ricgem2002 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The cost of not spending that money now is Billions more in defence spending in the future. It seems like a simple money saving exercise to me. im glad your not looking after the purse strings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 It's called electioneering. Only 2 years to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 im glad your not looking after the purse strings Because you think that spending billions later is better than hundreds of millions now? Or because you don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 The cost of not spending that money now is Billions more in defence spending in the future. It seems like a simple money saving exercise to me. And the cost of borrowing it how far into the future is that going to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Expediency. Governments of all shades have spent money in various places throughout history, because it is useful to do so at the time, for any number of reasons, fiscal, political and humanitarian. This often involves dealing with some unpleasant people/states. It is too simplistic to say we shouldn't do X because B is happening elsewhere. The world doesn't function like that. Doing X may not be ideal (I'm not talking about foreign aid, just generally, could be anything), but it may be the least worst option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Since Blair all of our PMs have been more concerned about their standing on the world stage and leaving a "legacy" than they are about running Britain properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Because you think that spending billions later is better than hundreds of millions now? Or because you don't understand? i understand most things standing for the egg under the hat trick isnt one of them :hihi: (unlike some) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Since Blair all of our PMs have been more concerned about their standing on the world stage and leaving a "legacy" than they are about running Britain properly. True, but what do you expect when Bliar is making millions a year in 'consultancy' fees and the after-dinner speech circuit? I miss the good old days of John Major. Why? Because that government stayed in the background running the country, rather than turning politics into the dumbed-down celebrity-fest it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 And the cost of borrowing it how far into the future is that going to be? Less than the cost of borrowing billions at some point not long down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Because that government stayed in the background running the country, Amazing how close running is to ruining... Remember several of the issues we face today started in that (and previous) Government sessions. Although I seem to remember Mr Blair promising to revert several of those decisions in order to gain election, and then promptly forgetting to do so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.