John Healey resigns as Defence Secretary Plan

[Wales-Bales]

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?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

[Bluebird Karen]

Not with someone as sly as you

You have more faces than Penarth Town Clock

I’m from Penarth actually

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I’m from Penarth actually

I am not as stupid as I might appear


Do you remember Shoestring ?

[Feedback]

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.

[Feedback]

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.

[Feedback]

I am not as stupid as I might appear


Do you remember Shoestring ?

you're even less

[Taunton Blue Genie]

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!

[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.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

[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.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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?

So, since 2010, when, from memory, the two main parties were saying we all need to tighten our belts (“were all in this together” ),the national debt has risen by getting on for 300 per cent. The lesson surely is then belt tightening, or Austerity, has not succeeded - what is the point of it if not to reduce debt?

It’s hard to draw personal comparisons between my standard of living in 2008 or 2010 with now because I was working then and am retired now, but I know that I’d really be struggling if I was fully reliant on my state pension and it’s only my Civil Service pension that means I am comparatively speaking, quite well off compared to some of my age.

I think it’s fair to say though that if you asked most people over, say, thirty five whether they’re better off now than they expected they’be in 2026 back in 2008/10 all but a tiny minority would say no - they’d say they have less money to spend, incomes have not kept pace with prices and, on top of that, all types of public services have got worse.

Nearly two decades of Austerity and “trickle down economics” has led to a world where, increasingly, people are looking to the political extremes for answers to making lives that are shittier than they were better- in UK terms, how many people who voted for one of the three main parties in 2010 will now say that the policies that were largely agreed on at that time have worked?

[Feedback]

So, since 2010, when, from memory, the two main parties were saying we all need to tighten our belts (“were all in this together” ),the national debt has risen by getting on for 300 per cent. The lesson surely is then belt tightening, or Austerity, has not succeeded - what is the point of it if not to reduce debt?

It’s hard to draw personal comparisons between my standard of living in 2008 or 2010 with now because I was working then and am retired now, but I know that I’d really be struggling if I was fully reliant on my state pension and it’s only my Civil Service pension that means I am comparatively speaking, quite well off compared to some of my age.

I think it’s fair to say though that if you asked most people over, say, thirty five whether they’re better off now than they expected they’be in 2026 back in 2008/10 all but a tiny minority would say no - they’d say they have less money to spend, incomes have not kept pace with prices and, on top of that, all types of public services have got worse.

Nearly two decades of Austerity and “trickle down economics” has led to a world where, increasingly, people are looking to the political extremes for answers to making lives that are shittier than they were better- in UK terms, how many people who voted for one of the three main parties in 2010 will now say that the policies that were largely agreed on at that time have worked?

anyone who was 35 in 2026 would be 17 in 2008. I'd expect most people to answer that question that they have less in 2008, as you don't really achieve financial security until your 50s on average.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

So, since 2010, when, from memory, the two main parties were saying we all need to tighten our belts (“were all in this together” ),the national debt has risen by getting on for 300 per cent. The lesson surely is then belt tightening, or Austerity, has not succeeded - what is the point of it if not to reduce debt?

It’s hard to draw personal comparisons between my standard of living in 2008 or 2010 with now because I was working then and am retired now, but I know that I’d really be struggling if I was fully reliant on my state pension and it’s only my Civil Service pension that means I am comparatively speaking, quite well off compared to some of my age.

I think it’s fair to say though that if you asked most people over, say, thirty five whether they’re better off now than they expected they’be in 2026 back in 2008/10 all but a tiny minority would say no - they’d say they have less money to spend, incomes have not kept pace with prices and, on top of that, all types of public services have got worse.

Nearly two decades of Austerity and “trickle down economics” has led to a world where, increasingly, people are looking to the political extremes for answers to making lives that are shittier than they were better- in UK terms, how many people who voted for one of the three main parties in 2010 will now say that the policies that were largely agreed on at that time have worked?

I still think that is far too simplistic. There are a multititude of short-term, long-term and very long-term factors both domestic and global that are involved and many expert economists have problems teasing one cause and effect from another, especially regarding the effects of reducing v increasing debt and how that debt accrued in the first place.
I don't pretend to know a lot about the subject (despite reaching the lofty heights of passing 'A' level Economics at night school ) but I know that there are many reasons for the UK's relative economic decline (i.e. in comparison with our European neighbours) going back to at least the Second World War (and arguably further back than that).
For my part, I'm all ears on the subject as 'I know nothing' as Manuel would say.
What I do know is that many people who dogmatically come up with simplistic solutions can be misguided.
I could be mistaken but Michael Gove (not a qualified economist) seemed to be in this camp last week when interviewed on Radio 4. His relatively simplistic views on the economy, driven first and foremost by political dogma, were challenged by a female economist (in a non-party aligned mode) who was aware of far more detail regarding the subject matter he introduced and that many of his suppositions apprared to rely on part, incorrect or fudged data - and other factors were conveniently ignored or not known about by him.

[Eric Cartman]

I still think that is far too simplistic. There are a multititude of short-term, long-term and very long-term factors both domestic and global that are involved and many expert economists have problems teasing one cause and effect from another, especially regarding the effects of reducing v increasing debt and how that debt accrued in the first place.
I don't pretend to know a lot about the subject (despite reaching the lofty heights of passing 'A' level Economics at night school ) but I know that there are many reasons for the UK's relative economic decline (i.e. in comparison with our European neighbours) going back to at least the Second World War (and arguably further back than that).
For my part, I'm all ears on the subject as 'I know nothing' as Manuel would say.
What I do know is that many people who dogmatically come up with simplistic solutions can be misguided.
I could be mistaken but Michael Gove (not a qualified economist) seemed to be in this camp last week when interviewed on Radio 4. His relatively simplistic views on the economy, driven first and foremost by political dogma, were challenged by a female economist (in a non-party aligned mode) who was aware of far more detail regarding the subject matter he introduced and that many of his suppositions apprared to rely on part, incorrect or fudged data - and other factors were conveniently ignored or not known about by him.

I've avoided this thread up until now because it's a complete train wreck of people with simple answers to complex problems, so I agree with you completely and am in exactly the same boat. Its better to know your limitations, the challenging thing is that people with almost no knowledge (not criticising anybody specifically on here - the wider electorate) are being pandered to by populists with slogans and soundbites.

Everyone wants everything right now, and everyone has their own particular flavour of simple answer.

[Bluebird Karen]

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.

There no doubt there is more to this than simplistic rhetoric however , how far back do you wish to go to suit your political agenda.You’re very one eyed it appears.

Fire away

[jon1959]

I am not convinced that debt in absolute terms or as a % of GDP (or similar measure to put the debt into some context) is the big factor. It depends on how the debt is managed, the strength of the currency and the 'health' of the underlying economy.

The UK is not an outlier. In 2026 according to one source I was looking at, a sample of countries debt:GDP % was:

Japan: 236.66%
Italy: 137.1%
Greece: 136.93%
United States: 122.3%
France: 115.6%
United Kingdom: 101.3%
Canada: 100.07%
India: 83.4%
Germany: 64.6%
China: 59% to 99% (some guesswork there).

Or here, which has slightly different figures but paints the same picture:

https://tradingeconomics.com/country...nt-debt-to-gdp

The UK was an outlier (apart from Greece and a few others) in the aggressive way it adopted an austerity agenda after the 2008 crisis.
It hollowed out public services - to the point of collapse in many areas, drove down living standards, and damaged the 'real economy'. It also did it in a 'zero sum' way that reflected corner shop Thatcherism, and did it incompetently even on its own terms. The unintended consequences and unintended costs continue to act as a drag anchor on society and the economy.

I am in the 'swords into ploughshares' side of the argument, but the way this current government has mismanaged the defence review is just typical. They have an uncanny ability to achieve the worst of all worlds and piss off everyone all at the same time. If there was an open public debate about priorities, risks and benefits and the real political choices available, and that was tested in an election or a referendum, much of the distrust and anger would be gone.

