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 Jammy Duel)
    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.
    Then it's an almost exact estimate... Hurrah? My criticism of this motion was not based on whether it was 14, 13, 15, 12 or 16 billion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Then it's an almost exact estimate... Hurrah? My criticism of this motion was not based on whether it was 14, 13, 15, 12 or 16 billion.
    No, your criticism was simply reaffirming Labour's stance of being #weakondefence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, your criticism was simply reaffirming Labour's stance of being #weakondefence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd suggest that standing up to this virtue signalling madness is actually an example of a great deal of strength on this issue - how easy it would be to capitulate every time the name of the Armed Forces - of which we are all very proud - is invoked.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Then it's an almost exact estimate... Hurrah? My criticism of this motion was not based on whether it was 14, 13, 15, 12 or 16 billion.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, your criticism was simply reaffirming Labour's stance of being #weakondefence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Jammy I'd say his estimate is correct , actually a tad conservative, there are ways to fund the increased spending though , he just won't like them
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'd suggest that standing up to this virtue signalling madness is actually an example of a great deal of strength on this issue - how easy it would be to capitulate every time the name of the Armed Forces - of which we are all very proud - is invoked.
    I guess if the NHS were in an even worse state than it is now you would happily leap to its aid and throw tens of billions at it in the hope of fixing it and worrying how to pay for it later?

    I'd happily see the defence budget double, and I know how I'd pay for it as part of a series of medium term projects, in fact probably the same way the authors would do so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I guess if the NHS were in an even worse state than it is now you would happily leap to its aid and throw tens of billions at it in the hope of fixing it and worrying how to pay for it later?

    I'd happily see the defence budget double, and I know how I'd pay for it as part of a series of medium term projects, in fact probably the same way the authors would do so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hear hear!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I guess if the NHS were in an even worse state than it is now you would happily leap to its aid and throw tens of billions at it in the hope of fixing it and worrying how to pay for it later?

    I'd happily see the defence budget double, and I know how I'd pay for it as part of a series of medium term projects, in fact probably the same way the authors would do so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Hear hear!
    More than happy - proud even - to say I'd be more willing to spend money on things that save lives than things that take them. Shame on anyone who disagrees. And our Armed Forces are not in some kind of crisis which can only be solved by blindly throwing cash at them. When we review our defence policy we might find we need to spend more than we are currently spending. And that is when we'll commit to further spending - not when the pseudo-party says we should.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    adam9317 Mr speaker, please change my vote from No to Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    adam9317 Mr speaker, please change my vote from No to Aye
    One Nay changed to an Aye for seat 17
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Quamquam123 how comes you seconded this but voted for abstaining?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    adam9317 Mr speaker, please change my vote from No to Aye
    Wait what?

    How can you support such a warmongering policy?

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Wait what?

    How can you support such a warmongering policy?

    It's no secret our military quality has declined, in a more detailed budget I'd love to see this spending go towards new technologies and new equipment. I also think it's important we show our commitment to NATO.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    It's no secret our military quality has declined, in a more detailed budget I'd love to see this spending go towards new technologies and new equipment. I also think it's important we show our commitment to NATO.
    1) prove 'it's no secret that our military quality has declined' when our military spending per capita is exorbitantly high
    2) why do we need a 50% increase when the military has been one of the most resistant departments of the public sector to efficiencies
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Quamquam123 how comes you seconded this but voted for abstaining?
    Hi Zayn. As I said to Fleky, I seconded this motion to allow a debate to happen, not necessarily because I agree with the it, because the Libertarian Party originally thought they required a motion to submit it. They do however require an MP to second future bills they create which I have offered to do, even if I might not agree with all of them.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Seconders should be required to vote in favour IMO, the whole point of it is to act as a filter and make being an MP meaningful.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Seconders should be required to vote in favour IMO, the whole point of it is to act as a filter and make being an MP meaningful.
    I'd argue the requirement for seconds should be abolished.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I would heavily oppose the above statement.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    More than happy - proud even - to say I'd be more willing to spend money on things that save lives than things that take them. Shame on anyone who disagrees. And our Armed Forces are not in some kind of crisis which can only be solved by blindly throwing cash at them. When we review our defence policy we might find we need to spend more than we are currently spending. And that is when we'll commit to further spending - not when the pseudo-party says we should.
    I'm sure all the millions who lived because of "blindly throwing cash" at the armed forces are mortified that we ever dared to do such a thing and would rather be dead, how do you sleep at night safe in your bed knowing the hegemony you despise allows you to do so?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm sure all the millions who lived because of "blindly throwing cash" at the armed forces are mortified that we ever dared to do such a thing and would rather be dead, how do you sleep at night safe in your bed knowing the hegemony you despise allows you to do so?
    This is unbelievably absurd. Please, provide any evidence that a lower level of spending would not be sufficient for us to be safe.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is unbelievably absurd. Please, provide any evidence that a lower level of spending would not be sufficient for us to be safe.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is a motion to reduce spending now? Ah, yes, moving the goal posts means you can ask for the unprovable to be proved.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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.