UK going to have to pay some of Ukraine's gas bill!

So these aircraft carriers we've commissioned that we don't have enough planes for - that's a sensible procurement? How about the £500m we wasted on Chinooks that won't ever fly because of a problem with their computer systems?

In terms of total spend we are the 4th biggest spenders in the world on defence, as a % of GDP we spend significantly more than places like Germany, Belgium, Canada, and the Nordic Countries.

Why? If we're to believe it's to protect our interests abroad (ie oil!) then why are we as consumers spending so much on petrol, heating and energy in general?

It's worth noting that the countries I just mentioned who spend comparatively less of their GDP on the military and more in other areas tend to have a higher HDI ranking, higher social mobility, lower inequality of wealth, and generally happier citizens. None of these countries experience soaring oil or energy prices and none of these countries experience threats to their sovereignty. We could strip our military back to little more than a nuclear deterrent and there's nothing in international politics that tells me we'd suffer as a result.

If the alternative is having Ukraine dominated by Russia, then we should pay them. Russia must be contained.

The problems you raise are problems within the MoD defence procurement process, not the weapon systems themselves. If you said we should reorganize and streamline the MoD I would agree with you.

And you do realise we can increase the welfare budget without having to cut other areas right? Your argument is illogical and not thought through. There is no correlation between amount spent on defence and social mobility/ HDI, don't be so absurd.

Sorry, wrote this quite late and probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.

There are massive problems with MoD procurement but even if it was ideal - to what end? Increased defence spending doesn't always equal greater national security. Compare the US, Canada and the UK. When's the last time Canada were the repeated target of terrorist attacks, or had prolonged protests and threats to their diplomatic missions in other countries? It doesn't really happen - they don't spend much on defence and there is no credible argument to suggest their national security is compromised.

I'd actually argue that a greater military spend and means more comprehensive armed forces means more desire in some spheres of government to involve ourselves in situations we don't need to (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria all the 21st centry). This in turn leads to greater counter threats to our nation which simply wouldn't exist otherwise.

You look at some of the countries who have a comparable military spend as us and it's quite easy to see why - India/Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey. I don't see what justification we have to spend a comparable % of GDP on military as those countries do.

Also, no - I'm not naive or silly enough to suggest that less military spend = greater HDI and social mobility. What I am suggested is that reducing our military spend to 1.5% of GDP would allow us to keep the elements of our armed forces that are crucial to national security (a nuclear deterrent) whilst simultaneously providing over 10bn which could be invested elsewhere.

Compassion and common sense. You're an intelligent man, you should be able to understand the benefits.

Hell, even Orcas adhere to the concept.

I know, I am actually quite lefty and struggle to see how those who are lucky enough to be spending thousands and thousands on a holiday can begrudge people in hard times being supported through the tax system. I was however quite drunk and it's entertaining baiting right wingers with their own credo.