to not maintain their capabilities to fight that threat Just look at the dismal state of the army’s armored fleet, neglected for years with upgrades being over a decade late in even starting.

            Labour are not free from criticism, they have a lot to answer for. They are not responsible for the mismanagement of defence at possibly the highest level of tensions since the cuban missile crisis though. Tensions a blind man could see coming a decade ago.

          • Well said. As a very personal Defence Cut’ under Labour in 1975 (it still rankles) I heartily agree. However, got a Thankyou’ letter from some under Minister, it still hangs on the wall in the b*g!

          • We did not fight any wars. Conflicts yes.

            GW1 – We should have done
            GW2 – stayed away.

            Afghanistan, go in, slot the tossers and come out. On that we certainly failed. Of course, we could have gone Chinese and stayed a la South Korea and actually changed things; we need to stop following America.

      • Well none of that 2.5% every went on maintaining kit, I remember the tanks on TV in Germany with broken turrets, when committed to being involved in the Gulf.

        In truth there is no political will to spent any more cash on defense – I am sick of both parties, Labour might spent a little more but the danger is – ‘trident’

      • Tory austerity knocked everything down, apart from bankers bonuses & the super rich’s wealth. The whole of society is poorer & less resilient. The health service was in a terrible condition when Covid hit & all the vaccination research that HMG wants to take credit for(!) had their budgets cut.

        • Banker bonuses. These are paid to investment bankers who deal with global money, most of it coming through the UK rather than generated from the UK. They get a % as a bonus, all investment bankers will be in the 40-45% tax bracket so that 40-45% to HMRC of money from bonuses generated foreign transactions. The alternative the bonus isn’t paid and then its extra profit for the bank which is taxed at 25% so far less or the profit is booked elsewhere in the world meaning 0% for HMRC. I know which option I prefer, we need to make money, tax it, then redistribute it.

    • But the traditionally “strong on defence & law & order” Tories have bought the forces down to historic, unsustainable & reckless lows. So small that we did not deter Russia from invading Ukraine, again, & Xi from making fierce threats to invade Taiwan.

          • But if you had won the last election what would they have done, you can’t just say you haven’t been in power for 13 years, as the main opposition you had an obligation to offer a credible alternative on defence, you didn’t! We have political system where were voting for the least worst option. I won’t be voting for Labour or Tory neither are fit to govern imo.

  3. Reminds me of the 1930’s, the Baldwin Government cut defence, then in the run up to WW2 there was a scramble to rearm! Seems we are repeating history.

      • Spot on, no scramble, no … Well nothing really!

        The problem is we have let defence fall so far below critical mass in virtually all areas, it would take a huge effort and two decades to put it all right.

        The next question is what exactly is ‘right’?

        Certainly not Cold War levels, but an ideal snap shot to me would look like this,

        Regular Army of 100,000, 350 MBT and 5 armoured Regiments, everything else built around it with modern APC’s Artillery etc.

        Army reserve at 30,000 and flexible too.

        An Airforce with 12 fighter squadrons, plus Loyal wingmen and the whole diverse UAV world of support drones, large to small.

        40 A400 and 12 C17.
        16 Posiden
        7 AEW
        Helicopter fleet to match Army requirments

        Navy with 40 Escorts, Amphibious fleet to match a 10,000 strong Royal Marine Corps. 16 SSN’s, a 5th SSBN to allow two parallel patrols, perhaps one in the Indian Ocean.

        RFA sized to fit…

        4 F35 FAA squadrons plus carriers configured to launch and recover large UAV’s …

        A fleet of said UAV’s, loyal wingman etc….

        Plenty of meat to add to those bones, but to me that’s a sensible sized armed forces….

        RN and RAF personnel numbers sized accordingly.

        3% GDP on defence and 20 years would be my guess.

        • Just to add to the above, sensible off the shelf procument to equip the mentioned force levels where applicable, otherwise all the additional money would be swallowed up in bespoke hugely expensive programmes.

          So off the shelf MBT’s, APC’s, Helicopters, UAV’s and small arms for example.

          Keep UK production to our strengths, warship, Tempest ect.

          • Agree with you about off the shelf equipment. Much of it could be assembled or built under licence on the UK preserving jobs.

          • And maybe not decommissioning what we already have, let alone have continued to utilise ’til the very end, like C130. Plus skill sets.
            Or, more generally, fail to adequately ‘update/service’ equipment in preference to announcing the platform ‘obsolete’ – something that likely surprises many other nations – and then requires a ‘capability gap’ whilst we ponder a replacement in late, miniscule & expensive numbers.
            Rgs

          • Given it some thought, haven’t we all David! Now give me a plush office, a government cheque book and I’ll get cracking!

        • Sounds good to me – and we are already about there on Army Reserve numbers!
          I think the Public and the politicians might need to see a more immediate and dangerous threat to the UK to be supportive of those numbers (even though it is only partially restoring the Forces to what we had 10 or so years ago).

          • I think you’re right Graham, I personally can’t see any chance, just never ending contraction unfortunately…..

          • Contraction must stop at some point, surely?
            When we reach the point when the armed forces cannot do anything other than minor deployments.

          • That’s sort of where we are, penny packet deployments and not seriously looking to deploy more than a Brigade.

            Talk of Deploying a Division is quite frankly laughable, it would all but break the Army to deploy in the numbers involved…

          • We currently have two BGs plus Bde HQ and other elements in Estonia with the NATO eFP force – an enduring operation. I doubt we could deploy a full army brigade on an enduring operation without recourse to reservists and RM commandoes.

