Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Oh dear. It seems that when you dig into the Defence Investment Plan that all the big spending commitments are in the period beyond 2030 … and NONE of them have been guaranteed by the incoming Burnham administration.

22,101 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

14 Kommentare

Profilbild von Mike Martin MP 🔸
Mike Martin MP 🔸vor 3 Monaten

The DIP is basically a worthless piece of paper unless Andy Burnham guarantees that all of it ESPECIALLY the majority of the spend covered by the 2030-5 period will be in the next spending review. So @andyburnham … do you guarantee the entire DIP this binding your next Chancellor into it in the next spending review?

Profilbild von Mike Martin MP 🔸
Mike Martin MP 🔸vor 3 Monaten

Not only that … buried in the document are £10bn of efficiency saving that need to be made before 2030. So to get a £15bn uplift you need to find £10bn yourself….

Profilbild von Mike Martin MP 🔸
Mike Martin MP 🔸vor 3 Monaten

See here 👇

Profilbild von Mike Martin MP 🔸
Mike Martin MP 🔸vor 3 Monaten

It’s unravelling fast as the current defence team try to tie the hands of the incoming administration. Mad stuff. Labour civil war in plain sight.

Profilbild von John Foreman CBE
John Foreman CBEvor 3 Monaten

It’s maddeningly vague. And we also don’t know how projects are to be profiled beyond 2030.

Profilbild von Lesley
Lesleyvor 2 Monaten

Since when does a sitting government have to check with its successor before implementing policies?

Profilbild von Paul McGuinness
Paul McGuinnessvor 3 Monaten

14 years of defence destruction, yet you feel qualified to comment. Pitiful.

Profilbild von Spud
Spudvor 3 Monaten

they really are not serious about defence of the realm - we can all see their priorities

Profilbild von Meanbean
Meanbeanvor 3 Monaten

Oh dear Tories being hypocrites and liars again

Profilbild von Elvira Maddigan
Elvira Maddiganvor 3 Monaten

it will all falloever when we have to go to the IMF becoz Laour has bankrupted us

Profilbild von Gods of the copybook headings
Gods of the copybook headingsvor 3 Monaten

Diversity is our strength, not our armed forces. Stop war mongering and get behind the new arrivals right to housing, UC and PIP and all the other goodies they deserve.

Profilbild von meep meep
meep meepvor 2 Monaten

What a note for Starmer to go out on. But very fitting. Another misjudgement.

Profilbild von Gods of the copybook headings
Gods of the copybook headingsvor 3 Monaten

And remember we now know how government that each illegal migrant who comes here will be a net negative cost to the state - even assuming they work. As we can't remove them due to the ECHR, how do you propose we pay for their upkeep mike? Best we made peace with Russia?

Profilbild von Gods of the copybook headings
Gods of the copybook headingsvor 3 Monaten

We can't have our welfare, open border, state and a military. Now that more people claim more in benefits that they contribute, we will have to spend less on protecting ourself.

Ähnliche Videos

Why can’t politicians just answer simple questions about their job? Sophy Ridge asked Defence Secretary Wes Streeting a straightforward question he should have been ready for. You’d expect the person in charge of defence to have a clear position on the spending target for his own department, yet he repeatedly dodged it. She asked if he agreed with his predecessor John Healey, who said he was certain Britain should reach 3% of GDP on defence by 2030: “Are you also certain about 3% of GDP by 2030? Is that a target?” Streeting: “I endorsed John Healey’s resignation letter wholeheartedly at the time. What you will see from Andy Burnham and John Healey as prime minister and chancellor is a commitment to make sure the defence investment plan is fully funded.” That’s not an answer. Sophy cut in: “I’m going to have to come in again. You are the Defence Secretary, do you believe in the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030?” He again referred back to agreeing with Healey and then talked at length about setting out “what we will fund and how we will fund it.” Still no direct answer. Clearly frustrated, Sophy tried once more: “I’m not asking you to set out how you’re going to fund it. I’m asking, do you believe in the target that we should be spending 3% by 2030?” His reply? He wouldn’t answer because the next question would be about how to fund it. That is a ridiculous reason to refuse a basic question about your own brief. Just answer it. Absolutely pathetic.

J Stewart

41,512 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten