Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

VM422 - NATO and Defence Spending Motion 2017 Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should this motion be passed?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    40.00%
    On the contrary, No
    51.11%
    Abstain
    8.89%

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not enough in my opinion.

    We would be happy to discuss measures to pay for it.
    You mean 'we' as in the Opposition? Because the proposers of the motion didn't seem to think that kind of detail was important.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You mean 'we' as in the Opposition? Because the proposers of the motion didn't seem to think that kind of detail was important.
    If you need telling how they want to pay for it I question your competence.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you need telling how they want to pay for it I question your competence.
    Despite the gracious one sentence they gave on how to spend billions and billions of additional funds, I don't think they're intentions are get clear at all - or that this motion was the product of more than 3 minutes thought.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Despite the gracious one sentence they gave on how to spend billions and billions of additional funds, I don't think they're intentions are get clear at all - or that this motion was the product of more than 3 minutes thought.
    Do you need me to cite how much the none core services, as far as the small statists are concerned, and tell you how many times over that covers the cost? And again: what GDP figure are we using?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you need me to cite how much the none core services, as far as the small statists are concerned, and tell you how many times over that covers the cost? And again: what GDP figure are we using?
    Oh, I see, I should support this because I can just cut other stuff even if they haven't demonstrated why these funds are needed and how they'd be spent. It's obviously fine to waste money if you can just cut other stuff. You've definitely convinced me, I guess I should change my vote. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We did fight terrorism in Afghanistan and article 5 was engaged. Granted, the treaty obligations around funding and military contributions need sprucing.
    Yeah but The taliban was actually a government regime as well as a terrorist organisation, NATO is useless when it comes to modern terror threats which is the current international security crisis, it needs to move with time and tackle modern threats. Working with Russia is our best option but Russia poses no current military threat, terrorism should be the priority.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    adam9317 could you change my vote to abstain please?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Oh, I see, I should support this because I can just cut other stuff even if they haven't demonstrated why these funds are needed and how they'd be spent. It's obviously fine to waste money if you can just cut other stuff. You've definitely convinced me, I guess I should change my vote. :rolleyes:
    No, that's whether the funding comes from, a few billion extra being spent is pittance next to the half trillion pounds cut.

    And let's try a third time: what GDP figure are you using to reach £14bn extra spending.

    (Original post by zayn008)
    Yeah but The taliban was actually a government regime as well as a terrorist organisation, NATO is useless when it comes to modern terror threats which is the current international security crisis, it needs to move with time and tackle modern threats. Working with Russia is our best option but Russia poses no current military threat, terrorism should be the priority.
    As I always say to those opposed to spending on conventional forces because current challenges aren't tackled with conventional forces: when planning defence spending today is irrelevant, you're preparing for tomorrow.

    You declare that Russia is our friend in an enemy of my enemy fashion, which may be true, but that assessment makes no consideration for tomorrow's battle which could realistically be back to the interstate days, whether it be with a rogue state or otherwise, at which point counter terrorism measures are useless. The nature of the defence game is that to retain equivalent protection it is very nearly a necessity to be increasing real spending as you need to protect against more and more potential threats. We should probably further boost our cyber warfare capabilities, but to do so we should not make further cuts to our conventional forces as if they are an irrelevance of the past, at the end of the day all wars need them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You mean 'we' as in the Opposition? Because the proposers of the motion didn't seem to think that kind of detail was important.
    The authors of this motion are not and have never been affiliated with the Conservative Party, hence the reduced level of thought and competence is not unexpected relative to what we would have done were this our motion. Nevertheless, i suspect that a majority of Conservative MP's support the general principal and thus at the bill stage (whoever wishes to push ahead) i am relatively confident that there will be little objection to finding a passable way to pay for such an increase.

    Naturally given our majority in the House, i think it would be a preferable to devise a solution which benefits both the Labour and Conservative Parties (legal disclaimer: this of course assumes that Mobbsy supports the increase and wishes to deal with you).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm voting against:
    a) an illegitimate motion;
    b) NATO;
    c) calling Putin a threat, especially on par with ISIS, which is retarded and resembles the common GCSE level understanding of international politics and indeed the world. :facepalm:

    I'm happy to increase our own defence budget.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am reluctant to agree to extra defence spending when there is no clarity on where this money will come from, or how it will be spent across our Armed Forces and MOD.

