« George W Bush and David Cameron hold second meeting | Main | First they introduce 24 hour drinking, now Labour launches campaign against binge drinking »

Comments

Very disappointing that Liam Fox of all people is giving up on the lower tax message. Does he not understand the connection between lower taxes and a strong economy?

Why start introducing "No Tax Cuts Immediately" by drip feed? It is commonly realised that GB has made such a dog's breakfast of the Country's finances that it will take decades of pain to sort out. Why aren't we discussing how to stop GB taking the £ into the Euro, both as a last desparate effort to protect his shredded reputation,and to complete Labour's strategy of destroying the UK as an independent Nation?

This is exactly right. Looking after our armed forces mus come before tax cuts. When reforming government services we can look for opportunities for greater efficiencies (and tax cuts) but not at the expense of our hard-treated troops.

That;'s a false choice Sean. The choice isn't between investing in our armed forces and lower taxes but between eliminating waste and investing in our armed forces.

Every government`s first priority should be the security and defence of its people. If these are not effected then nothing else can be guaranteed. Since we became a nation state and pursued our own national interest, it has seldom been possible for us to ensure our own defence outside a series of temporary alliances. Sometimes this has meant an uneasy relationship with other nations but `needs must when the devil drives`.
Our development as a nation has given us a particular identity and this has seen our defence devolved into the hands of armed forces that, with different emphasis dependant on the threat, has seen the development of a Navy, Army and Airforce that are as good as any and better than most.
As we have seen a change in priorities brought about by the ever-expanding welfare state, defence expenditure has suffered and many governments have tried to get away with the minimum that they believed was electorally possible. This has often worked but now our defence effort is on a knife edge at the limit of our present capability. The key approach in securing our defence capability now must surely be to identify where the national interest lies (being sure to continually review it to take account of change) and then allocate priorities for defence effort, bearing in mind that national defence is someting beyond the capability of the individual to secure. Then the appropriate amount of funding must be allocated to ensure that the first priority of government is achieved.
All defence commitments, as with others, must be measured against the national interest; so, for example, while we have an oil-based economy as we have now, our involvement with allies in ensuring a stable Middle East must rank very high, however unedifying our involvement in Iraq might appear. And if we cannot stomach the idea, there must quickly be an effective alternative source of energy put in place. All this suggests that a Conservative government Defence Review will be necessary and that Liam Fox`s instincts about the pattern of future action are correct and should be supported

Alan S - it's the same as in the way the green agenda hasn't been dropped, but put further down the list of priorities. At the moment the Tories will continue to try to keep council bills as low as possible, and even reduce it in some areas, we need to take baby steps. Any unfunded and unaccounted for tax cut would result in the finances getting further into the toilet.

We've already got a £2.7 bn "tax cut" we've got to pay back, not to mention the possibility of the country being near-bankrupt in finances.

The Labour Party is £13m in debt, what the hell does that tell you about their ability to manage money?

The Conservatives are being the "Heir's to Blair" in the sense that they're planning every last detail out for government. The problem with the Blairite regime was that it was all spin and no substance. We need to make it both, and unfortunately, in order to do that we need time. Firstly to see where the hell our public money is being spent and where it's being blatantly wasted. We cannot run around promising tax cut bonanzas as people will assume that's within the first term and will never happen. It's better to say "Tax cuts eventually" when we've had a chance to pay of any debt, borrowing, and everything else that the present government has nearly scuppored us for.

Our defense budget is enormous. Labour have poured far too much into defense. It's due to be 11% higher in real terms in 2010 than it was in 1997 - the longest period of sustained growth since the 1980s. It declined under Major.

I think we should stop intervening in other countries' affairs without UN approval, and cut back the defense budget. By all means, use the money for tax cuts and make the usual pointless noises about "efficiency savings."

If these queue jumping rules apply to anyone forced to move by their job or circumstances (for example, asylum seekers), that's fine, but why the hell should army personnel be privileged over anyone else?

passing leftie 10.40
- because they put their lives on the line for their country

Passing Leftie

Do you seriously believe that a squaddie should earn £20k less than a fireman?