            It has been said for some time that we should be able to deploy 3 UK Div by 2025. That would of course be on a one-shot operation. Not sure of the strength of 3xx – maybe 20,000 – 25,000.

          • Evening Graham, the only way I could see that happening now is the threat of general war, if the Army deployed 25,000 personal, it would push the strain to the absolute limit .

            The Army is steadily falling towards 70,000 as numbers continue to shrink, Labour bemoaning the cuts in troop numbers is utterly irrelevant, as the Army will likely struggle to maintain 72,000 anyway….

            The Army reserve would probably have to be deployed in its entirety of trained available personnel to fill the gaps, if we deployed 25,000.

            I just can’t see it, everything is being pared down in size, two armoured Regiments with 50 tanks a piece, why bother really, it’s a tiny token effort and so very far below critical mass it’s about as pointless as a chocolate teapot…

            We are Brigade level from now on, we’ve even reduced our airlift as the contraction continues.

            I wouldn’t expect any Army deployments exceeding 3,500 in the future.

            It’s all about small focused packages, a mix of SF, Rangers, Paras, Future Commando Force etc, etc.

            It’s in and out before the dust settles operations from here on in.

            The RAF would struggle to provide 12 Thypoons to cover such a force.

            It’s a huge mistake, but that’s the fact of where we are after 30 years of disarmament, no-one wants to do anything about it, despite the deteriorating world situation.

            The Army appears far more concerned with getting gender neutral job titles, ensuring the Guards Regiments have enough Horses and preserving as many cap badges as possible, than the continuing loss of war fighting capability as they fiddle while Rome burns…

            Zero signs of any changes in direction too unfortunately among anyone in charge…

          • Afternoon John,
            The only reason the field force of the armed forces exists is to deploy on operations and the only thing they do when not on operations is to train for operations.

            It has been reported widely for some time that the army will be ready to deploy its warfighting division (3 UK Div) in 2025 – the reason for ‘delay’ is that units are currently restructuring and in some cases relocating in line with the Future Soldier (FS) ORBAT.

            If a NATO or other alliance operation was stood up and eyes looked to the UK to field its warfighting division, then it would go, ready or not.
            Certain things would have to happen – units deployed on other tasks such as Op Cabrit (we currently have 800 soldiers from an ABCT in Estonia) would either be recalled or they would be replaced in 3 Div by another unit (military musical chairs, happens all the time).
            Not sure how many are in 3 Div – maybe 20,000-25,000. If we have to deploy that number, then we simply do. The rest of the Field Army would adjust, providing individual reinforcements for deploying units to bring them up to strength and picking up tasks that had been the remit of 3 Div units. Some tasks would be dropped, like state ceremonial and helping out Other Government Departments with their latest crisis.

            Certainly members of the Army Reserve would deploy – they did when we sent a div to the Gulf War (from a larger base army) and they did when we sent a brigade group to Afghanistan. Many units in 3 Div are AR units. Deploying the AR (and the TA before them) on operations short of General War, is nothing new.

            Of course this would be for a one-shot operation, not an enduring operation over many years that required roulemonting. We could not roulemont (rotate) our one warfighting div, as we don’t have another similar one.

            As far as enduring ops is concerned we no longer have 5 roughly similarly roled and structured brigades – so we could not deploy and roulemont a brigade group (as we did for Afghanistan), and keep to Harmony guidelines for Tour Interval, without recourse to a large number of reservists and a RM Cdo from time to time.

            I too lament the loss of one of the three armoured regiments under FS; 112 tanks in 3 Div is not enough. I don’t think they would prove ineffective as you suggest, especially if we are talking CR3, rather than CR2. I hope the Ukrainians don’t think their 14 CR2s are as useless as a chocolate teapot.

            The army has no ability to resist the cuts that politicians impose, beyond briefing of the ‘dire consequences’ of over-cutting.

            I think the gender-neutral ranks is silly – when my Corps (REME) took females on back in 1992, the girls were asked if we should change the rank of Craftsman (our equivalent to Private) – they did not want it changed. General Sanders is a good commander but his head is being turned by the woke element; he has got ‘much bigger fish to fry’.

          • Totally agree Graham…

            I think it would require a NATO emergency response to deploy a Division now, I would be surprised if we see it actually happen to be honest.

            I would thing enduring ops of 3,500 and short term ops of about 6,000 will be what’s offered on the next US led bun fight, putting us firmly on the subs bench with the wheezy boys.

            Perhaps a smaller armed forces will stop the next Blair from getting is involved in crazy wars….

          • John,
            If we deployed our warfighting division (3 Div) it would be to fight a war with allies against a ‘state actor’ – no other reason. You may be surprised to see it happen – but we have deployed a division on warfighting operations twice in the last 30 years – Op Granby and Op Telic. However in both those cases the enemy was Iraq – and that ain’t going to happen again – Saddam is gone.
            The only ‘enemy’ that might prompt such a deployment is Russia and then only if they attack a NATO country.
            Other ‘threat’ nations are China, Iran and North Korea, but I don’t see that we are going to war with them either.

            Your case for smaller armed forces will no doubt please the bean counters, but not those who want our defences to be strong and credible.

          • Afternoon Graham, you read me wrong there, I totally agree with you that the ever shrinking armed forces is absolutely appalling.

            I’m not making any case for it whatsoever, simply stating that’s unfortunately where we are now in 2023

            The main difference in the time line of Granby, Telic and today is the Army is virtually half the size it was during Granby!

