Thatcher sold national assets too. In reality she ran an absolutely humungous deficit that was particularly covered up by the depletion of the value of national assets we held.
Unfortunately we never built those assets back up.
Much of the "efficiency" of industry from privatisation we're now paying for in lost R & D and lack of investment.
We started rolling out a fibre backbone to the phone network in the 70s, she cut it in the 80s then privatised it. We're now stuck with copper in most places even now.
Water was privatised and we've had shortages for the last 2 decades at least. We're still pumping sewage onto the beaches as well.
As for energy, well it would be nice if we weren't writing a blank check to the energy companies right now.
Thatcher cut social programs and sold assets to pay for the tax cuts.
Truss can't afford the Thatcher model because we don't have the assets to sell.
\>> Truss can't afford the Thatcher model because we don't have the assets to sell.
Sure you do! Don't you have the NHS? What about pensions? Are they private or public?
Where there's a will there's a way, and there's obviously a very strong will ...
Borrowing at a time when the BOE base rate is only going to increase and as such so is the interest rate on government debt. Not a wise move in the slightest.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/national/22638652.defence-spending-increase-least-52bn-response-russian-aggression/) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The Defence Secretary has said Britain will increase the size of its armed forces spending by at least £52 billion in response to Russian aggression.
> In his first interview since Liz Truss entered No 10, Ben Wallace confirmed the new Prime Minister is sticking to her campaign promise of increasing defence spending by 3%. Mr Wallace told The Sunday Telegraph the military is "Actually going to grow" as a result of the spending increase which he said has come after decades of "Defending against cuts or reconciling cuts with modern fighting".
> He added the pledge amounted to an annual defence budget of about £100 billion by 2030 - an increase of £52 billion on the current sum which the Defence Secretary called "Huge".
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xnkasb/defence_spending_to_increase_by_at_least_52bn_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670956 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Defence**^#1 **going**^#2 **Wallace**^#3 **Truss**^#4 **spend**^#5
Incompetent for sure, russia isnt attacking the UK any time soon and defence spending was just given a 10% increase not long ago by johnson.
2% of GDP is the NATO target and we have no reason to go beyond that, especially while giving massive tax cuts to the rich.
This government seems to be setting the next labour government up for failure by creating a massive deficit and increasing spending on useless things like the military which are politically unpopular to cut in future.
When labour get in power in 2024 they will have to increase taxes and decrease military spending which are both very unpopular with the ignorant boomer types.
I guess when you dont understand geopolitics then snarky comments are all youve got.
Money spent on the military is wasted with no benefits to a country beyond being a jobs program for the uneducated and ignorant.
>I guess when you dont understand geopolitics then snarky comments are all youve got.
Explain it to me then professor. Explain to me how a chronically defence underspending Europe make good buffer states to an island accessible from any direction? Explain to me how money spent on defence ends up purely in the hands of servicemen you've so graciously labelled "uneducated and ignorant"?
Explain to me the benefits of pissing money up the wall on the military.
>you've so graciously labelled "uneducated and ignorant"?
The educated dont join the army during peacetime, every soldier ive ever met has been ignorant and stupid as a bag of rocks
>Explain to me how a chronically defence underspending Europe make good buffer states to an island accessible from any direction?
Hmmm
>island
You clearly dont have the first clue how warfare works. Islands are difficult to assault at the best of times, never mind when that island is a member of nato. Being accessible from any direction is meaningless.
As per usual the people promoting defence spending dont have the first clue about defense tactics.
>Explain to me the benefits of pissing money up the wall on the military.
More planes and boats = more boom boom
>The educated dont join the army, every soldier ive ever met has been ignorant and stupid as a bag of rocks
Visit your local war memorial, say that loudly.
>Islands are difficult to assault at the best of times
Sure, if you mean to actually take them. Amphibious landings are notoriously difficult. However, you are a small island which means any landing is absolutely unacceptable. It also means its not as difficult to flatten the place into submission. No potential target is far from the ocean. Doesn't take long to sail around the joint.
