Why did David Cameron get rid of Armed Forces aircraft as PM? - Yorkshire Post Letters

So, the Foreign Secretary is concerned about the Armed Forces capability to defend the United Kingdom. This is a bit rich coming from David Cameron, who as Prime Minister, got rid of all our Harriers, Tornados and Nimrods before having suitable replacements.

He allowed the continuing construction of two new aircraft carriers, without the need to have aircraft to operate from them (having got rid of the Harriers).

These two expensive maritime tennis courts meant that the Royal Navy were then starved of their replacement frigates and destroyers.

The Army weren’t safe either, as the SAS Chinook fiasco continued, alongside the Warrior upgrade project and the selling off of our Challenger Two tanks, without having a suitable,

battlefield anti-armour replacement.

And having franchised out the recruitment of service personnel to a failing private contractor, he didn’t see the need to have enough bayonets to deter the Russians going into the Crimea.

I know that you cannot expect a politician to understand that military equipment doesn’t sit around, waiting to be purchased and that lead times are sometimes longer than the tenure of a Prime Minister; but he/she is responsible for ensuring that our country is capable of defending itself – at all times. Perhaps the RNVR/RAFVR/Home Guard should be re-erected?

So, Lord Cameron, the ‘peace dividend’ didn’t really happen, did it? We should never forget that ‘the friend of my enemy, is my enemy.’ Putin was around on your watch too, remember; or maybe, you felt that he was a person you could do business with?

Perhaps then, you could have a word with your friends in China, and see if they cover for our missing defence capabilities, in the short/medium term?

We all know we are short of trained military personnel. What should HMG do about it?