10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees. The Government has announced plans to cut the British Navy in half! The Navy is understandably livid!

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml)
"Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts."

"MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy."

"A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us.""

10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees.

Of course. Unfortunately it seems its taken most people 10 years to realise...

I bet they still vote for them though. :(

(I might do another thread with the equally appalling RAF stats another day.)

I feel sorry for the young men of today.
I had the chance, not in the Royal, but in the Merchant Navy to sail the seas of the world.
Back then there were many opportunities and many ships.
Today, things are not the same.
We fly everywhere, and time seems of the essence.
The first ship I sailed on was like something from a 'Boys Own Novel'.
Penang, and Port Swettanham were amomg the places we went, along with Singapore, Manila and Hong Kong.
The wharfies built houses on the decks made from packing case and bamboo and palm leaves whilst they worked the holds 24 hours a day, slept and worked. Indonesia was a crazy place in those days.
It is a shame we have got to the situation we are in today, as at that time we all respected each other.

Cut in half? Won't the ships sink if they do that? :huh:

Cut in half? Won't the ships sink if they do that? :huh:

Not if we keep the bottom halves!

10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees. The Government has announced plans to cut the British Navy in half! The Navy is understandably livid!


The British armed forces have been on a downward trend since the end of WW2 under Labour and Tory alike (it was Thatcher's cuts in naval defences which made the Falkland invasion possible). The shrinking military is merely a reflection of the shrinking power and influence of the UK in general.

Some interesting "dug out canoes".............

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2230

Do we really need a massive naval fleet anymore?

Some interesting "dug out canoes".............

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2230

But what they don't tell you on that page is how many are actually available right now. Of the three aircraft carriers I think one is laying in bits being overhauled, another is having some smaller work done; only one is actualy sailing around doing stuff. And the original post points out that loads of the frigates and destroyers are in a similar position.

Do we need a navy at the moment? Well, arguably not, but would you want to be in a position where we had to go grovelling to the US (or France!) if we get threatened?! We've only just paid off the debt we owed the US from WWII.

Do we need a navy at the moment? Well, arguably not, but would you want to be in a position where we had to go grovelling to the US (or France!) if we get threatened?! We've only just paid off the debt we owed the US from WWII.

we'd manage, we have far better things to spend our money on than weapons, guns, tanks, boats and sundry just incase items.

we'd manage, we have far better things to spend our money on than weapons, guns, tanks, boats and sundry just incase items.

hear hear!

There was a slightly dippy aphorism I once heard, but I agree with the sentiment.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the hospitals, schools, children in need and the elderly in need had all the money they needed, and the MOD had to hold jumble sales and open charity shops to fund itself?(paraphrased).

Do we really need a massive naval fleet anymore?

In my opinion we don't.

Even if we had no Navy at all who in there right mind is going to attack/invade us when taking into account our nuclear capabilities?

Even if we had no Navy at all who in there right mind is going to attack/invade us when taking into account our nuclear capabilities?

Realistically though, we would never ever use those. Are they really a deterent?

Realistically though, we would never ever use those. Are they really a deterent?


'We'(i.e. the government), would use them if they were used against us. Otherwise: no.

In my opinion we don't.

Even if we had no Navy at all who in there right mind is going to attack/invade us when taking into account our nuclear capabilities?
well we need to protect the subs carrying our nuclear arsenal and what do we do when trident is decommissioned

I'm old enough to remember when Britian had an empire, and all the fuss that was created when a Tory government decided that we didn't need to patrol the high seas east of Suez.

Bit by bit, the UK has stopped deluding itself that Britannia rules the waves, and pretending that we are a world power in terms of naval superiority.

Exactly. We are no more than a shadow of the super power we once were, and as a result of this we should downsize our armed forces accordingly.
Doing so might just allow some much needed cash to be injected into worthwhile causes such as housing, the NHS, old age pensions etc.

The thing is: none of the military reductions of the Thatcher, Major, Blair, administrations have any basis in 'need', or 'likely necessity'.
They are all determined by momentary oppurtunism: i.e. "Oooh! We could save a few bob on this and buy some biscuits!"