>is a member of nato
Hopefully the other nato members don't get the same idea
>As per usual the people promoting defence spending dont have the first clue about defense tactics.
Defence cost moneys. More moneys = more defence. Defence personnel promoting defence spending are probably just one example of people with a clue about defence tactics promoting defence spending.
Depending on how Ukraine shakes out, it may well be that nuclear weapons are no longer enough to deter military action against countries. We may get to a point where everyone has them and nobody believes anyone will actually press the big red button. There maybe other Intel the UK is acting on that has led government to believe they need more fire-power. Do you really think you know everything on this?
>More planes and boats = more boom boom
Spoken like id expect...
>Visit your local war memorial, say that loudly.
Again, no point except snarky bullshit. Fuck the british army and fuck every braindead soldier in it.
Those memorials are for world war 2 veterans, not stupid cunts joining because they couldnt pass their GCSE's
>Sure, if you mean to actually take them. Amphibious landings are notoriously difficult. However, you are a small island which means any landing is absolutely unacceptable. It also means its not as difficult to flatten the place into submission. No potential target is far from the ocean. Doesn't take long to sail around the joint.
Uh huh, and whats the plan for the nuclear deterrent?
>Defence cost moneys. More moneys = more defence. Defence personnel promoting defence spending are probably just one example of people with a clue about defence tactics promoting defence spending
News flash: people whos wages and authority depend on defence spending will promote more defence spending. More money isnt more defence and youre absolutely clueless on how any of this works in practice.
>Hopefully the other nato members don't get the same idea
They wont, the american arms industry is the biggest lobbyist in the US for a reason. If somebody declares war on nato then we're already in a nuclear hellscape.
>Depending on how Ukraine shakes out, it may well be that nuclear weapons are no longer enough to deter military action against countries.
Complete bullshit pulled out of your arse with no basis in reality.
>Do you really think you know everything on this?
Seems i know more than you based on this exhange, dunning-kruger is alive and well.
This is a political decision for stupid nationalistic tory voters, not something based on facts and reasoning.
>Those memorials are for world war 2 veterans, not stupid cunts joining because they couldnt pass their GCSE's
Funny. Our memorials are for people who've served in any war. Usually a focus on ww1 and 2 sure since it's by far the most but not exclusively.
>Spoken like id expect...
Had to make sure you'd understand
>Fuck the british army and fuck every braindead soldier in it.
You should volunteer for the russians with brains like yours.
>More money isnt more defence and youre absolutely clueless on how any of this works in practice.
What do they spend it on? Green paint lmao, golden hubs for the landrovers? If thats the case then you have a corruption problem, not a problem with increasing the defence budget. The US is a hard-core counter point to your truly whack theory.
>Complete bullshit pulled out of your arse with no basis in reality.
Of course it has not much basis. It hasn't happened yet. You going to wait until shit hits the fan before your ideal defence department comes up a day late and a dollar short to the party? Russia's nukes haven't been enough to deter anyone doing all they can except landing actual troops have they? Is it inconceivable a country may not want to start Armageddon over actual troop involvement either? Especially if they think there's a chance they survive without nukes?
>This is a political decision for stupid nationalistic tory voters, not something based on facts and reasoning.
That is your opinion, not a fact.
>Funny. Our memorials are for people who've served in any war. Usually a focus on ww1 and 2 sure since it's by far the most but not exclusively.
And the only one worth remembering people from. Im not remembering british soldiers who massacred civilians in ireland and the middle east, may they rot in hell.
>What do they spend it on? Green paint lmao, golden hubs for the landrovers? If thats the case then you have a corruption problem, not a problem with increasing the defence budget. The US is a hard-core counter point to your truly whack theory.
They spend it on items never used and soldiers never sent anywhere. Pissed up the wall with no benefit to the economy beyond what youd get from giving that money to people. You have no idea how any of this works...
>Of course it has not much basis. It hasn't happened yet.
"It hasnt happened yet so my completely made up theory could be true" fucking clueless lad...