    I can understand the sentiment behind this motion, but will vote No for my reasons outlined above and in the OP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So much for fiscal conservatism.
    We find a way to pay for it.
    Anyway who said I couldn't be a right wing Keynesian(I'm not btw)
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    adam9317 could you change my vote to abstain please?
    One Nay changed to an Abstain for seat 26
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The motion is not great but I support defence spending increases; Britain should aim for European hegemony.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The motion is not great but I support defence spending increases; Britain should aim for European hegemony.
    To be fair, the way France is heading we're getting there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To be fair, the way France is heading we're getting there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is true, however, I am not convinced Britain has European naval hegemony with the Type 45s being few in number, and not being kitted out with all possible weapon systems; submarines all docked; and important weapon systems not being replaced.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is true, however, I am not convinced Britain has European naval hegemony with the Type 45s being few in number, and not being kitted out with all possible weapon systems; submarines all docked; and important weapon systems not being replaced.
    Well, thankfully until such a time that this government undoes my work the state of the TSR forces are significantly better than their RL counterparts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    RayApparently once again, could you tell us which GDP figure you are using to say there is £14bn more to be spent, for I can find no up to date figures which will match with spending, either RL or on TSR, with a difference of £14bn?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, that's whether the funding comes from, a few billion extra being spent is pittance next to the half trillion pounds cut.

    And let's try a third time: what GDP figure are you using to reach £14bn extra spending.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you need me to cite how much the none core services, as far as the small statists are concerned, and tell you how many times over that covers the cost? And again: what GDP figure are we using?
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    RayApparently once again, could you tell us which GDP figure you are using to say there is £14bn more to be spent, for I can find no up to date figures which will match with spending, either RL or on TSR, with a difference of £14bn?
    In the time it took you to repeatedly ask that you could have presented the calculation that led you to disagree with me.

    Whilst I can't remember my numbers google should be more than obliging.

    Current UK GDP: £1.9 - 2 trillion depending on exchange rate. Lower bound is from here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-since-2000/ and upper bound is from using Googles value ($) and multiplying it by 0.8 for the USD to GBP conversion.

    1.9 * 0.03 = 0.057 trillion or £57 billion. According to the Gov we currently spend around £35.1 billion (2016 figure) on Defence to meet the NATO target. 35.7 isn't far from 2/3 of 57 (which is actually 38 but we're going to be spending 36 in 2017/8 anyway) so we're on the right track. An increase from 35.1 to 57 billion is an increase of £21.9 billion. Simply increasing 35.1 by 50% is an increase of 17.55 billion. So it would appear that my estimate, which was intended to be conservative, was indeed conservative.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    In the time it took you to repeatedly ask that you could have presented the calculation that led you to disagree with me.

    Whilst I can't remember my numbers google should be more than obliging.

    Current UK GDP: £1.9 - 2 trillion depending on exchange rate. Lower bound is from here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-since-2000/ and upper bound is from using Googles value ($) and multiplying it by 0.8 for the USD to GBP conversion.

    1.9 * 0.03 = 0.057 trillion or £57 billion. According to the Gov we currently spend around £35.1 billion (2016 figure) on Defence to meet the NATO target. 35.7 isn't far from 2/3 of 57 (which is actually 38 but we're going to be spending 36 in 2017/8 anyway) so we're on the right track. An increase from 35.1 to 57 billion is an increase of £21.9 billion. Simply increasing 35.1 by 50% is an increase of 17.55 billion. So it would appear that my estimate, which was intended to be conservative, was indeed conservative.
    Ah, but one cannot forget that unlike the Trump visit there is deviation from RL with a boost of several billion of non capital spending, and several more in capital spending. With the figures presented £14bn is not a conservative estimate, it is more or less the precise value if we take the line of £57bn requirement, and my review was nowhere near what is needed.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.