Page 1 of 2
Britain spends too little on its forces, says poll
Posted: Mon 23 Aug, 2004 7:11 pm
by Guest
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tid=152401
Britain spends too little on its forces, says poll
By Michael Smith and Andrew Sparrow
(Filed: 23/08/2004)
The majority of people believes that the Government is spending too little on defence and that the Armed Forces are overstretched and under-equipped, says an opinion poll conducted for the Telegraph.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is widely blamed for the state of the forces, with only 14 per cent of those polled believing that he is doing a good job. Only 18 per cent believe that Labour can be trusted to support the forces.
Half of those questioned in the YouGov poll opposed moves to amalgamate famous-name regiments such as the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Black Watch into larger units.
The poll follows last month's defence cuts, in which 22,000 service jobs were axed.
The Royal Navy is to lose a dozen major ships. The RAF is to lose four front-line squadrons and more than 100 aircraft and the Army is to lose four battalions and 100 tanks. More cuts are expected to follow.
Mr Hoon has ordered senior officers and civil servants to avoid describing the widespread loss of men and equipment as defence cuts, insisting that they were "a rebalancing" that will improve military capabilities.
The poll found that 86 per cent of those questioned believe that the defence chiefs should be criticising the cuts. The vast majority did not believe they should resign in protest but 55 per cent felt they should be openly critical.
Mr Hoon has warned the defence chiefs that anyone taking such action will be forced into early retirement.
Asked specifically whether they believe that British or American troops were performing better in Iraq, the poll revealed that only three per cent backed the Americans with 77 per cent backing the British forces.
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, said: "I welcome the findings of this poll and I'm not surprised by the results. For the first time in many years the public realise that military issues are very important."
Mr Soames said he agreed that too little was spent on defence and that the forces were suffering from overstretch.
But he was surprised that Mr Hoon's approval rating was 14 per cent. He said: "I would have thought it would be about two per cent. It certainly would not be any higher than that within the Armed Forces."
Bruce George, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons defence committee, said he agreed that military funding was too low.
He said: "The Government cannot expect the Armed Forces to respond effectively to its demands if the level of defence expenditure is not rising adequately.
"Most people who read the newspapers would agree that our forces are overstretched and under-funded."
Click on the opinion poll of the public's view of the Forces, very revealing!
Posted: Mon 23 Aug, 2004 7:33 pm
by Wholley
No shit Sherlock.
One liner avoidance doohickey.
Wholley.
Posted: Mon 23 Aug, 2004 7:35 pm
by Greg S
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html
lol....one of my comments is on there.
"It seems that the Government is making the same mistakes the CIA made in investing in "high tech" equipment before September 11th. The results could seriously damage Britains unique system of proud regiments - the finest military system in the world. A friend of mine in the US said the British have the best military training in the world. It's just a shame some common sense can't be used by the politicians. I think the phrase I'm thinking of is: "If it aint broke, don't fix it".
Spending too little on defence
Posted: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 12:19 am
by df2inaus
I've said it before, but you in the UK are so lucky compared to what's happened to the Canadian military. The new PM decides he's going to raise a "peacekeeping brigade."
People with any military background know he really means expanding the infantry and the other arms that support it, but some Canadians would take offence so it goes by another name.
Sounds good, but the problem is that the Canadian government refuses to raise the defence budget, an appallingly low 1.1 percent of GDP compared to about 2.3 pct in the UK, so our low dollar and all other factors being equal, Canada spends less than half the UK on defence and has an army less than 1/5 of the size of the UK army, for whatever reason. A NATO founding member with 31 million population should not have a 17,000 man army, ridiculous.
Since the defence budget will not be raised, navy ships and fighter aircraft will be mothballed and there are still no transport aircraft to get the soldiers to their theatres of operation, we need to charter Ukranian Antonovs or beg the Yanks for a ride.
The Liberal Party of Canada (Labour) call this an independent foreign policy, and Canadians believe them, pathetic
.
Posted: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 6:50 am
by Redhand
LOL and don't forget df2....
that only a couple thousand of those are trigger pullers.
Re: Spending too little on defence
Posted: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 5:44 pm
by Guest
Haha didnt you Canucks have to borrow desert pattern fatigues from us during Afghanistan?
Posted: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 7:34 pm
by Redhand
oh probably,
I know we're always borrowing from someone when it comes to things like that.