            It’s substantially smaller than it was back in 2003 too, with less of everything, especially tanks.

            When the Army fought hard to retain 3 Armoured Regiments, it argued that three was the absolute minimum to achieve armoured mass at the heart of a deployed division, i.e 120 tanks approx with a small reserve.

            That line in the sand has become two Armoured Regiments, so enough for an enlarged Brigade action, unless we wanted to commit every single active tank we have!

            The only way the UK would raise a division now, would be an attack against NATO, anything else, no chance.

            Like it or not, we are now sized and equipped for Brigade level operations worldwide, nothing larger.

            That’s where we are and the Army keeps shrinking.

            By 2030, I fully expect it to be about 65,000, wonderful to be proved wrong though… !

          • Hi John, I am very well aware of the contraction of the army (I served 1975-2009). It seemed to me that you were doubting the army could deploy a division because the army’s total size has reduced. A football manager can still field an 11 man team even if his training squad has reduced from 40 to 20.

            3 Div is restructuring to meet Future Soldier (FS) and some units are relocating – all done by 2025. However we have a warfighting division in the ORBAT and if a warfighting division is required then it will go. Corollaries will be different though compared to deploying a warfighting div in the GRANBY/TELIC era – a higher percentage of the deployed force will be Reservists if the full division is to go and many Other Tasks elsewhere will have to be dropped or scaled back.
            The UK does not have to ‘raise a division’ – it has a division – it exists and not just on paper. We both agree that deployment of a warfighting div would only be with allies and the situation would be exceptionally serious, in all probability that there has been an attack on NATO.

            Three armoured regiments is 180 tanks. I believe we need at least that number in the Field Army, plus a number in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve – that was why we had 227 tanks on the active list (until 14 were sent to Ukraine). The two armd regts we have now are apportioned one to each ABCT, but of course they can be re-apportioned at any time, so yiu can have your one brigade with 2 tank regiments – the army call this redjustment Task Org’ing and do it all the time.

            The above leads anyone to conclude that the deployment of the full warfighting div (3 Div) is most unlikely except if Putin or successor went totally mad and invaded a NATO country or a maverick elsewhere like Saddam Hussein were to re-emerge and attack a neighbouring friendly country. But we could deploy that div if we had to for a one-shot operation.

            Of greater concern is our inability to conduct an enduring operation of Brigade group size, a far more likely scenario – without recourse to large number of AR and at least one RM Cdo unit.

          • Totally agree Graham, I personally think the deployment of a division moving forward, will be entirely the preseve of NATO operations, I can’t see another out of area operation of this size, as it would effectively mean our ability to hold the NATO line would be badly damaged.

            NATO is the bedrock of our defence, especially now as we have effectively dissarmed over the last 30 years, dramatically limiting our ability to act unilaterally

            Our NATO contribution has to be front and centre.

            Like you I find the constant cuts a major red light, they will increasingly cast a shadow over our ability to deploy at Brigade level, especially with an enduring operation.

      • Britain has world beating complacency in defence matters! We should be perfectly safe if we all adopt HMGs stance & keep our heads stuck firmly in the nice warm, safe sand.

    • The big difference is that Germany was highly competent, where as the Russians are complete donkeys. China is on the other side of the world and we don’t have an empire to defend. Countries like Malaysia and India don’t want our help. Countries like Taiwan and Japan do but at the moment none of them spend any where near 2% on GDP although Taiwan has just got back their however if you are facing an imminent threat on your door step you should really be spending 4-8% of GDP.

      None of that is a good reason to gut infrastructure or health spending in the UK.

      The USA does not particularly value us as an ally nor does the EU (including Poland and the Baltics) both are far more concerned with screwing us over economically in the short term than having anything approaching a genuine partnership.

      Australia does value the UK clearly and that’s why it’s important we continue to support them however they themselves are only spending 2%. Much the same goes for Japan.

      The UK is in a very safe position completely secure in its home territory with a armed forces easily able to defeat any potential aggressor.

      Not sure why we have to bankrupt ourselves to provide security for other countries that neither like us nor spend their own money defending themselves. We bankrupted ourselves twice before doing that not sure why we should it for a third time. I’m all for a bit more in the budget but 2.5% of GDP is enough, no need to rearm.

      • We have just seen inflation in double figures in the UK because of a war in Ukraine. If 90% of the world’s top-quality computer chips ceased to be produced, what do you think that would do to the price of the remaining 10% and to our technology-focused economy? What about stopping the UK’s $100bn trade with China if we needed to impose sanctions? Not to mention the disruption of trade with ASEAN and our new CPTPP allies. Our economy would be wrecked for a decade. You have a very limited idea of “complete security”.

        I’m surprised you didn’t call China and Taiwan a far away place with people about whom we know nothing. Partly because you are sounding remarkably like Chamberlain: no need to rearm, I have assurances, nothing to see here, move along, move along. Partly because it seems you do know nothing about them. If Taiwan announced a doubling or quadrupaling of their defence spending as you advocate, what do you think China might do about that red line being crossed?

        • Not our issue much rather a global issue. Sleepy Joe and Team America can handle it, they don’t want our help. Taiwan could start spending some decent money on defence. Most people in Taiwan will accept Chinese occupation of the alternative is war, that’s why Taiwan does not spend on defence like Israel.

