Is this really a priority?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44609494

With the NHS and social care desperate for money do you think we should be increasing expenditure on defence?

No of course not, but there are plenty who think we’ve been under imminent threat from one or more of Russia/ISIS/Taliban for the past 70 years.

T.R.O.Y wrote:No of course not, but there are plenty who think we’ve been under imminent threat from one or more of Russia/ISIS/Taliban for the past 70 years.

Only a naive idealist would say that we are not under threat from Russia. It may not be imminent, but the threat is always there, and at the moment, it is growing, in line with Putins influence, (even though he is directed by a faceless organisation). 
As for the ISIS and Taliban, do they not come out of the Intelligence Services budgets?

So glos do you think we should increase expenditure on defence now?

I’d say the threat from Russia is more underhand, cyber attacks and democratic interference. Bolstering submarine defence won’t help tackle that.

I’m not opposed to bolstering the defence budget my any means. But while the Tories claim they can’t afford to support nurses properly then we need to keep our priorities straight.

It seems obvious that we need to put more resources into cyber security but part of the problem is caused by people still believing we are a first rate power when we no longer are. Only today yet another independent report has found that the NHS is seriously under funded and under resourced compared to other comparable countries: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44567824.

Unfortunately anyone who disagrees can easily be fobbed off as a ‘naive idealist’ whether they be a politician or member of the public.

Of course we need more spent on defence. The Yanks could attack at any time. Comrade Trump can't be trusted.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I’d say the threat from Russia is more underhand, cyber attacks and democratic interference. Bolstering submarine defence won’t help tackle that.

Funnily enough T.R.O.Y. has almost hit the nail on the head. Finance for future submarine assets is in place. One of our looming problems is anti-submarine assets.
  The new OPVs and frigates will not have the cutting edge sensors that are now available and manning is already an issue. With Germany, Israel and Russia going ahead with super stealth submarines we need to upgrade our assets asap.
    We also need Maritime Patrol Aircraft, dedicated to the task, upgrade of tanks, artillery and battlefield electronics.
    All this comes at a cost and as BAe seem to hold a monopoly it would be good to have oversight of spending. We recently took delivery of F35 aircraft which are a bit more than a bob or two and will over time become very expensive to fly, particularly when boarded on the two new aircraft carriers.
   Increasing expenditure is a fact of life and while we can make cuts, we then get away from the prime directive of national security first and foremost.
   Nurses and defence need to be kept separate as the two emotions are vastly different. Oh aye. I haven't had a pay rise in real terms for the same lengtrh of time as the NHS and civil servants.

I’m sure every gov dept would want a budget increase. 11 years or so of austerity will do that.

The question is though, what’s more pressing? Because if one things for certain the Tories arent going to pay for everything

We have an annual Government expenditure of around £820 billion, and the argument is over £20 billion. 
Surely we need to review the whole budget expenditure especially when the combined total for defence, healthcare, education and pensions is less than half of the total - around 48%?

If folk are going to reduce the cake-cutting argument down to which areas of the economy are "more important than others" it shouldn't be limited to e.g. defence v healthcare.

For example, we spend £110 billion on social security (that's more than is spent on education by the way) £30 billion on "state protection" (what is that if it's not considered to be part of "defence"?) £30 billion on transport, £18 billion on "general government", £139billion on "other public services" (???) £53 billion on "public sector interest" (is that debt repayment or something more spurious?)

I find it highly annoying that politicians claim to give "extra" money to one service or another when they are already committed to that expenditure just to create soundbites and win votes from the gullible and it's equally annoying when over half the total budget is seldom if ever discussed.

If the question had been "who should get the money, defence or social security payments? " or "defence or politicians?" I imagine public reactions would be somewhat different.

FWIW the argument being put forward for increasing the defence budget has nothing to do with what Tom is saying - the argument is that it would reduce our influence on the international scene rather than protecting the UK so that's about our capacity to send British soldiers and equipment to fight and die in Trump's corporate wars and as someone who believes that we shouldn't be meddling in the Middle East anyway I'm against it. Anyone who still thinks we should be involved should take the time to watch the documentary Bitter Lake. It's a bit conspiracy theory but the facts are undeniable and there are some amazing film clips and home movies. It's slow, but worth sticking with.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Unfortunately anyone who disagrees can easily be fobbed off as a ‘naive idealist’ whether they be a politician or member of the public.