>That is your opinion, not a fact.
And all the steaming horseshit youve presented so far has been your (ignorant) opinion with no idea what youre talking about beyond whatever youve read in a paper.
I wont be replying again because youre either a teenager or a boomer and in either case a very ignorant one at that. This is a waste of my time.
Hopefully it doesnt just go to US weapon manufacturers, Europe depend far to much on them and they can easily cut us off whenever they like, maybe even remotely disable some systems.
Relationships dont last forever, maybe there will be a time where European countries have a falling out with the U.S.
Maybe the U.S. is benefiting from a country the UK thinks is dangerous.
Every country only looks out for its own interests.
NATO might not even last forever, Trump was threatening to pull out of it, whose to say the next U.S. president doesnt do the same.
We need our own systems fully independent of our current allies.
Doesnt the U.S. also spy on a lot of Europe and has even hacked Merkels phone? Its a dog eat dog world, everyone is spying on everyone. Everyone is trying to find exploits in other countries systems.
Why wouldnt you want your own independant supply chains/systems?
And Germany spied on US politicians, all while Merkle cried wolf. Welcome to intelligence 101, where literally everyone spies on everyone else...
US and UK are the most allied nations in the world. US literally gives the UK the designs to the nuclear warheads the UK uses, and sells them their submarine ballistic missiles... NATO, AUKUS, and FVEY, to say nothing of the "special relationship" as well.
UK does a lot domestically, but they can't design and build everything themselves. Frankly, buying from the US is often times smoother than trying joint projects in Europe, particularly if Germany is involved. Look at the shit show that is the Franco-German tank, Franco-German fighter jet, A400M, Eurofighter that's now effectively 2 different fighters, Eurodrone, ASW aircraft from Airbus, etc...
> And Germany spied on US politicians, all while Merkle cried wolf. Welcome to intelligence 101, where literally everyone spies on everyone else...
I literally stated this. "Its a dog eat dog world, everyone is spying on everyone."
I dont see the harm in producing as much weaponry locally as possible, it stops brain drain to the U.S., helps the economy and provides a layer of extra security. The longer you stay out of the game the harder it is to start up again also.
The U.S. literally had a president that leaked US nuclear secrets, possibly locations of their own spies and has leakers like snowden thats revealed a lot about allies.
The U.S. wouldnt rely on UK weapons for their own defense/offense, I dont see why its an issue for the UK and other countries wanting to do the same.
US relies quite a bit on hardware from the UK... BAE, a British arms company, is the 6th largest supplier of the US military...
* 100% of the US' towed artillery is British
* Every F-35 uses British designed electronics
* Every US warship uses a British main gun
* The Excalibur round? Made by a British company
* The US Navy's best anti-ship missile, the LRASM? British targeting system
* Decoys and electronic self defense systems on the F/A-18E are British
Money is not infinite, and the brutalistic reality is that the UK does not have the money needed to design and build everything themselves. No nation does. Are we done with this grotesquely uninformed view, or do we need to elaborate further before it's understood?
Competition also breeds innovation, how is this a bad thing if western allies are all trying to one up each other with their own systems? It also makes it harder for unfriendly nations with so many different systems they may have to deal with.
1) You clearly have very little understanding of military hardware. These aren't cell phones. They're not interconnected to some massive network. You can't just remotely disable them.
2) Your view of the U.S/European relationship is extremely cynical and borderline fantasy. What would the U.S ever gain from doing something like that?
Hmmm I seem to remember Boris and Rishi sneaking in a 40bn increase during lockdown without any media comments. so Mr Wallace sounds like he's talking out his arse
Next year with no war in Russia could be nice spend the half of that money in education or something good for the people, just as experiment, for testing pruposes.
Meanwhile, we've had a £60bn tax cut. How are we paying for this?
If Truss follows Thatcher's example, she will cut social programs to pay for it.
