Leading article

If you want military interventions, Prime Minister, you'll need more of a military

25 July 2015

9:00 AM

25 July 2015

9:00 AM

“Whether it’s in Iraq, Syria, Libya or elsewhere — as Prime Minister, if I believe there is a specific threat to the British people, would I be prepared to authorise action to neutralise that threat? Yes, I would.”

It is almost two years since David Cameron lost a vote on intervening in the Syrian war and he has barely spoken about foreign affairs since. He is now slowly returning to the subject, making the case for pursuing Islamic State in Syria. The recent murder of 30 British holidaymakers in Tunisia was almost certainly planned in Isis’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa. The Prime Minister is making the fairly simple case that the military ought to be able to pursue the enemy.

But there is no chance of the RAF ‘neutralising’ the threat. For all his interventionist instincts, the Prime Minister has spent five years imposing deep cuts on the armed forces; by some estimates, he has reduced the UK fighting capability by up to a third.

This week, we learnt that the RAF’s fleet of fighter aircraft is to shrink to its smallest in history. Gen Sir Nick Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that the RAF is ‘at the very limits of fast-jet availability and capacity’. It’s odd that the Prime Minister is so eager to join the Americans in bombing the Syrian side of the border when Britain has been able to make so little difference in northern Iraq.


The RAF is able to spare just eight Tornados, themselves two years away from being in a museum, and a generation behind the American F-22s they fly beside. Only two can fly at any one time, dropping only 5 per cent of the bombs. Britain’s impact has been welcome, but marginal. We should not pretend that our presence in Syria would be any less marginal.

Cameron cannot blame parliament: our weakness is due to the decisions that he has taken, which our allies have watched with dismay. As the American magazine Foreign Policy pointed out recently, Britain is shrinking its army to the same size as the New York police department. We bloat the foreign aid budget and reduce the Foreign Office budget by a fifth. We lay off Gurkhas while doubling handouts to Nepal. This week, George Osborne defended the aid budget by saying that he wants to ‘make sure that we are saving lives’.

Aid is good at allowing politicians to make pious statements about their generosity with other people’s money. The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne, while £5.4 billion has been cut from defence. We’re now very good at finding mates for rare Madagascan fish; not so good at helping Kurds fight Isis (so far, we have only managed to spare 40 heavy machine-guns).

The Chancellor has promised not to let military spending slide below 2 per cent of economic output, the Nato minimum. A welcome pledge, but it won’t bring the military (or its capabilities) back to where things were when he took office. Only years of investment could achieve that.

The Prime Minister needs to remember this when making speeches: the RAF is now smaller than the force that was at the disposal of his predecessors. With his spending decisions, he has forfeited the right to talk about ‘closing down ungoverned spaces’ in the Sahara or ‘neutralising’ the threat from Isis. The sad truth is that we no longer have a military strong enough to do so.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Williamecornish

    Get It Now.-p-e-c-a-t-o-

  • zanzamander

    There are many things wrong with David Cameron’s judgement on and therefore his actions towards the curse Islamic terrorism. I won’t go through them all but here are just two:
    1. He believes Islam is a religion of peace
    2. He considers Saudi Arabia as our friend and ally
    As long as he keeps deluding himself about the above two, no amount of military spending, drones, or boots on the ground in Islamic countries around the world, will diminish by on iota, the existential dangers we face at home from this intolerant ideology.
    The rest is just hogwash.

    • hodgingthemarkets

      Not this RoP piffle again, you are so boring and this has been debunked countless times.

      • EasyStreet

        His point about Saudi Arabia is valid though. Even the BBC is starting to warm to the idea (although they couldn’t resist the “author’s personal view” disclaimer): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33640974.

        Britain’s only true friends in the region are Kuwait, the UAE and Oman; the Saudis are certainly not our friends, although they do spend a lot of money with our arms manufacturers. I am certain that that is why Cameron avoids mentioning them, and why the Jenkins Report has been buried. It would be interesting to know what our net profit on that trade is, once the cost of dealing with Islamist extremism is subtracted…

        • WTF

          I doubt Cameron has ever costed out the life of a British person slaughtered by Jihadists & terrorists and funded by Saudi !

