I'm pleased to see the new money committed to the defence forces, as announced yesterday. Solely on this basis: if the government and public wants a quality public service to do the job, then it has to pay the price. There is no benefit in having the armed forces doing jobs bigger than they can handle. Hopefully this package of new resource can help resolve that problem.
To be clear, it's not that I am a hawk or a war-monger; nor that I think that military spending should take priority over urgently-needed social spending. It is simply that if we ask the military to do X, Y and Z, then we should ensure they have the capacity to do it.
What really made me laugh was National's response. From a party that cut defence spending consistently in its decade in office, from 1.6% of GDP in 1990 to 0.9% by 1999, it's risible to hear claims about Labour under-spending in defence. So what is National going to promise now? Billions more on top of the current package? Or is it going to be honest and say "yes, that's solved the problem, well done"? I'll let you guess which is the more likely response.
Comments