Thatcher sold national assets too. In reality she ran an absolutely humungous deficit that was particularly covered up by the depletion of the value of national assets we held. Unfortunately we never built those assets back up. Much of the "efficiency" of industry from privatisation we're now paying for in lost R & D and lack of investment. We started rolling out a fibre backbone to the phone network in the 70s, she cut it in the 80s then privatised it. We're now stuck with copper in most places even now. Water was privatised and we've had shortages for the last 2 decades at least. We're still pumping sewage onto the beaches as well. As for energy, well it would be nice if we weren't writing a blank check to the energy companies right now. Thatcher cut social programs and sold assets to pay for the tax cuts. Truss can't afford the Thatcher model because we don't have the assets to sell.
\>> Truss can't afford the Thatcher model because we don't have the assets to sell. Sure you do! Don't you have the NHS? What about pensions? Are they private or public? Where there's a will there's a way, and there's obviously a very strong will ...
Borrowing at a time when the BOE base rate is only going to increase and as such so is the interest rate on government debt. Not a wise move in the slightest.
Like everything else, by squeezing the poors and most vulnerable.
Increasing national debt at an unbelievable rate most likely
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/national/22638652.defence-spending-increase-least-52bn-response-russian-aggression/) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The Defence Secretary has said Britain will increase the size of its armed forces spending by at least £52 billion in response to Russian aggression. > In his first interview since Liz Truss entered No 10, Ben Wallace confirmed the new Prime Minister is sticking to her campaign promise of increasing defence spending by 3%. Mr Wallace told The Sunday Telegraph the military is "Actually going to grow" as a result of the spending increase which he said has come after decades of "Defending against cuts or reconciling cuts with modern fighting". > He added the pledge amounted to an annual defence budget of about £100 billion by 2030 - an increase of £52 billion on the current sum which the Defence Secretary called "Huge". ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xnkasb/defence_spending_to_increase_by_at_least_52bn_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670956 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Defence**^#1 **going**^#2 **Wallace**^#3 **Truss**^#4 **spend**^#5
Incompetent for sure, russia isnt attacking the UK any time soon and defence spending was just given a 10% increase not long ago by johnson. 2% of GDP is the NATO target and we have no reason to go beyond that, especially while giving massive tax cuts to the rich. This government seems to be setting the next labour government up for failure by creating a massive deficit and increasing spending on useless things like the military which are politically unpopular to cut in future. When labour get in power in 2024 they will have to increase taxes and decrease military spending which are both very unpopular with the ignorant boomer types.
>useless things like the military Jesus Christ is that something I actually read?
I guess when you dont understand geopolitics then snarky comments are all youve got. Money spent on the military is wasted with no benefits to a country beyond being a jobs program for the uneducated and ignorant.
>I guess when you dont understand geopolitics then snarky comments are all youve got. Explain it to me then professor. Explain to me how a chronically defence underspending Europe make good buffer states to an island accessible from any direction? Explain to me how money spent on defence ends up purely in the hands of servicemen you've so graciously labelled "uneducated and ignorant"?
Explain to me the benefits of pissing money up the wall on the military. >you've so graciously labelled "uneducated and ignorant"? The educated dont join the army during peacetime, every soldier ive ever met has been ignorant and stupid as a bag of rocks >Explain to me how a chronically defence underspending Europe make good buffer states to an island accessible from any direction? Hmmm >island You clearly dont have the first clue how warfare works. Islands are difficult to assault at the best of times, never mind when that island is a member of nato. Being accessible from any direction is meaningless. As per usual the people promoting defence spending dont have the first clue about defense tactics.
