Search results

Which is exactly what I said?

I’m not sure I get your question, how else would they spend what money? I was responding to someone asking where all the collective tax income was spent, the chart I posted gives government expenditure broken down per sector to show where it’s being spent.

I didn’t post that to justify the decision, I was just saying the money saved isn’t being cut from the budget. All the service chiefs agreed with the decision so clearly they believe the money is better spent elsewhere.

Its percentage of government spending per department, not of GDP.

Which is why I said they were doing the strategic review, that’s to give the roadmap to get to the 2.5%. Collectively it’s not word soup at all.

The statement said the savings were being retained in full in the defence budget, so it’s there for reinvestment. Thats why I was asking when the strategic review was planned to be completed.

Not sure which sector I’d like to see cuts to rather than further investment tbh. Personally I’d argue the transference of wealth we should all be more concerned about is still to the rich rather than to the government, the wealth disparity continues to grow.

They have made changes. They’ve given the armed forces a pay rise, announced retention benefits as part of the statement today and already increased next years budget by 3 billion. Shitload more they need to be doing though, which is why the strategic review is so important.

You do know it’s not their belief in free speech that gets them jailed, right…?

It’s worth saying the service chiefs all agreed with this too, they clearly believe the money would be better spend elsewhere and I’m more inclined to trust them than the politicians. On the Marines, they can still be transported by the Bay Class ships. Clearly not ideal but that’s similar...

Only if people don’t hold them to account against it. Starmer has made a cast iron commitment to increasing spending to 2.5% and the strategic review underway is to say the roadmap on how to get there. If it doesn’t or if he doesn’t deliver the roadmap, then he will fail in that commitment...

They’ve got an odd grasp of the English language then!

Anyone’s entitled to moan, whether that’s about a party they voted for or didn’t vote for or whether they voted or not. It’s absurd anyone can think they can’t.

We know they’ve committed upping spending to 2.5% and are doing the strategic review. We won’t get the detail until they’ve done that, which I agree with. The question then though is when are they going to complete it as the sooner the better.

Yep. There’d be a lot more shit and no niche programming at all.

To be fair, the reason they’re being scrapped is so that we can build.

Fair enough. I’ll never change my mind that having the entire broadcast and news sector being privately owned is a far worse alternative either :) I’m sure both opinions have got a lot of people supporting them.

Given he doesn’t go into the detail himself you might be right. The optics look a lot worse than the reality with it.

Bear in mind it’s 3.5 billion, the rest of it is from money the bbc earns itself through other means. Politics (and more importantly news, given its increasingly blurred with politician opinion nowadays) is absolutely divisive as fuck. That to me is a strong argument to retain the news side of...

If you read the detail, you can see why they’re doing it. They do need to get a move on with the strategic review, not sure when they said they’d complete it by.