Don't be childish

xmiles wrote:So glos do you think we should increase expenditure on defence now?

Yes I do. Along with many very well informed politicians and military and defence personnel, it would seem. (As shown on the early evening news)

gloswhite wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Unfortunately anyone who disagrees can easily be fobbed off as a ‘naive idealist’ whether they be a politician or member of the public.

Don't be childish

Sorry but it’s clearly a correct assessment (you proved it earlier). 

Similarly if any politicians suggests nuclear disarmament for instance they’re categorised in the exact same way. It’s a tool for shutting down debate IMO.

xmiles wrote:It seems obvious that we need to put more resources into cyber security but part of the problem is caused by people still believing we are a first rate power when we no longer are. 

XM, we are one of the leading 'first rate powers' in the cyber world, because we have ploughed a lot of money, (as well as training, expertise, etc.), into it. In order to maintain our influence in the defence world, we also have to continue investing in our armed forces. 
One thing I would suggest that would help with the financing, is not to send our forces all over the world, and the drop of a hat. We cannot be a world policeman any more.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Unfortunately anyone who disagrees can easily be fobbed off as a ‘naive idealist’ whether they be a politician or member of the public.

Don't be childish

Sorry but it’s clearly a correct assessment (you proved it earlier). 

Similarly if any politicians suggests nuclear disarmament for instance they’re categorised in the exact same way. It’s a tool for shutting down debate IMO.

Sorry T.R.O.Y, but I cant agree with that view. How can the topic you raised be swept under the carpet, as it were, when there is a great deal of discussion taking place within Parliament and its associated quangos and associations. Unfortunately, most of the discussions are handled out of the view of the public.

You’re probably right about behind closed doors, but in the public domain at least anyone not towing the line about Russia is dismissed as a fantasist. And that narrative from the media is a huge influence over future policy as we’ve seen so many times in the past.

On the topic itself, I can’t square the lines this gov peddle about what they can’t afford if they were to then go and increase defence spending.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You’re probably right about behind closed doors, but in the public domain at least anyone not towing the line about Russia is dismissed as a fantasist. And that narrative from the media is a huge influence over future policy as we’ve seen so many times in the past.

On the topic itself, I can’t square the lines this gov peddle about what they can’t afford if they were to then go and increase defence spending.

Regards Russia, lets not forget the little things they have been involved with, such as the shooting down of a passenger aircraft, supporting the Syrian regime, having a tendency to kill, by whatever means, expats who disagree with them, (especially on foreign soil), and finally, invading a country that they needed strategically, i.e. Crimea. All these illegal actions are part of a much bigger plan, which I'm sure, if push came to shove, could include tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons. They have to be held accountable for all their actions, and as I said earlier, anyone who thinks they are trustworthy, at least under the current regime, is naive. Discussion is good, but only if, in this case Russia, is prepared to join in, and they aren't.
On your second point, I agree, but I genuinely believe this goes for all major political parties, who are arguing a specific point, and have to make a hard-hitting soundbite. Obviously, when you have control of all the major infrastructure of a country, then every view or action, will be commented on, and rarely in a positive manner. 
For interest, I don't like the way this government is handling the economy very much, and I think they are still stuck in the austerity rut to some extent. This country is rich enough to afford many things, and defence and the NHS are just two of the major budgets that should be supported. I get the feeling that a lot of problems stem from Hammond and his 'its all mine, and you can't have it' approach.

We’re never going to come close to catching Russia militarily - and in terms of ‘joining in’ discussions I don’t think it would make a difference if we did. We’ve no interest in a full scale conflict (or a proxy if we’re honest).

So spend the money where it can actually make a difference - and is desperately needed, education, policing and healthcare.

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:So glos do you think we should increase expenditure on defence now?

Yes I do. Along with many very well informed politicians and military and defence personnel, it would seem. (As shown on the early evening news)

I disagree. We already spend more of our GDP on defence than France and Germany (2.12% compared to 1.79% and 1.24%) and less on health services than services in the other 18 nations studied in the report published today by the Nuffield Trust think tank https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44567824.

What is the point of spending even more money? What does it achieve? Vague talk about "influence" is meaningless. Does Germany have half as much influence as us?