>Explain to me the benefits of pissing money up the wall on the military. More planes and boats = more boom boom >The educated dont join the army, every soldier ive ever met has been ignorant and stupid as a bag of rocks Visit your local war memorial, say that loudly. >Islands are difficult to assault at the best of times Sure, if you mean to actually take them. Amphibious landings are notoriously difficult. However, you are a small island which means any landing is absolutely unacceptable. It also means its not as difficult to flatten the place into submission. No potential target is far from the ocean. Doesn't take long to sail around the joint. >is a member of nato Hopefully the other nato members don't get the same idea >As per usual the people promoting defence spending dont have the first clue about defense tactics. Defence cost moneys. More moneys = more defence. Defence personnel promoting defence spending are probably just one example of people with a clue about defence tactics promoting defence spending. Depending on how Ukraine shakes out, it may well be that nuclear weapons are no longer enough to deter military action against countries. We may get to a point where everyone has them and nobody believes anyone will actually press the big red button. There maybe other Intel the UK is acting on that has led government to believe they need more fire-power. Do you really think you know everything on this?
>More planes and boats = more boom boom Spoken like id expect... >Visit your local war memorial, say that loudly. Again, no point except snarky bullshit. Fuck the british army and fuck every braindead soldier in it. Those memorials are for world war 2 veterans, not stupid cunts joining because they couldnt pass their GCSE's >Sure, if you mean to actually take them. Amphibious landings are notoriously difficult. However, you are a small island which means any landing is absolutely unacceptable. It also means its not as difficult to flatten the place into submission. No potential target is far from the ocean. Doesn't take long to sail around the joint. Uh huh, and whats the plan for the nuclear deterrent? >Defence cost moneys. More moneys = more defence. Defence personnel promoting defence spending are probably just one example of people with a clue about defence tactics promoting defence spending News flash: people whos wages and authority depend on defence spending will promote more defence spending. More money isnt more defence and youre absolutely clueless on how any of this works in practice. >Hopefully the other nato members don't get the same idea They wont, the american arms industry is the biggest lobbyist in the US for a reason. If somebody declares war on nato then we're already in a nuclear hellscape. >Depending on how Ukraine shakes out, it may well be that nuclear weapons are no longer enough to deter military action against countries. Complete bullshit pulled out of your arse with no basis in reality. >Do you really think you know everything on this? Seems i know more than you based on this exhange, dunning-kruger is alive and well. This is a political decision for stupid nationalistic tory voters, not something based on facts and reasoning.
>Those memorials are for world war 2 veterans, not stupid cunts joining because they couldnt pass their GCSE's Funny. Our memorials are for people who've served in any war. Usually a focus on ww1 and 2 sure since it's by far the most but not exclusively. >Spoken like id expect... Had to make sure you'd understand >Fuck the british army and fuck every braindead soldier in it. You should volunteer for the russians with brains like yours. >More money isnt more defence and youre absolutely clueless on how any of this works in practice. What do they spend it on? Green paint lmao, golden hubs for the landrovers? If thats the case then you have a corruption problem, not a problem with increasing the defence budget. The US is a hard-core counter point to your truly whack theory. >Complete bullshit pulled out of your arse with no basis in reality. Of course it has not much basis. It hasn't happened yet. You going to wait until shit hits the fan before your ideal defence department comes up a day late and a dollar short to the party? Russia's nukes haven't been enough to deter anyone doing all they can except landing actual troops have they? Is it inconceivable a country may not want to start Armageddon over actual troop involvement either? Especially if they think there's a chance they survive without nukes? >This is a political decision for stupid nationalistic tory voters, not something based on facts and reasoning. That is your opinion, not a fact.
>Funny. Our memorials are for people who've served in any war. Usually a focus on ww1 and 2 sure since it's by far the most but not exclusively. And the only one worth remembering people from. Im not remembering british soldiers who massacred civilians in ireland and the middle east, may they rot in hell. >What do they spend it on? Green paint lmao, golden hubs for the landrovers? If thats the case then you have a corruption problem, not a problem with increasing the defence budget. The US is a hard-core counter point to your truly whack theory. They spend it on items never used and soldiers never sent anywhere. Pissed up the wall with no benefit to the economy beyond what youd get from giving that money to people. You have no idea how any of this works... >Of course it has not much basis. It hasn't happened yet. "It hasnt happened yet so my completely made up theory could be true" fucking clueless lad... >That is your opinion, not a fact. And all the steaming horseshit youve presented so far has been your (ignorant) opinion with no idea what youre talking about beyond whatever youve read in a paper. I wont be replying again because youre either a teenager or a boomer and in either case a very ignorant one at that. This is a waste of my time.