          • I think China has an interest in prolonging the war in Ukraine and the suffering, providing some support but not enough for Russia to make big gains quickly. its a great show case to Taiwan, who will look at whats going on and ultimately think is it really worth it. Previously they were probably thinking any Chinese incursion would be short lived with aid arriving from the US and the West, now they’ll be thinking even with Western aid a war could drag on for years.

      • Absolutely agree. If we prioritise what is needed for the defence of the UK, its offshore assets and its overseas possessions, the current budget,properly spent, should be sufficient.
        If on the other hand we try, as we have done since WW2 , to be a mini superpower, we get continuous cuts in numbers and recurring budgetary crises.

        • Yes, better to reset the aspirations rather than the budget. No benefit in being the worlds policeman we got f**ked before on it and now the guys who f**ked us the most want us to help out. 😂

        • Certainly our defence budget is more than sufficient for defence of the homeland and the BOTs, by a massive margin.

          I am surprised you consider that our global engagement started post-WW2 – more like several hundred years ago.

          Our Global Britain remit (as signed up to by both Tory and Labour Governments over generations) costs a great deal. Some modification has occured such as the policy to withdraw from east of Suez from 1966. But that has been partially reversed recently.

          We seem to get frequent defence cuts to pay for ever more costly education, health and social welfare programmes.

          We waste a lot of defence money, especially in procurement, and this is rarely gripped.

          What next? Perhaps some role specialisation might be required. Probably buy more equipment off the shelf (MOTS) even if it means we buy less British kit. More international collaboration on buying kit.

          • Exactly. The UK does not need Trident, I agree. Italy, Germany, Spain etc do not need it. Why does the UK.

            They don’t need it because UK and France have it. We provide a nuclear umbrella for our allies.

    • In the 30s there was a plan though. British shadow factories were the outcome of the Shadow Scheme, a plan devised in 1935 and developed by the British Government in the buildup to World War II to try to meet the urgent need for more aircraft using technology transfer from the motor industry to implement additional manufacturing capacity.

      I really really really hope this is some undercover plan the government has today. 😀

  4. Let’s face it a Labour government wouldn’t be any better on defence just like the Conservative government both had bad has each other .Not right that Hercules is gone ,would Labour have kept them ,who knows ?

  5. In essence there seems to be no difference between Labour and the Tories in terms of Defence BUT can you imagine if Jeremy Corbyn had somehow become Prime Minister? He would not only have destroyed the Armed Forces but compromised the UK’s security with some dodgy nations and would not have been averse to giving away some key overseas territories. The Tories would not be party to such extremes despite their shortcomings.
    In the 50’s and 60’s Duncan Sandys caused huge damage to the British aircraft Industry with forced mergers and declaring that manned fighters would soon be obsolete!! Harold Wilson followed up by cancelling everything-brilliant aircraft and new carriers.

  6. It is all true, and damning.

    I just wish he would stop always taking the easy headline talking of personnel numbers in the army as if adding a few thousand back will sort it out.

    It is not 10,000 personnel, it is 10,000 establishment posts. The army has been way below the establishment of 82,000 for many years, 76,000 I last read.

    So 76,000 to 72,000 is NOT 10,000 is it? The actual number of bodies being dropped is a lot fewer.

    If the army is 72, 75, 80 thousand makes little difference if it is not properly organised with ALL the supporting CS and CSS elements for DEPLOYABLE BRIGADES.

    Which some of us know full well it does not have.

    It is what you do with those 72 or 80 thousand that matters, their equipment, logistics, training, professionalism, morale.

    Not a peep on any of that, maybe because he does not even know. He is not ex military after all and I have no idea how much he even studies the subject of his brief.

    My greatest concern is in the numbers in the RN and the RAF regards assets and personnel. ( But I’m biased and believe in a RN/RAF 1st strategy, which we’ve debated the pros and cons of before )

    He is spot on re Hercules and you cannot “replace” in demand assets with existing in demand assets!!

    However, pot calling the kettle black springs to mind with both these parties. And not a peep at what he intends to do about it when he is in charge and has the responsibility, juggling commitments with finances.

    All to easy to criticise when in opposition, the Conservatives were doing the same pre 2010.

    All I’ve heard from Labour is this “NATO test” ( when most forces are committed to NATO anyway ) and his criticism of the focus on the far east ( Which to me reads bye bye bases and assets beyond European NATO area ) Which would be disastrous, considering the Tory MP in his speech in the other article quite rightly noted the importance, diplomatically and militarily, of bases and assets around the world to counter the spread and influence of China. Sheer geopolitical blindness in my view.

    I look forward to Labour –

    Restoring the army to 82,000, or less of course, organising and equipping it correctly with 1 deployable Division, and other Bdes for out of area tasks, ALL with CS and CSS.
    Getting rid of Capita and restoring proper AFCO with military vets inside who know what they’re about.

    Restoring 12 front line Fast Jet Sqns to the RAF, or even a mere 10, and replacing the Hercules properly, with 2 more E7s and a few more P8s.
    Restore the FTS to mostly all military as it once was.

    For the RN 24 escorts please, as planned. 6 MRSS, 3 FSS, as planned. Waves kept, and the carrier force with an air wing of 2 F35B Sqns, extra UAV to bulk out, more Merlins, and 3 Cdo Bde fully furnished with the assets it needs in the FCF.

    Oh, and do all this while keeping the comprehensive intelligence capability the UK possess, and with AWE/SSE/Dreadnaught costs in core budget!! ( but preferably out of it back to where it came )

    And hopefully you won’t privatise DSTL like your predecessors did to DERA.

    Till then Healey and Labour, you’ve no leg to stand on yourself and ACTIONS will speak louder than words.