(For 'biscuits' read whatever you like that gets taxpayers money ****** away on it.)

:confused:How do you do that thing where you put a line through your writing?:confused:

Do we need a navy at the moment? Well, arguably not, but would you want to be in a position where we had to go grovelling to the US (or France!) if we get threatened?!

Doesn't seem to bother the Irish, or the Norwegians, or the Swedes, or the Swiss, or the Icelanders ....

...why do we need any armed forces? Why would anybody want to invade us now anyway?

I feel sorry for the young men of today.
I had the chance, not in the Royal, but in the Merchant Navy to sail the seas of the world.
Back then there were many opportunities and many ships.
Today, things are not the same.
We fly everywhere, and time seems of the essence.
The first ship I sailed on was like something from a 'Boys Own Novel'.
Penang, and Port Swettanham were amomg the places we went, along with Singapore, Manila and Hong Kong.
The wharfies built houses on the decks made from packing case and bamboo and palm leaves whilst they worked the holds 24 hours a day, slept and worked. Indonesia was a crazy place in those days.
It is a shame we have got to the situation we are in today, as at that time we all respected each other.Likke you Artisan, I spent many years at sea, in my case the Royal Navy. We were in dedline even then, but our pride in our professionalism and our ships was tantamount. I cannot believe the government would be so stupid as to reduce the service as they are doing
Protection of Britain's sea lanes is now going to fall on the US Navy, which continues to build its fleet of carriers, subs, and support vessels. Much of Britains history of survival is that of its navy, which we used to caall maybe only the second biggest but not the second beat.

well we need to protect the subs carrying our nuclear arsenal and what do we do when trident is decommissioned

That was an extreme example, as Longcol pointed out earlier we still have a more than sufficient fleet for defensive purposes, not to mention the RAF and land based defenses.

As for trident decommissioning read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6197711.stm

The white paper outlined plans to spend up to £20bn on a new generation of submarines for Trident missiles.

The current Vanguard nuclear submarines need to be replaced by 2024 if the UK is to continue with a submarine based Trident nuclear system, and Mr Blair says in his letter to Mr Bush that "we have decided that we will replace" them.

Surely, the Royal Navy is changing with the times.. long gone are the days where we had an empire to protect which required a large navy. Our navy is still one of best in the world, be it not being the largest. Anyway, the Royal Navy are getting a few of these babies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_CVF_programme

The yanks have a single aircraft carrier with more combat aircraft on board than the entire RAF. With that kind of investment, we can't pretend to be a superpower and shouldn't waste money trying.

In my opinion we don't.

Even if we had no Navy at all who in there right mind is going to attack/invade us when taking into account our nuclear capabilities?

isnt our nuclear deterrent on a submarine though? So we do need some sort of navy.

Hi not only are they cutting the number of ships there is also talk of Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyard closing, plus the closing of one of the land based training ships. The training of the Navy could be put out to private contractors. Aren't we already being invaded by the backdoor anyway, with all the illegal immigrants.

We do need to remember, unlike many other countries, that we are an island surrounded by water, and our navy is the only force we have capable of protecting all our imports, the majority of which come by sea.
Any terrorist could throw this country into disaray just by stopping some of these ships from getting here.
We made the great mistake of allowing our armed forces to run down just prior to the last war, and only got through that by the skin of our teeth.

The thing is, who the hell is going to invade us? Erm, as far as I'm aware even the rogue nations out there are incapable of launching a naval assault on the UK. Besides, if there was ever to be an invasion then our air force would repell any attempt long before they got anywhere near our shores, unless the invading force had sufficient air cover and aircraft carriers.

Do we really need a massive naval fleet anymore?
Absolutely not.
The days of armadas of ships was over before I was born. Keeping large numbers of these huge hulks going is irrevent and expensive.

It is obvious to anyone today that the Forces now required are mainly ground forces, and many of them are needed for peace keeping excercises, and security guards in joint operations.