    • RobertDeLuce

      No, its all hogwash, every word uttered from your mind of hatred.

      • WTF

        Lots of denials and BS but not a lot of substantiation coming from your posts are there ?

  • Blindsideflanker

    “Sustainable MOD
    Annual Report 2014/15”

    “We are currently changing the size
    and shape of our Armed Forces and
    business, which continues to affect
    our performance. In 2014/15 we had
    notable success in reducing our
    energy consumption, greenhouse
    gas emissions, estate-wide water
    demand, and estate stewardship. We
    have also updated our sustainability
    strategy to set out the key areas for
    focus for the next 10 years.”

    Doh! When you scrap our armed forces it is not surprising it uses less fuel.

    • Frank

      It is depressing beyond belief that that extract should come out of the MOD’s Annual Report – pure New Labour garbage. This country’s civil service is becoming the enemy within (eg look at Sir Jeremy Heywood currently trying to choke off the Freedom of Information Act, look at the FCO’s perpetual love-in with the failed EU, look at DFID pouring aid money into any pot it can find, etc, etc).

  • ExToryVoter

    Cameron’s wilful – some might say criminal – neglect of our armed forces under his watch is one of many reasons why I and millions of others cannot bring ourselves to vote for his party whilst he remains in charge. The man is a disgrace to his country.

    • RobertDeLuce

      Rubbish,

      • WTF

        Why ?

  • Man on the Clapham Omnibus

    ‘Whether it’s in Iraq, Syria, Libya or elsewhere… if I believe there is a specific threat to the British people, would I…authorise action …? Yes, I would.’
    But these countries don’t pose a direct threat, so don’t do stupid things that will only make matters worse as you demonstrated in Libya.

    • RobertDeLuce

      These countries, you are correct, are as much threat to us as was Vietnam to the US, which we know they were not. The US is dragging us into an arms race, make us a partner in the fires being set in the Ukraine, where we now support openly Nazi regimes, and the Middle East, where the Son of the US, IS, is doing the dirty work for them, creating a situation where only a well armed force from NATA can control things. But first we need to create the situation, and to achieve this the US, UK too, perhaps a little unwilling, will organize more 07/11 and London bombings, just to scare the people into going along with more arms, more people in the army, conscription and the lessening of laws that protect your freedoms.

      • WTF

        Ahhh, that old conspiracy theory. haven’t heard that in a while but oh well.

        We should stay out of the ME and let them kill each other whilst taking a leaf out of the Quran & Saudi and issue an ultimatum to Muslims in the UK, become an apostate, leave the country or be interned.

  • ItsAlreadyTooLate

    Are the water cannon an extension of Boris’s penis?

    • Inspector Frost

      No the cannons are to big

    • RobertDeLuce

      No, but you might be, prick.

      • ItsAlreadyTooLate

        Is that you Boris?

      • polly parrot

        Robert you are a nasty unpleasant little jerk arent you.

        • RobertDeLuce

          No, I just outmatch you Polly. Not that this is any great achievement, as everyone seems to be doing that. No need to SHOUT by the way.

  • trace9

    The Elephant in the room, is that the Army is just a mouse, & no-one’s impressed by it, except some of us, who still see an elephant. (The other forces too..)

    • RobertDeLuce

      Lot of US type people on here, trying to push the UK into wars alongside the US, which is a very bad move.

  • Frank

    Actually it was Gordon Brown’s government who ordered the aircraft carriers!

  • Terry Field

    Our military is now so small that we can field brigades where we once offered Regiments to our American hoped-for guarantors. I suggest we stop deluding ourselves, and improve our cake-baking skills. A jihadi is not so ill-mannered that he would attack a chap offering Lapsang Souchong and mixed fruit buns.
    Would he??