    • Daniele, dear, please breathe.

      I’m happy about one thing.

      Defence is being raised by Labour, and rightly so; Rome was not built in a day and people are pushing for Defence to be pushed higher into the public consciousness.

      Take comfort in tiny acorns.

      • That was not a rant or a shout mate, so I’m breathing quite well, thank you.
        2 MPs asking questions, one of whom who has that brief, so it is his job, does not give me any comfort that the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party think the same or give it any concern whatsoever, sorry.

        • It’s all part of the game Daniele. When you are in opposition the name of the game is to find fault with the government. John Healey is just doing his job – criticising the government so as to eventually to bring it down. Not too difficult since there is a real issue of competence.
          Doesn’t say anything about whether a Labour government would be better of worse. To be honest the country needs fundamental cultural and systemic change, starting with the constitution. I’m not holding my breath.

          • Which is fine, Paul.

            Fundamental cultural and systematic change..yes, it does, sadly. It needs to rediscover who it is, and be proud of that, and I don’t think the woke stuff helps in that regard.
            Will Labour abolish the Lords? I’d support that for starters.

          • Tory Lord Fowler has written in the DT more than once I think that we need a complete review of the House of Lords. Boris Johnsons honours list looks could be the final nail in the coffin.
            Labour are on record as saying they will replace it with an elected senate of the regions. Sounds like way to go. The current system of prime ministerial peerages is an abuse of the system of patronage. Lord Lieutenants the length and breadth of the country are sleuthing out men and women who have given a lifetime of community service for their MBE or similar while Boris is handing out peerages to his dad and Russian oligarchs. Its a insult. Not to mention those awarded service medals and for gallantry.

          • I agree, it’s a ridiculous insult to those who actually deserve such an honour.

          • I wouldnt .What you going to replace it with as we cant just have the government (whichever flavour) riding roughshod over laws.I dont want an americanised 2 house structure thanks v. Much..that causes more trouble than enough.I would however restructure it ,and stop or at least curtail the ridiculous peerage given out like sweeties by all PMs….you I know those for ‘services rendered’ like getting the morning latte or folding his newspapers correctly.

    • The trouble is your wish list would require a lot of additional funding which we can be pretty sure won’t be forthcoming.
      To free up resources to deliver at least some of what you set out, something big has to go. The most obvious is to recognize that we cannot afford to operate 2 carriers with the full air wings planned for them. Re purposing one for amphibious operations, as was planned but quietly dropped, would allow the Albions to be retired and their crews redeployed. No additional F35s need be bought with all allocated to RN use. Money saved could be spent on additional Typhoons to restore some of the RAFs lost strength.
      I cannot see anything else that could be deleted to free up meaningful resources.

      • lot of additional funding which we can be pretty sure won’t be forthcoming.”

        Exactly. So the Shadow Defence Secretary’s complaining is worth….?
        Zero.

        I know my list was fanciful, even though much of it is already planned. I’d bite the arm off for Labour to even action SOME of it while not hamstringing the UK as a major power with their ideology, which has already been stated by Healey in his comments regards non Europe military activities.

        • Don’t disagree with your shopping list but we are already seeing unplanned de facto cuts even before the new command paper. Frigate numbers down to 10, RFA vessels tied up because of crew shortages. As you say, a good deal of your wish list has been ordered with funding ( more or less) in place. If more money is needed to cope with supply chain inflation, there are limited options to save money on planned but uncontracted equipment. Not ordering more F35s for a carrier we don’t really need could free up several £b for more necessary equipment.
          I don’t think any political party has a good record on defence. The biggest and recurrent failing is making commitments without arguing for and providing the resources they require.

          • If we only had one carrier and that was HMS PoW, we would not have a deployable capability due to its current technical problems. At the least that would be embarrassing.
            Two carriers gives you a 70% chance that one was available for ops.

      • I don’t think it was ever perceived to be likely that both carriers would be deployed simultaneously? If so, do we need two air wings?

        • Exactly. It wasn’t.
          The airwing either splits between both, or is on the one, and the other Carrier takes whatever can be put on it.
          Which is STILL much better than having but a single carrier.

          • Apart from having a back up when one carrier is in dock, or if the sh1t really hits – why is it …genuine question.
            If we had a single carrier that extra money would have been elsewhere , if we have 2 surely we need to do it properly , and it seems obvious we do not have the funds or desire to do that.
            There is surely a consideration having 2 as we do is an overall detrimnent with little gain for the outlay?
            I’m not convinced the current approach is/has been the optimal solution.

          • Pretty much your first 2 points. Though I agree with your logic, it’s a tempting thought isn’t it.

            What would we save to spend elsewhere, and what extra advantages would that give us over 2 carrier capability? This is RN spend. More T31? Assured T32? More Merlin? Ideally need a flat top for them to operate as a group. 3 or 4 T26?

            Who would buy the 2nd?

            Would the RN not have considered that possible saving in their desire for 2 when accepting reductions in the escort fleet?

            To me, carriers are strategic assets for sea denial and power projection, Which must be the aim of the RN.
            It is worth having 2. They are, alongside the SSNs, the RFA, and the Amhibs, one of the 4 pillars of the RN that should not be reduced.

            Just my own view.

            But what if one can be used as an ASW carrier with lots of drones? Like the way the Invincibles were used? Will it be worth keeping it then? I’d say so, given the rising importance of ASW. The size is a bonus, flexibility.