.
Any terrorist could throw this country into disaray just by stopping some of these ships from getting here.
We made the great mistake of allowing our armed forces to run down just prior to the last war, and only got through that by the skin of our teeth.
Malc, I think your arguments are relevent to a past age. Nowadays, a terrorist action is low cost and high impact.

Why would an enemy force spend time and money with sea conflicts and coastal invasions, when they can be so effective with actions which cost pocket money. Remember the Russian chap, last month who's radiation poisoning caused contamination across hospitals and several locations.

Remember September 11th when aircraft crashed into two skyscrapers causing massive upset and deaths in their thousands. You don't need warships to do those things. I bet you could do it even without aircraft..

Remember the Foot and mouth outbreak. All that was needed was one piece of contaminated food fed into the cattle food chain and the British Agriculture faces a major crisis which affects the economy. And the government has to pay millions in compensation. That could have been done for no money.

Look at the crisis in the water supply drought in the london area. It could easily be contaminated and that would cause chaos, and cost the UK millions.

So what jobs do we suggest creating for all those tens of thousands of "former defence workers" ?


It's not just about defence is it?

The thing is, who the hell is going to invade us? Erm, as far as I'm aware even the rogue nations out there are incapable of launching a naval assault on the UK. Besides, if there was ever to be an invasion then our air force would repell any attempt long before they got anywhere near our shores, unless the invading force had sufficient air cover and aircraft carriers.You are relying heavily on the goodwill of a Russia with Putin in power. China sits out there potentially much more powerful than Japan ever was. Some of us remember Pearl Harbor and what a moderate force of carriers is capable of. The strategic importance of the British Isles is enormous. Any power with a view to total domination of Europe would instantly remember Britain as the aircraft carrier of WW2. You take the protection offered by the United States as a given, yet criticize every action it takes.

So what jobs do we suggest creating for all those tens of thousands of "former defence workers" ?

We don't. Job creation is best left to private industry, which will only create useful jobs. Governents invariably bollix it up; witness the coal industry pre-84, the steel industry pre-85, the rail industry pre-90something, and the civil service and NHS still ongoing.

So what jobs do we suggest creating for all those tens of thousands of "former defence workers" ?


It's not just about defence is it?

It's not about defence at all. The Ministry of Offence might be more apt.

You are relying heavily on the goodwill of a Russia with Putin in power. China sits out there potentially much more powerful than Japan ever was.

If we spent our entire gross national product on defence, we still couldn't fend off either of those, so why waste the money?

You are relying heavily on the goodwill of a Russia with Putin in power. China sits out there potentially much more powerful than Japan ever was. Some of us remember Pearl Harbor and what a moderate force of carriers is capable of. The strategic importance of the British Isles is enormous. Any power with a view to total domination of Europe would instantly remember Britain as the aircraft carrier of WW2. You take the protection offered by the United States as a given, yet criticize every action it takes.

Erm, half the Russian fleet lies in ruins and they don't have the funds to run a large scale navy anymore so I don't see them as a serious threat. China could pose a few problems, but again the UK have many allies which could help fill the gaps, so to speak. Erm, don't flatter yourself, we don't require protection from the Americans. You keep up the idea if it makes you feel important as a country. Besides, who's help did you require for the invasion of Iraq?

10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees. ""[/I]


Errrrr in what way would that be, apart from to the readers of the Telegraph or the Daily Mail?

:huh:

Errrrr in what way would that be, apart from to the readers of the Telegraph or the Daily Mail?

:huh:

Don't you know that massive unemployment and economic instability is much better than the present situation. The important thing is that we should be ruled by patronising aristocrats backed up by blue rinse grannies. Things have never been the same since they did away with the feudal system.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves... not any more
You do realise that we stopped 'ruling the waves' when the US overtook us during WWII right?

10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees.
In what way?

The Government has announced plans to cut the British Navy in half! The Navy is understandably livid!
Well I understand why the Navy is upset, I've yet to hear any good reason why we should be though. We have a very large and very expensive Navy (iirc the second largest in the world) there is surely room for a debate on what the role of our Navy should be ie force projection which or defence and whether or not we want to keep on funding the former and if so to what extent.

