AIBU to point out that the most important duty of the UK government is to maintain the defence of the country?

It’s not pathetic, it’s pointless just pointing the finger at the current incumbent (who hasn’t been in power for long). The reason the MOD is in a mess is because of systematic failures over a decade, they also didn’t fix the other big pressing economic issues so to expect Labour to be able to pull a rabbit out the hat within a couple of years is entirely unrealistic.

You're making it sound if the armed forces have been left penniless and completely defenceless. They're still working and doing their jobs. These things take time

As for my knowledge of warfare what makes you such an expert exactly. Or your knowledge of how government reviews and procurement work.

For choose to negatively engage in, read refuse to conform to your beliefs. The only negativity I'm seeing is from you and your personal insults. Are you trying to deflect from Labour's shocking performance and internal squabbling?

More of the same from you then.
Did I actually say Labour are the positive party? No.
I really don't know why I might have expected anything else, given your contribution on any given topic you choose to (negatively) engage in.
You do seem to have let your guard slip by hinting we should reduce welfare.
As for taxes, that's one of the areas that could need increasing to fund a higher defence budget. But you don't want that so...

Starmer needs to admit that he's too weak to stand up to Ed Miliband. Ed fucking Miliband. That one.

FWIW, I wouldn't bother spending much money to reduce UK emissions. Our percentage of the Global total is miniscule. So there's probably another £40bn or so from Great British Energy (? Nor me). Good find!

More of the same from you then.
Did I actually say Labour are the positive party? No.
I really don't know why I might have expected anything else, given your contribution on any given topic you choose to (negatively) engage in.
You do seem to have let your guard slip by hinting we should reduce welfare.
As for taxes, that's one of the areas that could need increasing to fund a higher defence budget. But you don't want that so...

We are already at war, who do you think is behind our cyber attacks, the riotst? We are sleep walking into a very dangerous situation. We need to start to invest in new tech like drones. Ukraine could teach us a thing or two, we are woefully behind and the US are not coming to protect us.

Despite my question being directed at the PP, this is a fair point and the money spent (0.3% of GDP) on CC would be better off spent on reducing emissions - or possibly the defence budget (but then you would also have to admit you think global warming is nonsense).

The UK holds the fifth position globally in the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) rankings for defence expenditure. It sits just behind Germany, while retaining its status as the second-largest spender in NATO after the United States.

For the UK, there are three broad options for financing a sustained increase in defence spending:

Increasing borrowing, potentially involving some relaxation of the fiscal rules. (It is worth noting that capital spending is already excluded from the government’s binding stability rule, so the investment component of higher defence spending would sit outside that constraint.)

Increase taxes, whether through explicit rate rises or base broadening.

Lower spending elsewhere, via reprioritisation within existing budgets, which analysts warn could put immense pressure on public services like health and education.

Which of these do you, in your infinite wisdom, (rather than just your normal stabce of negativity) think we should do?

Healy has resigned because he hasn't been offered all that he wants. MoD have been underfunded for years and this is a cue for the financial horse trading that will accompany another review (of the review) and that the government will have to finance.

And if your posts yesterday were anything to go by, your big suggestion will to cut the benefits budget - which is really where you're coming from isn't it.

You're really saying Labour are the positive party pmsfl. Politics of envy and always prioritising welfare over defence. Taxing hard working families, causing misery and hardship on the wrong targets. Thanks for the hoot.

Oh behave. The Tories underfunded it for 13 years. Labour can't wave a magic wand and fix things in only 2.

Healy has resigned because he hasn't been offered all that he wants. MoD have been underfunded for years and this is a cue for the financial horse trading that will accompany another review (of the review) and that the government will have to finance.

And if your posts yesterday were anything to go by, your big suggestion will to cut the benefits budget - which is really where you're coming from isn't it.

See, all you ever have is retorts that you seem to think are clever, with no thought about possible solutions.
"we need to do this"
how?
"No fkin idea"

As to who is on charge, thank god it's not you, although you do actually sound a little like one of the opposition - negativity with no resolution that would work.

See, all you ever have is retorts that you seem to think are clever, with no thought about possible solutions.
"we need to do this"
how?
"No fkin idea"

As to who is on charge, thank god it's not you, although you do actually sound a little like one of the opposition - negativity with no resolution that would work.

I really wouldn't be digging a bigger hole for yourself. Does it not tell you anything about Healey's resignation?

Why are you presenting me with those options in some sort of smart arsed manner - what do you expect me to do about it? Negative stance? You mean the realistic stance that Starmer has repeatedly been reminded about by his former defence secretary and the highest airforce rank who's had no choice but to write to the PM. Labour back benchers are refusing to back down on welfare reform. Who exactly is in charge here?

I wish we could see some evidence of having an Army during these current awful conditions on our own streets. Police officers must be resigning in droves.

I'd start with the £9 billion for carbon capture

For the UK, there are three broad options for financing a sustained increase in defence spending:

Increasing borrowing, potentially involving some relaxation of the fiscal rules. (It is worth noting that capital spending is already excluded from the government’s binding stability rule, so the investment component of higher defence spending would sit outside that constraint.)

Increase taxes, whether through explicit rate rises or base broadening.

Lower spending elsewhere, via reprioritisation within existing budgets, which analysts warn could put immense pressure on public services like health and education.

Which of these do you, in your infinite wisdom, (rather than just your normal stabce of negativity) think we should do?

For the UK, there are three broad options for financing a sustained increase in defence spending:

Increasing borrowing, potentially involving some relaxation of the fiscal rules. (It is worth noting that capital spending is already excluded from the government’s binding stability rule, so the investment component of higher defence spending would sit outside that constraint.)

Increase taxes, whether through explicit rate rises or base broadening.

Lower spending elsewhere, via reprioritisation within existing budgets, which analysts warn could put immense pressure on public services like health and education.

Which of these do you, in your infinite wisdom, (rather than just your normal stabce of negativity) think we should do?

Oh, you again.

Are we in imminent danger of being invaded. What do think that has changed so much that the defence of the realm is in such a perilous state.

I really must get my pearls restrung. All this clutching just isn't good for them.