            I still prefer the 2 carrier solution ultimately. People have been saying there are no aircraft for years, it’s not happening overnight and it’s known why with the F35 buy rate. Which L.M will deal with at their own pace it seems.

          • Thanks Daniele. If money was ‘no object’ perhaps we should have three carriers (so one at least is always available as the ships get older and reliability dips) and plus a LPH (replacing HMS Ocean)!

        • I followed closely the early years of the carrier plan, from 35/40000 ton super invincibles through ever larger vessels to the adopted solution of the largest ships ever built for the RN. The commitment to F35b was made as early as 2004, with UK contributing $2.5b to development costs. At the time, the decision was criticized by some for cutting carrier numbers from 3 to 2. The plan was never to use just one, rather to have at least one always available. The aircraft numbers announced were broadly a one for one replacement for RN and RAF Harriers, joint force Harrier becoming joint force F35. Only later, as costs of F35 spiralled, was the claim made that 138 was over the whole life of the aircraft and that we only intended to operate one carrier at a time. France recognized they couldn’t afford a second planned carrier and cancelled it. Cameron found he couldn’t and now, 15 years after the carrier contracts were signed, we struggle to get more than 8/10 F35s deployed. We don’t have a reserve fleet of Typhoons or armoured vehicles, so why have a second carrier just in case? Better to use it for something else that would save money overall.

          • Really interesting. I also recall the story that Cameron wanted to cancel one of the carriers on coming to office, but was told the cancellation charges would be too high.

            Surely the reason we only have a few F-35s is that we either ordered late in the day or that manufacturing is slow for the B models? Or have other nations jumped the queue?

            In your answer, you both accept that 2 carriers are required to better ensure that one is available for ops yet doubt the need for a second carrier – I am a little confused.

            I seem to recall that MoD maths said that 2 carriers would ensure with 70% confidence that one would be available at all times for ops.(Not good enough in my book and this is the reason why we usually have multiples of three for ships!)

            BTW, we do have Typhoons and AFVs in store as Attrition Reserve stock.

      • Alternatively, we could recognise that rail privatisation has failed.

        Paying lawyers and accountants for delay attributed payments could be kicked into touch. Money go round that pays white collars cash for??

        Whole fleets of modern EMUs have been scrapped! What happened to cascading stock?

        Each rail line has their own stock, that can not be cascaded onto other lines – joined up thinking or what?

        Let’s assemble Japanese produced Class 800+ in the North of England…

        … we could have BUILT more pendolinos in Birmingham for half the price.

        Every Bobby needs a degree, discuss.
        Every teaching assistant needs a degree, discuss
        Every nurse needs a degree, discuss?

        This country is becoming over qualified and no one is prepared to pick strawberries, discuss.

        House prices are well over 3* family income. Discuss.

        We need a Government prepared to deliver the good news: dial down your expectations, dial down your holiday plans, new cars, new bollocks and be prepared to pick strawberries.

        Good luck with that.

        • I agree with all that, mate. And not one politician will say tighten your belt. Some Tories that suggested people maybe should not be spending money on Sky Tv, fags, mobiles, and Gyms, but feed the family as 1st priority were loudly condemned I recall? Sensiblecomments, but not when it comes from the mouth of a Tory.
          Yes, we need to pick Strawberries more.

  7. While I agree with the statement. Partys in opposition always criticise the government on defence, only to make cuts themselves once in No10. Opposition party’s don’t have to take responsibility for what comes out of there mouths, or have the full picture on the state of the nations finances. I’d only believe Labour if they came out with a proper strategy for defence and was fully funded, not just some shouty argument in the house of commons.

    • Er.
      Good answer.
      Well presented.

      WRONG.

      This Opposition has been too quiet on Defence and finally the penny has dropped.

      • My take is that Labour have played their hand well. Their strategy has been to strike at the government weakest points – the integrity of its members and gross injustices and incompetences. Undermine them and you undermine the government, When you have succeeded in that you can move onto attacking detail policy areas – stick the boot in when they are down so to speak. As I say, just my take.

        • The issue I have with Labour is that they could have taken the Tory rhetoric and stuffed it up the Con arseholes.

          There have been so many instances of misleading parliament, the Tories should have been hung drawn and quartered.

          Daniele will argue for well funded Divs supported by CS and CSS.

          Labour has committed to NATO, as others have posted, we need to work within our means – I agree with Daniele except does that mean Divs or Div?
          Well rounded air component with 32 fleet Escorts – I haven’t heard Labour state that.

          And I’m Labour.

          • Agree re Labour policy silence. But that’s what I would expect this distance from the election. Keeping their powder dry. Show your hand too soon and an entire regiment of Tory analysts, researchers and press have oodles of time to find holes and demonstrate how it can’t be funded without borrowing and pushing up interest rates etc, etc.
            One thing does seem to be emerging though is that Labour would prioritise NATO and the Atlantic over the ‘Indo Pacific Tilt’ ..cut our coat according to our cloth. They see Russia and the main enemy rather than China.
            The US and China need to resolve the issue of Taiwan.

          • Paul

            Your last sentence is where I am at odds with Labour.

            I have seen at first hand the malign influence on my daughter’s country: Sri Lanka.

            We absolutely do need to engage with commonwealth countries and we need to beatst both China and the US in providing disaster relief first.

            America chooses allies when she needs them, the UK should stand aloof as well and that means presence.