So what jobs do we suggest creating for all those tens of thousands of "former defence workers" ?


It's not just about defence is it?
This is a rather weak argument the Navy is enormously expensive and because so much of that outlay is on on very expensive hardware employs relatively few 'defence workers'.

Besides since when was it the governments job to spend tax payers money to create artificial jobs? I thought you were a conservative aren't you supposed to be against that kind of thing?

If a job is best done by the state then fine I'm happy to pay for it through my taxes I am most certainly not happy to help pay for aircraft carriers and the like though just to keep sailors in jobs.

Erm, half the Russian fleet lies in ruins and they don't have the funds to run a large scale navy anymore so I don't see them as a serious threat. China could pose a few problems, but again the UK have many allies which could help fill the gaps, so to speak. Erm, don't flatter yourself, we don't require protection from the Americans. You keep up the idea if it makes you feel important as a country. Besides, who's help did you require for the invasion of Iraq?ERM You may say you don't need protection from the US, but its there anyway. As to your many allies. Of whom do we speak? France? Germany? Italy?. The commonwealth? Australia, deep in the Asian territories knows its best help is the US Navy in tiime of crisis,as does Canada. Why should Canada spend vast sums on armed forces when it knows it is in the front line of any potential attack on this continent, and America wouldn't let it happen. I don't blame Canada, good luck to them.
If you're willing to let a nation of nearly 60 million fail to maintain defence of itself, then you're not part of the people I came from.

I have always found that when individuals and nations seem (or appear to seem) to have a common cause then they unite. In the vast majority of cases you will always end up alone.

We do need to remember, unlike many other countries, that we are an island surrounded by water, and our navy is the only force we have capable of protecting all our imports, the majority of which come by sea.
Any terrorist could throw this country into disaray just by stopping some of these ships from getting here.
What alarmist nonsense, terrorists would have to stop a huge amount of sea traffic to 'throw this country into disaray' (sic) and as the likes of Al Qaeda's naval strength probably extends to a few row boats I'd be fascinated to hear how you think they could mount any kind of a blockade on the UK which even after the Royal Navy had been 'cut in half' would still be on of the foremost naval powers in the world.

We made the great mistake of allowing our armed forces to run down just prior to the last war, and only got through that by the skin of our teeth.
Which war is this?

You are relying heavily on the goodwill of a Russia with Putin in power. China sits out there potentially much more powerful than Japan ever was. Some of us remember Pearl Harbor and what a moderate force of carriers is capable of. The strategic importance of the British Isles is enormous. Any power with a view to total domination of Europe would instantly remember Britain as the aircraft carrier of WW2. You take the protection offered by the United States as a given, yet criticize every action it takes.
Sorry, but are you seriously trying to argue that China or Russia are going to invade the UK if we cut our Navy back a bit :loopy: why on earth would they want to do that even if we weren't a nuclear power which we are?

plekhanov, your political prejudice is showing, I suggest you pull your socks up. ;)

Sorry, but are you seriously trying to argue that China or Russia are going to invade the UK if we cut our Navy back a bit :loopy: why on earth would they want to do that even if we weren't a nuclear power which we are?I"m suggesting no such thing. All I'm saying is that there is potential harm there in the long term. Peace demands constant vigilence. We made a terrible mistake in the thirties believing in " peace in our time ". Not to study history is to repeat it. Few other countries on earth have the capabiliy to do what the countries I've mentioned have. But even Iran or North Korea would have a go at us given half a chance.

10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees. The Government has announced plans to cut the British Navy in half! The Navy is understandably livid!

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml)
"Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts."

"MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy."

"A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us.""

Typical selective reporting from the torygraph. They forgot to mention: He added that the MoD was building new destroyers, attack submarines, and support ships for the Royal Navy and planned to sign the production contract this year for two new aircraft carriers.

which the BBC managed to include in their report: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234473.stm)

Typical selective reporting from the torygraph. They forgot to mention:

which the BBC managed to include in their report: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234473.stm)

Exactly, Max.

