Scared of what labour will do

Your post I have absolutely no problem with mentioning Corbyn.

You don't have a problem but others should stop?

It's pretty simple, they're tied together, if you go back to earlier elections he'll come up. At a couple of GEs he was the alternative.

Stating readily available figures on spend is not claiming to be an expert, that seems to be what you re claiming to be, i'm afraid.

When Labour came in, defence spend was 2.4% of GDP, they increased that, it rose to a high of 2.6%... was it enough, given the threats to Europes security at the time, yes.

The Tories had 14 years to improve, they failed, capability was slashed, continued after Putin attacks into Europe.

Try as you might deny this and attempt to pass the buck to Labour as well, these are the facts....

@EasternStandard My complaint? The constant "Oh, stop going on about the last 14 years!" coupled with "Ah, but what about Corbyn?". Some
"past" is apparantly relevant-some isn't.

I'm not blaming labour for our current military problems, I'm blaming them both. I would strongly recommend you read that article I linked upthread before you claim any more expertise on the subject.
They have both failed our armed forces, and that would have continued under labour if Trump hadn't been elected.

Labour didn't have Russia to deal with, thats a simple fact.... Afghanistan and Iraq weren't a direct security threat... defence spend as a % of GDP was 2.6% under Labour across their 12 years in power.

Plus we had strong economic growth, so in real terms, defence did well.

You re doing well jumping through some imaginary hoops trying to blame Labour... for our current problems

Your last point is obvious, no one is arguing with you on that.

Starmer rowed back from Sunak's 2.5% as soon as he got in.

He wouldn't have gone for foreign aid without Trump

That was a Reform pledge

Labour didn't have Russia to deal with? Is that a serious comment? What about 9/11? Iraq, Afghanistan? They had plenty to deal with.

We're not seeing better defence spending because we now have a labour government. We're seeing it because of Trump.

So what was your earlier complaint exactly?

The pensioners do not have a higher personal allowance. Age-related personal allowances were frozen in 2013 and withdrawn completely in 2016.

It is correct that over state pension age do not pay National Insurance, but any entitlement to state pension is based on the National Insurance they did pay up till then.

@EasternStandard I have absolutely no problem with mentioning Corbyn.

Sunak planned 2.5% by 2030... no idea how to fund it... given his previous record on defence spending since 2021, hollow promise.

However, you are right about Trump, he has up turned quite a few things.

If you keep going on about the last GEs over the last 14 years there's no getting away from the reality of the alternative...

It was someone you don't like mentioned. No getting around that

Labour didn't have a imperialistic Russia to deal with, the Tories did, 2014, Salisbury and 2021, yet continued to slash defence, right up to 2024 GE.

BBC article isn't Labours Manifesto, as try as some pp seem to want it to be.... as i said ... Fantasies...

Sunak did pledge 2.5% before the GE

Starmer dropped down in that only now upping it again due to Trump

Those moaning about the BBC quotes below should let them know.

Yes it is dire. Also dire under labour before them. The only reason this could possibly be about to change is because Starmer has been bounced into it by Trump.
If Trump had not been elected, the status quo would remain.

Yes and fantasy outcomes too!

It always amuses me that posters can say "the left should stop harping on about the last 14 years" while harping on about Corbyn......

Tories slashed defence over their tenure.

Its not a record to be proud of.

We had 23 frigates/destroyers in 2010, now we have 14....

As late as 2021, the tories planned on reducing the number of the UKs main battle tank from 227 to 148...

Even in 2024, their plans were to reduce the infantry even below the historic lows of 18000.

Following the 2010 General Election, the new government instituted a new defence review. The ultimate conclusion of this process was to reduce the size of the British Army from approximately 102,000 to approximately 82,000 by 2020

They actually dropped numbers to 73,000

Dire.... We dogged nothing.

@Llttledrummergirl I said those bemoaning the last 14 years

If you wanted someone else to interrupt those years as the alternative it was him for a couple of GEs.

We dodged really poor security outcomes, which also means conservatives were in instead obviously

The tories were bad on defence, but so were labour before them. Starmer has been dithering for months about committing to a date for 2.5%. Both parties reliably fail to put their money where their mouth is. It will be interesting to see where this money will be spent which is just as important, if not more so.

Long read, but this gives an overview of defence spending going back to John Major and the Peace Dividend.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-brief-look-at-the-british-defence-budget-in-the-1990s/

Labour and Corbyn were in the wilderness for those years for good reason.

Let’s hope they get back there pronto. Or at least in 4 and a bit years.

You are correct, so why bring Corbyn into the discussion at all? It's irrelevant.

Corbyn didn't win. Reading the BBC tf for that.

Plus the Hamas friends issue

Labour and Corbyn were in the wilderness for those years for good reason.

Irrelevant, commitment to Trident and its replacement, was in both of Labours manifesto's in 2017 and 2019...

His own personal view bows to that of the PLP and the shadow cabinet.... Conf resolutions aren't binding.

But the salient point is, Labour weren't in power, it never happened.....

The record of the Conservatives however is dire on defence, as it is on most things, its shame their supporters cannot recognise these mistakes, otherwise they'll just keep repeating them.

At least Badenoch has acknowledged this, even if she struggles to actually name them.