          • You have a fair point. The White Ensign punches above its weight. The UK stands for something. My own view is that our current approach of 2 OPVs and a LRG is about right and affordable. Plus whatever navy exchanges follow from Aukus. The Aussies have just decimated their LAND IFV budget to pay for the Aukus subs. In any case we must get smarter at not wasting money.

          • Daniele will argue for well funded Divs supported by CS and CSS”
            I agree with Daniele except does that mean Divs or Div?”

            Not so. I support the UK having one deployable Armoured Division, not “Divisions” the army is too small for that. The other “Division” in the army, the 1st, is not deployable as a complete formation, though 1 Bde, the 7th, is. It also has Bdes heavily reliant on reservists and CS formations that would split up to other areas of the army.

  8. The real problem is there is no votes in Defence as it dosn’t figure high in the public minds against other area of Government spending Untill the population decide it is important, funding will continue to leak out of Defence into other areas of public spending . The general public have no comprehension of the decline of our Armed forces. The politicians and Senior Service Commanders are always telling them that we have “world beating”, “best in class” military capability and that one modern sysetm can replace a number of older systems so the cuts are justified and necessary. The public see airdisplays, ships sailing around the world and Army deployments and Royal march passes and belive what they ar being told. It is never explained that one system can only be in one place at a time or that potential enemys have increased their capabilities and perhps our capbility isn’t as clearly superior as we might belive and numbers might matter in the end; its an inconveiient truth best not mentioned.

    • Summed the situation up perfectly. The public is blissfully ignorant of the taut numbers and the ageing kit.

  9. A labour government will be the death of Tempest. That should have been the response. “Will the shadow defence minister commit his party to funding the Tempest project to squadron service”.That would have shut him up, but that such a response was not forthcoming was proof neither party cares about defence.

    • We don’t have access to the budget.

      Now.

      Will the Shadow Def Sec commit to obtaining all the money spent fraudulently during COVID with Con sponsors and invest that money in Defence, I’d vote for that.

  10. Defense has been nothing more than a backup piggy bank for failed governments,Ever since the collapse of the USSR they have been laughing, even more after the Berlin wall came down, they could not wait to cut numbers and equipment with options for change, and it,s a trend that has continued, not one single government have done anything other than bits and pieces here and there just to hoodwink the people, look new shiny ships yes but not enough 12 destroyer’s reduced to 6..Two nice carriers but with little to escort them with frigates well out of date needing a small fortune spending on them just to keep them going because replacements’ came too slow…IFV,s nothing done with them at all except a bit of add on armour here and there, tanks the same.Ajax a complete failure and out of date before it,s even in service.aircraft numbers cut,bases sold off manpower cut to the bone, even the RFA cannot run all of the ships for supply etc the failure list is longer and longer by each passing day, but yet not a single piece of public outcry, where are the press media etc…

  11. So all we need now is an absolute commitment by Labour that they will spend 2.5 per cent of GDP. on defence. Meanwhile I shall be searching the skies for a squadron of pigs flying over.

  12. I don’t honestly believe any party would reverse the decline, but at least it encourages the debate. If the general public cares they can push for it and make it a polictical focus, they won’t of course but debate helps.

  13. Like many of the other comments below, I find it very rich this kind of statement coming from Labour, all their governments have in real terms cut Defence spending….in fact the only governments that ever raised it were Conservative.
    Big disclaimer that these were in respect of WWII, post Falklands, and of course Boris Johnsons more recent increases.

  14. The draft Labour Manifesto for 2024 (election year) has been released here is what they are saying about defence:
     
    Make national security the first priority

    ·       Apply a ‘NATO test’ to major defence programmes in Government to ensure our NATO commitments are fulfilled in full

    ·       Defend Article V as the cornerstone of our commitment to Britain’s security and ensure that the UK is the leading European nation in the alliance

    ·       Never allow defence spending to fall below our NATO commitments

    ·       Do more to lead efforts to secure strategic arms limitation and multilateral disarmament and reduce nuclear risk

    ·       Guarantee continued long-term UK support for Ukraine and will work with allies to provide the assistance it needs to defend itselfs to defend their sovereign territory. This includes providing Ukrainian forces with the equipment and training they need to protect their homeland.

    ·       Push for the international community to hold Vladimir Putin and his cronies to account. This includes the dictatorship in Belarus, where Labour will continue to support brave opposition leaders

    ·       Pursue legal mechanisms in the UK to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets so they can be used to pay for a fair reconstruction of Ukraine

    Modernise and support our armed forces

    ·       Conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review to ensure that we fully understand the nature of these threats and align defence and security spending accordingly

    ·       Ensure our armed forces and security services always have the capabilities necessary to defend the UK

    ·       Commission a comprehensive audit of departmental waste at the Ministry of Defence

    ·       Make it fundamental to direct British defence investment first to British business, with a higher bar set for any decisions to buy abroad.

    ·       Ensure there is a strong voice – in parliament and outside Westminster – for our forces, veterans and their families

    ·       Fully incorporate the Armed Forces Covenant into law, fulfilling the moral contract our society makes with those who serve

    ·       Scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans and their dependents if they have served four years or more in British forces
    ,
    So what do i see:
    A load of sound bites, designed to look good whislt cutting the defence budject even more. Take note of the serial where Labour states it will never allow defence spending to fall below the NATO minimum of 2%, when actually it should be saying that in light of recent events it should be increasing it.
    I also expect the Labour will set a moral example to the world by getting rid of the Nuclear deterrent

    • Commission a comprehensive audit of departmental waste at the Ministry of Defence…..