No one appears to have read my original post, below:

Surely, the Royal Navy is changing with the times.. long gone are the days where we had an empire to protect which required a large navy. Our navy is still one of best in the world, be it not the largest. Anyway, the Royal Navy are getting a few of these babies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_CVF_programme

As I said, the above aircraft carriers are more than capable of defending the UK against any attack. Each of these carriers have the capability to carry 36 fighters. Long gone are the days of ship versus ship battles, the future is being able to take air superiority with you wherever you may go. The Navy is changing shape to meet this demand, that's all and if anything, I reckon we will gain more from these new ships.

I"m suggesting no such thing.
You weren't? In that case why on earth did you type out all that guff about "The strategic importance of the British Isles is enormous. Any power with a view to total domination of Europe would instantly remember Britain as the aircraft carrier of WW2." if you weren't suggesting somebody might invade us what was the point of all that?

All I'm saying is that there is potential harm there in the long term. Peace demands constant vigilence
Do our aircraft carrier builing program and renewal of our nuclear deterent not count as 'vigilence'?

We made a terrible mistake in the thirties believing in " peace in our time ". Not to study history is to repeat it
Maybe you should actually do some studying of history before lecturing other people about doing so, we had an enourmous navy in the 30s, the problems were caused by a lack of political will to tackle Nazi expansionism in an assertive manner not by an undersize armed forces.

Few other countries on earth have the capabiliy to do what the countries I've mentioned have.
What are you talking about, the capability to do what?

But even Iran or North Korea would have a go at us given half a chance.
Nonsense, Iran and North Korea are both obsessed with their own security and even if they did have any capability to do so, which they are a million miles from doing, they are far to preocupied with their traditional regional rivals to travel thousands of miles to come and have a go at us.

plekhanov, your political prejudice is showing, I suggest you pull your socks up. ;)
Whatever do you mean :huh:

Typical selective reporting from the torygraph. They forgot to mention:

which the BBC managed to include in their report: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234473.stm)
Yeah but did you notice that the BBC in it's usual commie manner fails to mention that we're only building 'dug-out' 'destroyers, attack submarines' and 'aircraft carriers' :hihi:

Whatever do you mean :huh:


Yeah but I did you notice that the BBC in it's usual commie manner fails to mention that we're only building 'dug-out' 'destroyers, attack submarines' and 'aircraft carriers' :hihi:

The BBC is about as 'commie' as a blow up doll darling. Perhaps you favour massaging the wrong part?

The BBC is about as 'commie' as a blow up doll darling. Perhaps you favour massaging the wrong part?

Perhaps it was an ironic comment. ;)

Perhaps it was an ironic comment. ;)

Yes dear.................:hihi:

I thought on the whole Britain waived the rules?

This is an interesting thread, and its a constant issue on the SF. What the right wing or conservative (large or small "C") posters seem to be saying is

We believe the right wing press when they say "This country is going to the dogs", but don't actually have any proper evidence or reason to back it up.

> The economic performnace of this country is better than it has been since the global economy opened out (post WW2).

> Infrastructure , hospital and education investment is way up.

All this nonsense about "but we are being overun by immigrants" and "crime is going through the roof" is just shorthand for

"We liked it better when the tories were in power - they pander to the scapegoating editors"

:mad: honk

And they moan about europe "trying to take us over" :hihi:

I bet they still vote for them though.

I bet I don't (and never have):thumbsup::).

ERM You may say you don't need protection from the US, but its there anyway. As to your many allies. Of whom do we speak? France? Germany? Italy?. The commonwealth? Australia, deep in the Asian territories knows its best help is the US Navy in tiime of crisis,as does Canada. Why should Canada spend vast sums on armed forces when it knows it is in the front line of any potential attack on this continent, and America wouldn't let it happen. I don't blame Canada, good luck to them.
If you're willing to let a nation of nearly 60 million fail to maintain defence of itself, then you're not part of the people I came from.