Of course `passing leftie` has a right to his own opinions and the ability to express them.....and our Armed Forces are prepared to fight and die to preserve his right to do so.


passing leftie 10.40
- because they put their lives on the line for their country

They do they job admirably, and they are rewarded for it. Surely, you believe market forces should determine their remuneration? A nurse, doctor, police officer, long distance lorry driver, lifeboat volunteer, mountain rescue worker, oil rig diver, miner, refugeee or civil servant are just as deserving of prompt treatment as the partner of a member of the armed forces.

Passing Leftie
Do you seriously believe that a squaddie should earn £20k less than a fireman?

I'm trying to see where I suggested that, but I'm not able to. Where did I suggest this?

The jobs in the armed forces have become more skilled and technical, and have increased in real terms in recognition of this. If we can't attract volunteers of sufficient caliber, we need to offer higher wages, if not, not.

Of course `passing leftie` has a right to his own opinions and the ability to express them.....and our Armed Forces are prepared to fight and die to preserve his right to do so.

It's their job. They volunteered to do it. I'm grateful to them and our other civil servants. It's a shame their talents and lives are so frequently wasted by politicians (yes, including Labour politicians) in pointless and illegal adventurism.

This solemn right-wing fetishisation of the armed forces is on a par with those who thing killing a police officer should carry a greater sentence than killing anyone else.

Passing Leftie

Do you seriously believe that a squaddie should earn £20k less than a fireman?

Posted by: Old Hack | June 17, 2008 at 10:52

Well as it happens if that Fireman has been in the service for ten years or more he should of course be receiving more than an 19 year old squaddie. Both jobs are extremely dangerous and both Jobs are essential for the defense of our property.
I am all in favor of the Army being paid well but lets not lose site of the importance of the emergency services. Perhaps in retrospect you will realize that you picked the wrong professionals to pit against each other in this instance.

By the time we get to "tax cuts eventually' James (10:19) we may have seen a lot of the most mobile job and wealth creators flee for lower taxed nations.

passing leftie

I do not know where you got the 11% figure from, but given defence spending has been dropping as a proportion of GDP I'm not sure how that's possible. Plus defence inflation is much higher than for the rest of the country.

Equipment gets more expensive and yet there are still cuts. Out of the Royal Navy's 12 destroyers it looks like only 6 will be built to replace them, depsite the fact that the Labour government admitted 8 are needed - you can't have ships in two places at once. Eurofighter is more expensive than currently thought but can't be cut because penalties would mean paying the same amount in compensation.

Also the armed forces are constantly being asked to do more with little extra. As Liam Fox said, there are two choices - increase the budget or reduce deployments. Can't have you cake and eat it.

----

Alan S, it is easy to complain that there is too much "waste" in the defence budget/procurement but that is not the fault of the armed forces. If a Tory government could step in, wave a magic wand and sort everything out great. But so far the forces have been cut, slashed and burnt so repeatedly that not only has the fat gone but some of the muscle and bone. They need more money for equipment, housing, etc. Regardless of whether that comes from "bureaucracy" or a larger budget, it has to come. Simply reducing/freezing the budget and saying "ok guys - find the money because I think you waste too much of it" won't work especially because the soldiers, sailors and pilots don't get to decide how the budget is spent! Go take on the near-impossible task of reforming the Civil Service and in the mean-time give our boys & girls the support they need and deserve.

I think Liam Fox's comment about postponing tax cuts to pay for a better military is a very noble one - I hope that a Tory government will really act on that. And I'm saying this as someone who really would like to have a tax cut.

Our defense budget is enormous. Labour have poured far too much into defense.
Defence, National Security, Police, Prisons and Courts spending all needs to be doubled.

The pay of the armed forces and police needs to be significantly increased and numbers increased, there needs to be a boost in both conventional and nuclear forces, not just the army, but in Navy and RAF too.

The whole peace dividend thing was a con, the world is just as dangerous now as it was 20 years ago, in fact there are new dangers to replace the old.

passing leftie

I do not know where you got the 11% figure from, but given defence spending has been dropping as a proportion of GDP I'm not sure how that's possible. Plus defence inflation is much higher than for the rest of the country.