But it should be noted that this doesn't make the actual caliber of the troops themselves bad. They've proven to be some of the most motivated troops in the West, through joint training ops and what not.
Posted: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 3:57 pm
by Col.Parsons
I think it's ridiculous they way that the MoD and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have managed to "control" the defence budge
They just don't get that with the poor quality of gear, it doesn't matter how much you spend on training, it'll all go to pot so long as crap gear is issued.
I mean for crying out loud - most troops by their own gear where possible, because the issued stuff is just crap.
Unless the government realises that a quality military can only be sustained by the funding it
needs, the British army is going to fail.
Long live the age old tradition of "Cutting Corners"
Si
Posted: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 4:15 pm
by Lance
Sending soldiers out into the field of battle with poor quality gear is one thing. The Army is resilient and can adapt. Sending Soldiers out without proper body amour and ammunition shortages is unforgivable.
This is a quote from a Soldier who served in Iraq:
"We crossed the Iraqi border on April 1 with no body amour, no morphine, no radios, in soft skinned landrovers, and, not one round of ammunition between us. We put empty magazines on our weapons for appearances sake only
Posted: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 5:29 pm
by Whitey
I don't mean this in a bad way but, in a social democracy/social anything it comes down to do you want butter of guns? In a free market capitalist country you tend to be able to juggle both. You guys in Canada and the UK have millions all over the planet depending on your socialized services and dole. I bet that money would make up a big percent of your defence budget.
It is the old question though, bullets or butter? You guys need alot of butter it seems to keep the natives from getting restless.
Our government did the same under many peacetime presidents btw, but during war they just give out the credit card, blow the bugle and CHARGE! which might not be good either.
Posted: Thu 26 Aug, 2004 2:27 am
by df2inaus
Redhand,
LOL and don't forget df2....
that only a couple thousand of those are trigger pullers.
Interesting point, word is the big problem in the Canadian Army is retaining the combat support arms personnel, especially engineers.
Who can blame them for opting out? The deployments never end and the Government makes it abundantly clear that they don't care.
The pay may be the best in NATO, and the issued kit is reputedly better than the British Army but if you don't see your family hardly at all and you see people at their very worst in underdeveloped countries all too often, the pay is less of an incentive.
I could rant all day, but rants are for letters, who go to Members of Parliament, and all of us should be writing one for every rant posting.
The public relations hacks keep telling the parties that the public does not care about the military, lets prove them wrong.
df2
Posted: Mon 30 Aug, 2004 8:41 pm
by the skeavster
I know this all sucks, however i would like to point out that our lads and ladies always pull the bunny out of the hat and get the job done, not that it makes it any better, just shows how good our soldiers are.
We also have the 3rd largest defence budget in the world after America and Japan, so it can't be that bad, however the idea of all these news toys does seem like a waste, as others have said
Skeav
Posted: Mon 30 Aug, 2004 9:24 pm
by Grimey Vibes
It shows that we don't need all the flasy high tech equipment America have to be the best. But what we do need is better resources for our soldiers such as better quality equipment and more of it, its not right the amount of shortages our soldiers have, props to them for making do and getting on with the job.
Posted: Thu 02 Sep, 2004 7:55 pm
by may18
I had a good look at this poll a few days ago
Unfortunatly although people felt the army was
Proffesional
Did a good job
Was suffering with poor equipment
Was underfunded
Was overstreched and low on morale
They also on the whole said that they wouldnt pay any more
taxes for the military
And when asked if the government should
a) Tranfer funds from social spending to defence
or
b) Transfer funds from defence to social spending
More said b)
So it seems a vague recognition of the under funding
but no clear desire to pay up to improve matters
Posted: Fri 03 Sep, 2004 9:15 am
by bigbart
may18 wrote:I had a good look at this poll a few days ago
Unfortunatly although people felt the army was
Proffesional
Did a good job
Was suffering with poor equipment
Was underfunded
Was overstreched and low on morale
They also on the whole said that they wouldnt pay any more
taxes for the military
And when asked if the government should
a) Tranfer funds from social spending to defence
or
b) Transfer funds from defence to social spending
More said b)
So it seems a vague recognition of the under funding
but no clear desire to pay up to improve matters
It seems that people are living in their own little bubbles where they can't see how important our forces are. Soldiers without body armour costs lives. What can be moe important than life?