    • RobertDeLuce

      No, you are correct, he would not.

  • Sue Smith

    Boris is a champion and he knows what I’ve known for a long time; social behaviour (now there’s an oxymoron) is at an all time low water mark; a generation of people have grown up sans discipline, courtesy of American psychobabble in child-rearing manuals and a society completely unwilling and unable to enforce ANY kind of discipline. The courts are failing miserably and what is left is an ugly look indeed.

    So Boris, do what the Austrians do – threaten your people with water cannon because they cannot behave themselves in a crowd. That way I’ll feel safer, as will my friends and family, on the streets. Gotta love that.

    PS: Austria is the safest country to live in – particularly Vienna – on this planet.

    • RobertDeLuce

      Yes, they are very much into discipline there, all the way back to 1940, when they welcomed the type of oppressive Government you wish for. As for an ugly look, take a look at your words and what you wish for people, r is that just certain people ?, maybe there is a solution for this, yes?

      • Sue Smith

        I don’t “wish” anything for people other than they’d grow up and think about somebody else but themselves. And I rather think the streets dominated by roaming drug-addicted and drunken trouble-makers is the real ugly look. Seems like you’re feeling a bit defensive about this. I wonder why? (I wonder if I wonder?)

        You people who behave like louts on the streets think you have an absolute entitlement to do that, screaming “oppression” every time somebody wants to make the place safer for others. Well, sir, your kind of ‘freedom’ is no freedom at all – only your own so-called right to be totally offensive and obnoxious, encroaching on the rights of others and their liberties to go about the streets unmolested. The Austrians get that and their people also get it, and are protecting something of great value; their way of life.

        Read the famous speech by Mary McAleese.

        You cannot help with the racist comments about Austria; we get that. Those Austrian people 70 years of age and younger are going to be abused by people like you for a few more years yet, but they do have a great standard of living and a wonderful, safe country of civilized people. And they’re friendly, warm and helpful as well.

        Vienna consistently ranks in the world’s top 2 or 3 most ‘liveable’ cities. There’s a reason for that and it isn’t rocket science.

        • RobertDeLuce

          As to being defensive, not at all, I am a non-drinker. Yes, I agree, drunks all over the place at 2 a.m., totally wrong, I agree. Our youth getting wasted, wasting money, eating rubbish and seeing all things via the broken glasses of the likes of xfactor. Its not the curbs that annoy me, not at all, neither of my kids were out doing that, so parents must take a stand at some point. I worry over creeping curbs, where does it all end. I know Vienna very well, I was born there, of a Jewish Mother and European Father, French, with me still spending a lot of time there. I worry about the place now, not just Austria mind, as the right and fascists rise up again, I have not a singe relative from Austria or Germany from that period, not one, all of whom were viewed in the same way the hordes see Muslims today, blamed for everything. No one wants that again, with me prepared to stamp on it at the first green shoots of its emergence again. All must be free and protected, all, not divided into groups of us and them, for that is the slippery slope into hell.

          • Sue Smith

            I understand your thoughts on this, however you cannot blame the Europeans for anything other than complacency, and invoking racism against Austro-Germany is anachronistic. Worrying about ‘fascism’ and ‘the right’ is diverting your own eyes from the authoritarian Left which is on the rise worldwide. Taking care to monitor what we say through the PC Thought Police, affirmative action, open or porous national borders, endless erosion of social cohesion and personal liberty through the “I’m entitled” mentality is very corrosive to societies. Yet, it’s easier to invoke fascism. Leftists are fascists just as much as the Nazis were – both are two sides of the one coin.

            To call Austria ‘fascist’ or even imply this is to poorly understand their culture, which is safe, democratic and sophisticated. If being “Right” means safety on the streets then bring it on!!! The people behind these kinds of initiatives are absolutely fed up with the ‘anything goes’ life which has been thrust upon us all. I support them entirely.

            As to Muslims and mass illegal immigration – there’s a particular place in hell on earth available to all of those who refuse to see what the social consequences will be for those who’ll live to see it – unlike myself, who’ll be dead and buried before the culture clash gets up a decent head of steam. Of course, you’re entitled to disagree but since you are partly Jewish you must know a large and powerful locomotive is headed in your direction!! (I couldn’t be more proud of the fact that my great grandmother was Jewish.) There remains anti-semitism to some extent in many European countries, but you cannot legislate away peoples’ rights to feel the way they do and you cannot force them through PC to use somebody else’s language. That’s one of the abiding tropes of the Left: force people to think as we do and you’ll have a better society. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      • WTF

        And our government under Blair and then Cameron isn’t oppressive, you’re having a laugh surely !

        • RobertDeLuce

          Very oppressive indeed, and clever too, in that they distract well, taking the attention from the real issues. Doubtless there are few here unaware, but the FOI act is under attack because there is a due report on Iraq and one on child abuse, reports they want stopped. That is real abuse.

          • WTF

            You seem to be rather confused, you took issue with me by implying I wanted an oppressive government and now you’re saying they are oppressive anyway. There’s a big difference between mass surveillance which I object to and applying the laws of the land which they have patently failed to carry out.

    • David Hughes

      Agree. We now possess the laziest, least disciplined, least globally aware parasites with the highest degree of self entitlement on offer in the world today. Remove premiership footballers and celebrities from the planet and make way for more engineers, builders, scientists, mechanics, nurses and police. You know, the good roles in life that mean something to society. Not pandered, self obsessed and self involved narcissistic personalities who never stopped trading on those buff genetics or the ability to kick pigskin.

      • polly parrot

        Got it in one David. Well said.

      • Sue Smith

        Bravo!!

      • RobertDeLuce

        A little harsh, but I can’t not agree. I would like to see our Doctors and Nurses receiving more respect than some footballer. Mind you, with the scraggy gutter press we have, we could do without most of them too.

  • Bonkim

    Sound logic. Foreign aid will not save Britain.

  • Evaacolton

    NNow Get It -ssppeectator

  • WTF

    The truth is its all about image over substance and who would ever have believed that a Tory PM would reduce our military capability to the current abysmal level when the usual suspects were Labour.

    Just today it was reported that Cameron was creating a highy trained force of 5000 troops to tackle domestic Jihadism and I had to ask myself, why ? We know where these Islamic cockroaches hide and a 100 SAS could easily deal with them so it begs the question what are these 5000 troops for.

    My suspicion is Cameron can see the growing unrest from ordinary people over Islam and is scared that when rather than if another mass attack like the London bombings occur, they’ll be the mother of all backlashes against Muslim communities to string up the perpetrators and their support ‘team’. I am convinced the true reason for this sort of domestic force along the lines of Americas National Guard is for use against ordinary British people and not Jihadists. Should the public decide they’ve had enough of Islamic barbarity & culture, they’ll want to cleanse the UK of this cancer and Cameron will need a strong armed force to contain it.

    As for Boris,let him have his water pistols to break up violent protesters !

    • RobertDeLuce

      You seem hell bent on ‘stringing people’ up, a very bad habit against another lot of innocent people in the US, who happened to be black. The rabble you speak of, they are just small minded people like you, desperate to excite your bored lives and go out and murder people. You are the real danger in this Country, a fascist rabble, who would curb the freedoms of all. Thank God the uneducated are unable to do anything, for with a brain you might just be dangerous.

      • Sue Smith

        We must be very suspicious of those who shout “curb the freedoms”. This is a sure sign they want the streets free for ferals like themselves to do as they please. The vast majority don’t spout such rubbish because they don’t menace others in the first place. Only the troublesome scream about “danger” and “fascism”.

        They are a festering sore on the body politic, these street ferals.

      • WTF

        I believe in justice and the rule of law but if certain Islamic cockroaches want to commit terrorists acts and kill innocent people then I believe in an eye for an eye.

        BTW – I don’t recall saying anything about colored people, was that your vivid imagination running riot !

        • RobertDeLuce

          The justice you speak of is a rabble chasing a lone person or a woman, as has been the case so far. An eye for eye is it, so perhaps that is what your imagined enemy is doing in response to their countries being invaded. The reference to black people in the US, where the innocent then were lynched on some supposed guilt. The reference is clear in my post. Do you actually think, as was the case in Germany against the Jews, that we would allow you to touch innocent people here in the UK. Not a chance yob, we shall stand for justice, the type enacted in a Court, not at the end of a rope, where guilt is assumed in the minds of the mob, the small empty minds.

          • WTF

            The sort justice I seek is the taking down of those cockroaches caught bang to rights in the act of beheading an innocent man in Woolwich or some Pakistani gang banger being caught in the act of raping a 12 year old girl and then having his gonads removed.

            But what has the lynching of a black person suspected of a crime being lynched which is obviously very wrong got to do with two Muslim Jihadists being watched by millions carrying out a beheading. One is unproven the other was witnessed by millions, there is no comparison.

            When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross as Dirty Harry said and when two men are cutting off someones head or a bunch of Pakistani men taking turns to rape an underage white girl doesn’t need any figuring out to see who the perp is.

            If the authorities actually applied the law rather than sweeping sexual abuse under the carpet for 10 years we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If the laws are inadequate or not applied correctly then the public has the moral if not legal right to seek redress.

          • RobertDeLuce

            On the subject of the people having the moral and legal right to redress, of course, by by using the term legal, you suggest a Court of Law, which I have no problem with, none whatever. However, you did not mention such a redress in your original post, nor did you mention, then or now, the legal right of the accused to a fair trial based upon facts, not Express made up stories. On the other hand, and as we seem to be closer to an understanding, I trust you will, equally even handed, join me in seeking a similar redress for the people in the invaded countries, where they have lost many innocent people. All lives, I am sure you agree, are worthwhile.

          • WTF

            Law usually follows public opinion and/or actions and a good example of that was the poll tax. When it became obvious that the poll tax was noncollectable that tax was abandoned and it looks as though the TV tax will be going the same way.

            Another example was that lame attempt to give home owners more rights to defend their homes after too many people were arrested for perceived use of undue force. That one still has a long way to go to match American standards but it has moved slightly since the Tony Martin case. Clearly the laws may well change, be toughened or dare I say actually be used against Jihadists with a push from ‘vigilantes’ carrying out summary justice on perps caught bag to rights. Legislation and its application ALWAYS lags public sentiment and wishes and if you’re to be tried by your peers then the sentencing should also be swayed by public opinion.

            The human rights courts in the UK has a pretty good record for compensating people for actions carried out by an errant soldier,security services and the like, we must have coughed up hundreds of millions in costs and awards from claims like these. How many other countries have that sort of record ?

            On your last point, lives of Jihadists or terrorists aren’t worth squat to me or do you think they shouldn’t be executed for mass murder !

        • doctorfloyd

          An eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Not a massive fan of Ghandi, but on this he was right.

          • WTF

            But Ghandi was a pacifist and not a psychopathic Jihadist spawned from Islam. Its different strokes for different folks and negotiation isn’t in Islams vocabulary.

    • doctorfloyd

      Two words in response to your first paragraph:

      Duncan Sandys.

      OK, not a PM…but still.

  • Julian Craze

    There are no threats to the UK, we are the ones doing the violence all over the globe!

    • RobertDeLuce

      Indeed true, now we have morons on here talking about internment. Camps for Muslims, camps for Jews. Mine Gott, now we are the Nazi.

  • Theo Roma

    What Cameron means is that he will blindly follow what America says. Look at his foreign policy towards Russia. Russia poses no threat to the world and he knows it. It is America and Nato who are a threat. How would Cameron react if he were surrounded by Nato “war excercises” as Russia is.

    • RobertDeLuce

      Too true.