But as Paul (TOBW) rightly says, the current condition of the UK military has roots going back decades, and in particular is the legacy of the Tory governments from 2010 to 2024. Russian expansionism, cyber warfare, the 'drone' and AI revolutions, the break up of post-war military alliances, the strategic direction of China, and the global threat of US/Israeli land and power grabs are not things that only popped up after Starmer became PM.

And George Robertson - the author of the defence review - is not just a former Labour Defence Secretary and Secretary General of Nato. He is also a close ally of the Israelis and Americans and has had decades as an arms industry consultant (the Weir Group, the Smith Group and most significantly the Cohen Group). He has a personal financial interest in boosting arms spending. His appointment by Starmer to lead the review is as mind boggling as giving Mandelson the ambassador's job in Washington.

[Heathblue]

Oh here we go

They are all in tonight !

Its happy hour at pete and bernis conspiracy theory steakhouse

You need to

(i) Sit down

(ii) Stop Blaming Thatcher in 2026

(iii) Stop doing CIH jobs

(iv) Pay some tax

(v) Stop putting shit music on here

(vi) Shut the f*ck up

Break any of the above and I'm going to get you banned again.

Miller and Carter Thornhill has gone ahead of the Madeira as the preferred Steak House

THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER

All perfectly Normal.

[the other bob wilson]

There no doubt there is more to this than simplistic rhetoric however , how far back do you wish to go to suit your political agenda.You’re very one eyed it appears.

Fire away

What did I say in my reply that. Was wrong? This Government has been in power less than two years and you based your message on something that happened eleven years ago - how can you seriously argue that things have only gone to pot since Labour were elected?

[the other bob wilson]

I still think that is far too simplistic. There are a multititude of short-term, long-term and very long-term factors both domestic and global that are involved and many expert economists have problems teasing one cause and effect from another, especially regarding the effects of reducing v increasing debt and how that debt accrued in the first place.
I don't pretend to know a lot about the subject (despite reaching the lofty heights of passing 'A' level Economics at night school ) but I know that there are many reasons for the UK's relative economic decline (i.e. in comparison with our European neighbours) going back to at least the Second World War (and arguably further back than that).
For my part, I'm all ears on the subject as 'I know nothing' as Manuel would say.
What I do know is that many people who dogmatically come up with simplistic solutions can be misguided.
I could be mistaken but Michael Gove (not a qualified economist) seemed to be in this camp last week when interviewed on Radio 4. His relatively simplistic views on the economy, driven first and foremost by political dogma, were challenged by a female economist (in a non-party aligned mode) who was aware of far more detail regarding the subject matter he introduced and that many of his suppositions apprared to rely on part, incorrect or fudged data - and other factors were conveniently ignored or not known about by him.

I probably am over simplifying things, but I’d be grateful to anyone who can point me in the direction of anyone authoritative who argues that the policies based on Austerity followed by successive UK Governments since 2008/10 have worked. Of course, I accept that since the turn of the decade there have been unpredictable things like COVID,the Ukraine conflict and now the Iran war that have adversely affected finances globally, but we were suffering with lower than expected growth in particular in the latter years of the 2010s - austerity wasn’t working even then as well as the politicians were telling us it would ten years earlier.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I've avoided this thread up until now because it's a complete train wreck of people with simple answers to complex problems, so I agree with you completely and am in exactly the same boat. Its better to know your limitations, the challenging thing is that people with almost no knowledge (not criticising anybody specifically on here - the wider electorate) are being pandered to by populists with slogans and soundbites.

Everyone wants everything right now, and everyone has their own particular flavour of simple answer.

Well that's two of us in this boat. Shall we cast orf?

[delmbox]

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.

Holy shit Sludge is right, you are TWGL1!! He used to copy and paste stuff and pass it off as his own as well. Busted

[delmbox]

You need to

(i) Sit down

(ii) Stop Blaming Thatcher in 2026

(iii) Stop doing CIH jobs

(iv) Pay some tax

(v) Stop putting shit music on here

(vi) Shut the f*ck up

Break any of the above and I'm going to get you banned again.

Miller and Carter Thornhill has gone ahead of the Madeira as the preferred Steak House

THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER

All perfectly Normal.

And HB's having one of his sweary tantrums. All perfectly normal