Would you accept cuts to the NHS to protect the Falklands?

// He said: “I am horrified our naval flotilla now comprises only 19 frigates and destroyers.

Small reductions in the aid budget – alongside cuts to the NHS and welfare spending – would help Britain restore its naval strength, he said. //

http://www.telegraph....nd-the-Falklands.html
09:20 Mon 19th Mar 2012
 
Best Answer


No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

1 to 20 of 22

2 Next Last

Cut the whole of the aid budget for it.
No. A lot of these type of questions are put as an either / or choice. I expect the government to use the vast amount of tax they collect off us to achieve both requirements.
Not necessary, there are many things that could be cut first. Cut the overseas adi budget first, then cut the huge benefits for work shy layabouts budget, which is larger than the NHS budget anyway.
oh and stop paying our enemies across the channel a billion quid a month for their gravy train.
It is unfortunate that he suggested shaving the NHS budget because that is what everybody will pick-up on - as demonstrated by the question.

However, there are plenty of other areas where money could be obtained from. The overseas aid budget is an obvious choice - China, India and Brazil, all of who receive our aid, but don't really need it. I accept its a quid pro quo thing (we'll give you money - you buy our products), but there has to come a point where we stop giving 'aid' to countries which have a larger economy than ours.

Another area is benefits. We have a large number of people doing nothing, have never done anything, and have no intention of ever doing anything, but receive generous benefits because.....wait for it......"I'm entitled to them". This feeling of entitlement needs to stop, and the obvious way to stop it is to stop paying them so they have to pay their own way. This will be good for them and good for society. People choosing to do nothing, when they are perfectly capable of doing something are stealing from the taxpayer.

Frontline services should be ring-fenced. I hear the term 'front-line services' a lot, which presumably means there are second, third, fourth etc... line services.

Scrutinise the tertiary services to see whether they actually deliver anything worthwhile.

It is ridiculous that our Navy has shrunk to this degree - and our lack of carriers is a national embarrassment.
Question Author
flip_flop

// our lack of carriers is a national embarrassment. //

Good news on that. It looks like the Government are about to do an embarrassing U-Turn and go with Labour's original plan. Two years wasted and £x millions down the drain.

http://www.guardian.c...s-costs?newsfeed=true
I think the Falklands reference is a red-herring though I take your point

We should be able to <protect the Falklands> without lots of surface ships. Our current naval and air resources are more than capable of stopping the Argies setting foot on The Falklands provided they and our early warning systems in the area are deployed properly.

However, the navy is embarassingly under-resourced and the main question is whether a choice should be made between it and health provision.

No it shouldn't. There are plenty of areas of government spending money on itself that can go.

In return for the outrageous proportion of my income and that of my companies that is taken one way and another in tax I require only a few things.

National security and health provision are at the top combined with a thriving economy.

Failure to deliver on these three are the worst sins a government can commit. Failure to deliver economically and the ensuing hardship for its people is the most common cause of death for governments. Failing in that and then failing to support people who can't find a suitable job will ultimately put any government where they deserve to be; dangling from a lamp post on the Thames Embankment.
This transcends party politics Gromit.

If the Tories have to perform an 'embarrassing' U-Turn, with the result that the carriers will be commissioned sooner, then great.
I expect the Govenment to protect and look after the population. Make sure tax is collected from the dodgers and we could have both.
Question Author
I agree flip_flop

It is only embarrassing because of how the Coalition Government trashed the last Government's decision and now find themselves going with it.

// The last government committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies," the document said.

"It will take time to rectify this error but we are determined to do so. We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the JSF with a longer range and able to carry more weapons. Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate in tandem with the US and French navies. //

An we should now have two carriers as originally planned, and not have to mothball one.
If we used our armed forces as a defence one instead of trying to be the world's policeman we could cut back drastically. We have to get into our heads we are no longer a superpower and that should be left to others.
^^

As this country is still one of the developed world's top economies with interests and influences on a global (and not always obvious) scale I would like to think that our involvement in overseas issues is part of a subtle and strategic 'long game' that ultimately benefits the British people in some way or other.

Trouble is, I find myself becoming less and less convinced by this idea. Probably due to a lack of any corrobarative evidence.

Can anyone point to some I may have missed.
cutting the World Service won't help, Zeuhl. That was an excellent and cheap use of soft power, far more use than an aircraft carrier, undermined in order to please Murdoch and get Cameron more horse riding.
Though I am professionally and instinctively predisposed toward the Media, and accept the World Service is a cheap way to shape public opinion worldwide over time, I do also accept it won't in itself put many bomb-craters in an enemy airfield - unless we drop Mary Ann Sieghart head first.
Interesting choice of terms Gromit. This government, probably due to tge mix of tory and libs are actually listening and are prepared to change as required. I quite appreciate thay you as a fan of his tonyness and bottler would not understand this.
Wow - amazing - a Sea Lord deprived of his expensive toys sabre rattles and all the little patriots sit up and beg!

He wants us to give him 2 £7 Billion aircraft carriers to do what?

Defend a couple of Rocks in the South Atlantic from who? an Army of 41,000 33rd largest in the world

When it's already got fighter aircraft and troops all over it?

It's a ridiculous fantasy dreamed up to appeal to the flag waving fools who want to think they're part of some special nation to make up for God only knows what inadequacies.

But no it's about the Islanders isn't it?

Tell you what we could give the Falkland Islanders £2 million each and pocket the change!

I haven't read such a pile of nonsense in years.

Next thing he'll be tellin us he needs Trident to deter Egypt from seizing the Suez canal! That'd be disasterous wouldn't it?

Oh wait!
but you are quite happy to pay bilions to work shy layabouts then jake?
no
Just a thought!

Do the British residents on the Falklands pay Income Tax, Council Tax and NHS stamps like we have too?
No

1 to 20 of 22

2 Next Last

Latest posts