From the MOD and many other sources. Here is a link, which I have broken up.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/
AboutDefence/Organisation/
KeyFactsAboutDefence/
DefenceSpending.htm

Yet Another Anon | June 17, 2008 at 12:21
It was the Tories who cut the defense budget as a result of the peace dividend.

It's typical of a Tory that you'd take tax cuts over improved NHS or education, but you are happy to splash out on bloated defense provision.

Spending on national security, be it the armed forces, police or other supporting bodies is no open to compromise or even debate. Of course that does not mean we have to commit ourselves to expensive dead-end foreign policy objectives. Its good to see that support will go to the families of service personnel. About time we looked after the famlies of the people who look after us.

(Buck) Passing Leftie:

"I think we should stop intervening in other countries' affairs without UN approval, and cut back the defense budget. "

So Russia, China etc get a veto over our foreign and defence policy?

Your faith in the UN is touching but hardly realistic in an age when undemocratic countries still exercise their influence on the UN to promote their own interests rather than those of humanity.

Until the day when all on the UN Security Council are enlightened humanitarians I'd prefer the option of acting outside the remit of the UN.

Liam Fox is right, sadly, sound money must come in order to rebate our tax money. This means paying bills incurred including defence.

One route to sound money is to charge all nregligence by poublic bodies be they civil servants, consultants, politicians, trade unionists,or Quangos with wasted funds and hold CEO's liable, going back to 1997. Automatic solitary confinement for a minimjum of 2 moanths per million £ is a open and fair tarrif.

Disappointed that there's still no specific commitment by the Conservatives to increase funding for our over-stretched, under-manned and often poorly-equipped armed forces. This should be the No. 1 priority for any government, whether Conservative or otherwise. A lot needs to be done to repair the years of under-funding by successive governments. I hope Liam Fox is willing to stand up to George Osborne to secure a meaningful increase in the defence budget - absolutely critical now that we face so many potential threats (Russia, China, Iran, and numerous rogue states) and the actual present danger of the worldwide Jihadist insurgency.

Passing leftie. I'd love to see improved healthcare and education systems for all British residents, but those things will not happen as the result of spending more money. New Labour has quite amply shown that.

Quality doesn't happen because you spend money, it happens because you create meaningful competition between those who provide goods and services and then you let individual consumers make their own choice over where their money is best placed.

Regardless of what the left wing believe, low rates of tax and genuinely free markets do a far better job of creating wealth than any other economic policy. That wealth translates into opportunity for providers across the board, which translates into better products and services.

As the only intrinsic duties of government is to defend the realm and her people from external threats and to uphold the rule of law, those are the areas that must always be financed, but nothing else should ever be used as an excuse to tax the nation into penury (as is the current case).

As an ex Army NCO it has been interesting to see the new debate blossom since the Launch of the Covenant Commission document, especially poignant today with the loss of another 5 young men and women in Afghanistan.

As the Leader of Fylde Borough Council I have recently had the honour to welcome home soldiers from both the Duke of Lancasters Regiment and the 1st battalion the Rifles, returning from both Iraq and Helmand Province. I was impressed by the resilience and not surprised that they were not critical of the reasons behind being sent into hostile theatres.

What did come across was the fatigue being experienced by both themselves and their families and the feeling that pay and conditions did not reflect their sacrifices - enough said.

Conservatives have always been the Party of the Armed Forces and must put down real costed policies at the earliest opportunity to show a real committment to them.

We have focused on not introducing tax cuts to pay for the services, fair enough, but the Party should also think outside the box regarding taxes raised from our shrinking defence industry, why can't these taxes be ringfenced towards defence?

The Party has to date, failed to push the Government to implement the recommendations of the 2005 Defence Strategy, why? The Party should commit to the UK Defence Industry and actively work with them to retain these last bastions of UK manufacturing and innovation. The policy to buy from abroad cannot be a secure one in an ever changing world?

Let's support our Army, Navy and Air Force by continuing to build our Defence industries, exporting and using their products, diverting the tax and profits to equip our troops and give them the pay and conditions that they rightly deserve - with profits!

It would be great, if, on the next occassion that I meet the Commanding Officer and troops of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment I can say, hand on heart, that the Conservatives have their backs.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker