The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Myrddraal]

because we've only just found out about these problems and in any case by the time this aircraft comes into service (if it ever does) I shall be long retired as indeed will all of my collegues and so it'll be somebody elses problem

there is nothing to reconcile.

the government determines foriegn policy goals and capabilities, and then provides funds to enable them.

the government determined a requirement for expeditioanry war and thus carriers, and i am happy to go along with that.

the above is totally separate from determining a need, creating a budget, then deleting the budget in order to boost a domestic program, while the original need still exists.

... ...

You're repeating yourself. Again. Even though I think I recall saying that I think we all agree that flip flopping on budget's is a bad principle. What do you want me to say? Repeat "I agree" every time you repost the same post word for word?

You seem to have a really blinkered view of defence spending. If it's going to be spent on defence, it must be a good thing, regardless of whether it's necessary defence spending, whether the money could be better spend domestically or even within the MoD. That's why I brought up the aircraft carriers. They're enormously expensive and have been approved because they are big, visible statistics creators for politicians to shout about. I would be a happy man if they spend every penny of those billions on buying proper boots and vests for the troops (and ... wait for it ... yes helicopters too). So do you think it's possible for investment in the army to be a bad thing, or is it infallible by default?

But please, I know you're not going to address these points. I know exactly what you're going to post next... word for word.