      There’s an interesting one, how about…

      Commission a comprehensive audit of departmental waste within the NHS…… Some say 30 billion!!!

      An amount of money equivalent to two thirds of the defence budget disappears every year through the NHS cracks through waste in all areas…

      Odd that that Labour are utterly silent there, not a peep…

      Anyone care to venture a figure of waste regarding welfare fraud ect, who will start me on 5 billion, do I see 6 ?

    • And yet
      1. Veterans have been screwed over. You object to supporting them?
      2. Commonwealth soldiers have been screwed over. You object to supporting them?
      3. Armed Forces Covenant. You object?
      4. British first in Defence acquisition. You object?
      5. Take Russian assets, the Cons will be totally unpissed as there will be less Russian funded parties. You object?
      6. A NATO test to commitments. Let’s see, example, CV90 Mk4 (enhanced) or Ajax? I’ll vote CV90. YOU Object?
      7. Commitment to NATO min funding (looking at an increase to 2.5%). You object
      8. Do all senior Braid share your thoughts we should retain Trident?
      9. Living within our defence means. You object?
      10. Funding the Defence of the Realm correctly. You object?

      • David wrote:
        “”1. Veterans have been screwed over. You object to supporting them?””

        I’m a veteran, (22 years +) and I don’t feel I have been screwed over. I get a damn good army pension , I have an Army veterans Train card , I have a defence discount card and I have a army discount card issued from the council (never used it) I did my resettlement cse (cost me nothing) and then did my resettlement which teaches leavers how to live as a civy (But to be fair as admitted by the instructors, I didn’t need it, as I have planned everything , but some do) during my time in green I paid into the Corp funds and I know if I fell on hard times I could apply to them for help, as I can with the British legion. There are many other charities which are there to help service leavers. Yes some fall through the cracks, but that could apply anywhere.
        The Military isn’t as bad as a lot of political agitators and the media make out . Take for example the Gurkhas. Much was made of the fact they didn’t get paid as much as the British service man, nor received the same pension or even allowed to remain in the Uk on completion of their service. Yet and a big yet which is never mentioned is when India was partitioned the brigade of Gurkhas was broken up between India, Nepal and the Uk under the Tripartite Agreement of 1947  which had the following points written in concrete:

        ·       The TPA clearly implies that the Gurkha soldier must be recruited as a Nepali citizen, must serve as a Nepali citizen, and must be resettled as a Nepali citizen.
         
        •      The TPA requires that all religious and cultural observances must be preserved in accordance with the demands of the Hindu faith.

        •      The TPA requires that Gurkha soldiers in both the Indian and British Armies should receive the same basic rates of pay, although allowances may be paid to reflect differences in the costs of living between countries where Gurkha soldiers might serve outside Nepal.

        As for the F&C soldiers and British citizenship, the current caveat is apply after 5 years (the same as everybody else) if some can’t cant be arsed , than that is their problem and SFA to do with been screwed over and whislt those who didnt bother claim they couldnt afford the cost to apply (citing tens of thousands) the cost is actually £1330

        https://i.postimg.cc/T3xDyvsG/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-15-212135-www-gov-uk.png

      • David wrote:
        “”7. Commitment to NATO min funding (looking at an increase to 2.5%). You object””

        The current NATO min funding is 2%, ther 2.5% is what Tories say they will lift it to. Its all in the worlding and when a polictical party (In this case Labour) states they will ensure they will abidie by NATOs min funding they are saying 2% and not 2.5%

      • David wrote:
        “”Take Russian assets, the Cons will be totally unpissed as there will be less Russian funded parties. You object?””

        Please be so kind as to point out any of my posts where I support the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I don’t , never have and never will do. The subject in question is currently heading towards its second reading in Parliament. So what labour has stated they will do, is already in motion.
        https://i.postimg.cc/9X84mqdd/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-15-213443-bills-parliament-uk.png

        • You misconstrue Farouk.

          I never said you did support Russia.

          However, the last 12 years of Conning Administration could have taken the fexking Russians to the cleaners; we’ve had TWO NBC attacks on this country and the Cons still took donations.

          The barstewards should be kicked out en masses.

          Let me guess, bad for over priced houses, bad for Tory donations and bad for bunga bunga parties.

  15. Well said JH. We’ll be down to 14 escorts for the RN before any new builds get comissioned in 2027. Suicidal madness.

  16. This turns the world on its head. Labour complaining that the Tories are cutting defence too much, almost unheard of until recently. Unfortunately Labour are right. It will be interesting to see what happens when they get into power which is looking increasingly likely as the Tories have gone into self-destruct mode.

    • It is promising that Labour is criticising the Tories on Defence – maybe the message will get through to the Public?

  17. And then back in the real world UK the 3rd or 4 th largest defence spender on the planet and Europe’s biggest defence spender . And one thing for sure Labour won’t be handing more than 2 % over to the armed forces ..

  18. Wait a minute. I thought all Labour were interested in was establishing their beloved global marxism by destroying all types of nationalism. While destroying the nations religious identity by imposing diversity of both race and sexual perversion. I wonder what they hope to achieve by objecting to a reduction in our armed forces.

    Suggestions accepted if written on the back of crisp £10 notes, sent to the usual address. Royal British Legion, SE1 1AA

  19. Labour criticizing? Criticizing?? And Corbyn was their leader once … 🙄😬

    The pot calling the kettle black!! Once again Labour spouting from their khazi!!

  20. Does he know that other parts of government will have to be cut to fund any increase in defence expenditure? Labour won’t increase taxes.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here