Yes.. you keep on believing that if it makes you feel that the US have an important role to play in the upkeep of security in the world. The film Team America.. World Police springs to mind as I type this reply to you. Just carry on believing the propaganda that your halfwhit president seems to feed you.

As for not taking security of my nation seriously, if only you knew. As a matter of fact, I'm a reserve with the Royal Air Force so don't you tell me I don't take this issue seriously. And, if you had read my previous thread, I mentioned that Royal Navy is reshaping not being abolished!!

> The economic performnace of this country is better than it has been since the global economy opened out (post WW2).

True. We have Thatcher to thank for that; it took ten years of economic dislocation to undo the damage caused by the previous forty, and turn our economy from a basket case into one of the strongest in the world.

> Infrastructure , hospital and education investment is way up.

I've yet to meet ANYBODY, blue, red, yellow, purple, or orange with luminous green spots, who cares one iota about how much gets spent on public services. The only thing anybody cares about is whether they're any good, and they aren't. (They weren't under Thatcher either, before you start.) Throwing money at them never helped before, isn't helping now, and won't help in the future.

True. We have Thatcher to thank for that; it took ten years of economic dislocation to undo the damage caused by the previous forty, and turn our economy from a basket case into one of the strongest in the world.

Errrrrrr try to remember 13.8% mortgage rates


[/QUOTE]
I've yet to meet ANYBODY, blue, red, yellow, purple, or orange with luminous green spots, who cares one iota about how much gets spent on public services. The only thing anybody cares about is whether they're any good, and they aren't. (They weren't under Thatcher either, before you start.) Throwing money at them never helped before, isn't helping now, and won't help in the future.[/QUOTE]


Well, try building roads, railways, new hospitals, schools or prisons without public investment.

The right dont seem to like any public investment, apart from that which goes to the arms industry.

Well, try building roads, railways, new hospitals, schools or prisons without public investment.

I wish we could. The victorians did all of that and more besides without public investment, and didn't give their Government any opportunity to poke its nose in and ruin the running of the places.

True. We have Thatcher to thank for that; it took ten years of economic dislocation to undo the damage caused by the previous forty, and turn our economy from a basket case into one of the strongest in the world.



I've yet to meet ANYBODY, blue, red, yellow, purple, or orange with luminous green spots, who cares one iota about how much gets spent on public services. The only thing anybody cares about is whether they're any good, and they aren't. (They weren't under Thatcher either, before you start.) Throwing money at them never helped before, isn't helping now, and won't help in the future.

It never ceases to amaze me the way die hard Tories can continue to ignore the facts that
A: Thatchers economic boom was funded by tens if not hundreds of £billions from Scottish oil revenue and the jumble sale of major national assets such as public housing stock, railways and BT etc.

B: The boom (singular) and busts (plural) of the Thatcher years followed global trends, apart from the massive housing value crash, which any nursery school economic manager should have seen coming and averted by putting downward pressure on the prices before the market overheated.

I'm no fan of Blair's Government, but it can't be denied that it was only after their take over that our economy ceased to follow global trends and continued to grow , despite reccessions elsewhere.

The Thatcher years were about divying up the returns from newfound global wealth and oil money among the wealthiest half of society and selling the story that everyone else would benefit from the 'trickle-down' (more like a slow drip) to anyone simple-minded enough to believe their propaganda.

10 years of New Labour seems to have brought us to our knees. The Government has announced plans to cut the British Navy in half! The Navy is understandably livid!

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml)
"Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts."

"MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy."

"A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us.""
What a mad quixotic world our government lives in, on the one hand interfering in countries around the world throwing its weight around joining in the uber bully Bush and on the other decommissioning the navy to save cash! absolutely raving stone bonkers the lot of 'em.

What a mad quixotic world our government lives in, on the one hand interfering in countries around the world throwing its weight around joining in the uber bully Bush and on the other decommissioning the navy to save cash! absolutely raving stone bonkers the lot of 'em.

I don't understand this post on several levels.

If we are not going to get involved - why do we need a navy. Its not 1939