  • Inspector Frost

    If the Tory’s are in power for five years there will be no military left. We need to rise up and kick them out before it’s to late. We need Winnie Mark II in charge, he only man to speak the truth.

    • polly parrot

      Frost, the British wouldnt have the balls to rise up and put their own trousers on mate. They had a chance to vote for a party that would end mass uncontrolled immigration and they were too chicken sh*t to vote for it.

      • RobertDeLuce

        Are you two related, or is it that you share a singe brain cell with all the other idiots in your Village.

  • David Hughes

    Drop in SAS. Drop in Delta and SEALS. Lock the borders. Problem solved. Jihadi hunt.

    • RobertDeLuce

      Better if some intelligence was dropped your way.

  • Robert

    He could ask France for some troops but they run the other way when trouble stars
    WW2 Dunkirk Vietnam

    • polly parrot

      Robert, the French have got more balls than the gutless 21st century British will ever have. The spine free British are still shamelessly trading on the reputation of their brave fore fathers mate. WW2 generation THEY AINT..When the first shot is fired the British will run like rabbits. Where are these “BRAVE BRITISH MEN” when white British children are being raped by Islamic paedophile gangs eh? Where are these Brave Londoners when Islam patrols their streets beating up gays, banning alcohol and telling people to get out of ” Islamic areas” EH…….The 21st century British arent worth a toss mate. They are a bloody laughing stock across the world. Why do you think that millions are flooding into Britain……They know that theres nothing to stop them taking over.

      • John

        You got that right the stupid British have been brainwashed by PC talk unfortunately for them the people that are coming in from 3rd world country’s only respect one thing strength and the spineless British don’t have that anymore so say goodbye to your culture your freedom and your land.

      • RobertDeLuce

        Polly, you live in London, where ???

    • RobertDeLuce

      At Dunkirk, UK and French troops stayed to allow the UK to get out and regroup. In Vietnam, genocide, I do recall the US running faster than the French.

  • WhiteBoyx5

    The above is correct, Despite 72 of the RAF Most impotent Aircraft the Harrier GR9 being sold to the USA for spares use At a bargain price of less that buying 1 Eurofighter Aircraft, the 46 x Jaguar GR3 fleet being withdrawn from service over the last few years, the list goes on, all the RAF Tornado F.3 Fighter aircraft was withdrawn during 2011 and most important of all, which no one reports is the withdrawal of the whole Royal Navy’s own Sea Harrier Fleet in 2006 this even had a potent radar fitted, No more VC10 or Tristar Aircraft although these have been replaced with newer versions & No more Nimrod Aircraft flying due to a harsh scrapping a few years back so as you can see from the above, our UK military aircraft has dwindled to not much left.

    • EasyStreet

      I’m not going to defend the overall reduction in size of the RAF – it does have too few combat aircraft. However the specific examples you’ve offered are not the problem.

      The Nimrod scrapping was not ‘harsh’, it was a failed project that was going to deliver an aircraft of questionable airworthiness many years late and way over budget. I would imagine that the forthcoming defence review will point the way towards restoration of maritime patrol capability with the American P-8 Poseidon (which has the Nimrod’s mission equipment in the back). The Jaguar was effective in its day and received some good avionics updates, but its weapon load was hopeless (only one laser-guided bomb could be carried alongside a targeting pod). Neither the F3 nor the Sea Harrier had the performance needed for air combat against contemporary foes; Typhoon was always planned to replace the former (which it has) and air defence of the Fleet is now the job of the Type 45 destroyer (using the F-35 for that purpose would make the carrier a self-licking lollipop of the highest order).

      I understood the logic behind selling off the Harriers – the real expense of owning combat aircraft is the logistics, maintenance and training, and trimming the ground-attack fleet down to Tornado GR4 alone made sense given the fact that only the Tornado could use Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles. The mistake was cutting that fleet down from 7 to 5 squadrons; the Government only got away with running Libya and Afghanistan operations simultaneously because the 2 ‘surplus’ squadrons hadn’t quite dispersed when Gadaffi let loose on Benghazi. Cutting it again to just two ground attack squadrons was always a ridiculous plan; ‘saving’ the third squadron at the last minute in April was nothing more than a sticking plaster.

