John Healey resigns as Defence Secretary Plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Great I shall continue

I am not the one with multiple identities on here and over there , which I am sure you agree is a bit odd

---

Which other board? What am I missing out on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebird Karen

So you keep saying , and itÂ’s entertaining that it bothers you so much. IÂ’m sure there are literally hundreds of users who have disappeared from this board just to avoid getting abuse from the likes of you. IÂ’d say itÂ’s probably better for you to change your approach and appreciate other peopleÂ’s opinions with humility and respect.

Sadly ,I donÂ’t think you can do that.

---

Not with someone as sly as you

You have more faces than Penarth Town Clock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Not with someone as sly as you

You have more faces than Penarth Town Clock

---

I’m from Penarth actually :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebird Karen

I’m from Penarth actually :hehe:

---

I am not as stupid as I might appear


Do you remember Shoestring ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

We’ve had basically the same policies in the UK for sixteen years - austerity introduced to allegedly pay for the financial havoc wrought by greedy bankers. More than a decade and a half later, it’s clear austerity hasn’t worked and all we’ve got is an uglier country where the gap between richest and poorest grows ever wider.

---

Tell me you don't know what happened in 2007-2009 without actually saying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I don't think that we avarage oiks really have enough knowledge about finance to decide as to whether 'austerity' should have continued or have been relaxed. What do you think about the national debt now being at 100% of GDP, having risen threefold in 18 years?

---

the interest on the debt is about £110bn per annum...if we had more reasonable debt we could have a better NHS and an increase in defence spending. Some just can't see the benefit in cutting spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I am not as stupid as I might appear


Do you remember Shoestring ?

---

you're even less

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebird Karen

I could tie you up in knots with this one , and your knowledge appears very limited indeed if this is your best reply.

---

Yes, my knowledge is indeed very limited as to the complexity regarding the subject. That's precisely my point!

The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation.

Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere.

In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick.

Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions.

The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do.

Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published.

Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign.

In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebird Karen

The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation.

Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere.

In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick.

Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions.

The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do.

Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published.

Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign.

In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

---

You spend all of your very long message berating a Government that hasn’t been in power for two years yet, whilst also referring to something signed in 2015. Therefore the agreement was signed by a different Government represented by a different party, are you saying that previous Conservative Governments under five different leaders reneged on what they signed up to for nine years and it’s only since July 2024 that we’ve had a Government that have pursued the policies agreed under the Agenda for Sustainable Development? I’m no fan of Starmer or his Government, but there’s more involved here than simplistic party politics.

What a sad world where we have to prioritise spending on defence and weapons of war. So much for the "Ascent of Man" eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

What a sad world where we have to prioritise spending on defence and weapons of war. So much for the "Ascent of Man" eh.

---

Indeed. There have always been wars and, it seems, there always will be.
Until it escalates to a point where mankind is extinguished, that is.
As a species, one could argue that it's what we deserve.