Lord Dannatt is, of course, entitled to his political views.
And he has been remarkably consistent. From working for Cameron in a Shadow Cabinet, to writing an autobiography almost entirely attacking 2 previous Labour PMs, to being ennobled by Lord Cameron.
But the Daily Mail and the like really need to stop just referring to him as "ex Army Chief". He has a political agenda. Which is fine. Just be honest about it. The Conservative Party talked about increasing Defence spending from 2010-24. Just didn't get around to actually doing it. I don't recall Lord Dannatt consigning those various Tory PMs to "the dustbin of history"...
Lord Dannatt is, of course, entitled to his political views.
And he has been remarkably consistent. From working for Cameron in a Shadow Cabinet, to writing an autobiography almost entirely attacking 2 previous Labour PMs, to being ennobled by Lord Cameron.
But the Daily Mail and the like really need to stop just referring to him as "ex Army Chief". He has a political agenda. Which is fine. Just be honest about it. The Conservative Party talked about increasing Defence spending from 2010-24. Just didn't get around to actually doing it. I don't recall Lord Dannatt consigning those various Tory PMs to "the dustbin of history"...
Has fairness been consigned to the dustbin of history?
The USA wants to reduce its contributions to NATO. And wants Europe, including the UK, to make up for that shortfall.
In the first 6 months of this Govt, there have been plenty of things that have not gone well. One of the few diplomatic "wins" is our cheerleader role for the US in persuading all of Europe (including us) to increase defence spending. There are all sorts of easy targets to attack Labour-this just isn't 1 of them.
And every extra £1million on defence spending is £1 million less spent elsewhere. Or an extra £1 million raised from the taxpayer.
The USA wants to reduce its contributions to NATO. And wants Europe, including the UK, to make up for that shortfall.
In the first 6 months of this Govt, there have been plenty of things that have not gone well. One of the few diplomatic "wins" is our cheerleader role for the US in persuading all of Europe (including us) to increase defence spending. There are all sorts of easy targets to attack Labour-this just isn't 1 of them.
And every extra £1million on defence spending is £1 million less spent elsewhere. Or an extra £1 million raised from the taxpayer.
I thought this was a row over how much each NATO member spends as a percentage of their GDP on defence, rather than a contibution to NATO. I thought that Trump was demanding that rest of the members paid there way, and not necessarily reducing their own defence spending. And that he had the hump over some of the members not spending what has previously been agreed.
As you rightly say increasing defence spending will mean savings elsewhere, or more taxes.
Comments
And he has been remarkably consistent. From working for Cameron in a Shadow Cabinet, to writing an autobiography almost entirely attacking 2 previous Labour PMs, to being ennobled by Lord Cameron.
But the Daily Mail and the like really need to stop just referring to him as "ex Army Chief". He has a political agenda. Which is fine. Just be honest about it. The Conservative Party talked about increasing Defence spending from 2010-24. Just didn't get around to actually doing it. I don't recall Lord Dannatt consigning those various Tory PMs to "the dustbin of history"...
The USA wants to reduce its contributions to NATO. And wants Europe, including the UK, to make up for that shortfall.
In the first 6 months of this Govt, there have been plenty of things that have not gone well. One of the few diplomatic "wins" is our cheerleader role for the US in persuading all of Europe (including us) to increase defence spending. There are all sorts of easy targets to attack Labour-this just isn't 1 of them.
And every extra £1million on defence spending is £1 million less spent elsewhere. Or an extra £1 million raised from the taxpayer.
I thought that Trump was demanding that rest of the members paid there way, and not necessarily reducing their own defence spending.
And that he had the hump over some of the members not spending what has previously been agreed.
As you rightly say increasing defence spending will mean savings elsewhere, or more taxes.