      The real problem is that not that the RAF has scrapped obsolete aircraft; it’s that it has more generally become unbalanced away from combat aircraft during 15 years of counter-insurgency, over which time it has over-invested in helicopters (60 Chinooks!!) as a sop to public opinion while our boys were getting blown up in a pointless war in Afghanistan. Shaping the force to support the Army only makes sense if the Army is being used in strategically-valuable ways, which it has not been for quite some time. Preserving more of the Tornado fleet, fulfilling the original Typhoon orders and committing to a decent-sized fleet of F-35 are what should be considered, not hanging on to an assortment of faded workhorses.

  • riff

    The only threat to the British people is it’s own government.

  • polly parrot

    Cameron is a total idiot. The man is a mass of contradiction. Hes running around like a headless chicken with no idea of how to deal with the problems that the labour party and the conservative party have cooperated in causing. In the end the government is going to have to face a decision, ARM THE BRITISH PEOPLE. Or throw Islam out of Britain. CIVIL WAR IS INEVITABLE. IT HAS ALREADY STARTED IN LONDON. ISLAM CONTROLS THE STREETS IN MANY AREAS. Islam is now out of control. LETS HAVE A REFERENDUM ON ITS COMPLETE REMOVAL.

    • RobertDeLuce

      Should be Mail Parrot, repeating all the rubbish you read in that arse wipe. So, tell me, where do you live in London. And yes, I do, have done so for 30 years, seeing nothing of what you describe..

  • polly parrot

    The British need to get their heads around the fact that parliament is slowly destroying our armed forces because they are making way for the new EU armed forces…..The EU wants its own military and, in Gordon Brown signing the treaty, we have already consented to EU armed forces to be deployed on British soil. Get with the bigger picture boys. YOU AINT IN A DEMOCRACY. YOU AINT COMING OUT OF THE EU. YOU AINT GOING TO HAVE A BRITISH ARMED FORCE IN THE FUTURE. YOU WILL BE PART OF AN EU ARMED FORCE THAT WILL BACK AMERICA.

  • Richard Stringer

    The government cut disabled people’s money, they cut our military leaving us vulnerable to attack if any country wants to try and invade and yet politicians give themselves pay rises and claim for every penny they can on their expenses accounts. There’s nothing we can do about it as us, the general public cannot beat the government because all political parties are corrupt, selfish and greedy so who ever we vote for we get screwed. But muslims seem to be taken care of well, anjem choudry the islamic hate preacher receives £25,000 a year in welfare benefits and lives in a £320,000 home and hani al-sibai receives £50,000 a year in welfare benefits and lives in a £1,000,000 home.

  • The General.

    Now you know why the UK government grovels for special relationship status with the United States, we can only engage in military intervention these days by joining in with Uncle sam’s ideology and heavily rely on them for protection ….. A bit like the schoolboy who can only fight by hiding behind the classroom tough guy for back up.

  • BoiledCabbage

    Cameron is a show-pony. Just wait until cart-horse Corbyn kicks his ass.

  • FT_Ward

    ”2%…the Nato minimum”.

    The NATO minimum is a myth. It was never put to a vote as Canada and Germany told the NATO bureaucrats not to even bother. The British defence budget has always exceeded 2% of GNP so a promise to spend at least that amount could actually result in decreased spending, especially if military pensions are included in the calculation.

    Given that the British Army was incapable of pacifying Basra or Helmand one wonders what extra billions would buy in actual utility. A billion pounds purchases surprisingly little in the way of deployable useful modern forces. Perhaps rather than demanding more money those who call for another crusade in the Middle East should look to MOD bureaucracy first as a source of funds.

  • Innit Bruv

    Britain has caused enough damage in that part of the world. Time to give it a rest.

Close