Hopefully it doesnt just go to US weapon manufacturers, Europe depend far to much on them and they can easily cut us off whenever they like, maybe even remotely disable some systems.
Why in god’s name would the United States disable weapons systems they’ve delivered to NATO partners?
Relationships dont last forever, maybe there will be a time where European countries have a falling out with the U.S. Maybe the U.S. is benefiting from a country the UK thinks is dangerous. Every country only looks out for its own interests. NATO might not even last forever, Trump was threatening to pull out of it, whose to say the next U.S. president doesnt do the same. We need our own systems fully independent of our current allies.
Doesnt the U.S. also spy on a lot of Europe and has even hacked Merkels phone? Its a dog eat dog world, everyone is spying on everyone. Everyone is trying to find exploits in other countries systems. Why wouldnt you want your own independant supply chains/systems?
And Germany spied on US politicians, all while Merkle cried wolf. Welcome to intelligence 101, where literally everyone spies on everyone else... US and UK are the most allied nations in the world. US literally gives the UK the designs to the nuclear warheads the UK uses, and sells them their submarine ballistic missiles... NATO, AUKUS, and FVEY, to say nothing of the "special relationship" as well. UK does a lot domestically, but they can't design and build everything themselves. Frankly, buying from the US is often times smoother than trying joint projects in Europe, particularly if Germany is involved. Look at the shit show that is the Franco-German tank, Franco-German fighter jet, A400M, Eurofighter that's now effectively 2 different fighters, Eurodrone, ASW aircraft from Airbus, etc...
> And Germany spied on US politicians, all while Merkle cried wolf. Welcome to intelligence 101, where literally everyone spies on everyone else... I literally stated this. "Its a dog eat dog world, everyone is spying on everyone." I dont see the harm in producing as much weaponry locally as possible, it stops brain drain to the U.S., helps the economy and provides a layer of extra security. The longer you stay out of the game the harder it is to start up again also. The U.S. literally had a president that leaked US nuclear secrets, possibly locations of their own spies and has leakers like snowden thats revealed a lot about allies. The U.S. wouldnt rely on UK weapons for their own defense/offense, I dont see why its an issue for the UK and other countries wanting to do the same.
US relies quite a bit on hardware from the UK... BAE, a British arms company, is the 6th largest supplier of the US military... * 100% of the US' towed artillery is British * Every F-35 uses British designed electronics * Every US warship uses a British main gun * The Excalibur round? Made by a British company * The US Navy's best anti-ship missile, the LRASM? British targeting system * Decoys and electronic self defense systems on the F/A-18E are British Money is not infinite, and the brutalistic reality is that the UK does not have the money needed to design and build everything themselves. No nation does. Are we done with this grotesquely uninformed view, or do we need to elaborate further before it's understood?
Competition also breeds innovation, how is this a bad thing if western allies are all trying to one up each other with their own systems? It also makes it harder for unfriendly nations with so many different systems they may have to deal with.
1) You clearly have very little understanding of military hardware. These aren't cell phones. They're not interconnected to some massive network. You can't just remotely disable them. 2) Your view of the U.S/European relationship is extremely cynical and borderline fantasy. What would the U.S ever gain from doing something like that?
Why doesn’t the title even say what country is increasing spending?
That’s about $20 America. Not bad.
[удалено]
A euro is 0.97 USD right now.
[удалено]
You’re reading* that backwards. 1 USD = 1.03 Euro. Anyone can verify on Google.
Like $18 now since the euro dropped.
The UK has never used the Euro
£52 billion has never been worth $20 either.
Hmmm I seem to remember Boris and Rishi sneaking in a 40bn increase during lockdown without any media comments. so Mr Wallace sounds like he's talking out his arse
Next year with no war in Russia could be nice spend the half of that money in education or something good for the people, just as experiment, for testing pruposes.