David Cameron is now fully engaged in creating the next generation of terrorists


Oh yes he is.

Cameron is planning to make it possible to drop British armed forces into other countries to kill people in the name of UK security.

He’s planning to use £178 billion of our money – not his – over the next ten years to achieve this.

That puts him near the top of the ‘cycle of international stupidity’ published on This Blog yesterday. Here it is:

cycle of hate

He’s preparing to “react to extremism by bombing Middle Eastern targets”.

What’s next?

“Middle Eastern targets are destroyed and civilians die. The behaviour of [in this case, Cameron] will then anger the people whose lives have been destroyed. [Then] some of these angry people [will be] radicalised by extremist groups.”

That’s when Cameron and his cronies will make their money because these groups will come to western arms manufacturers and ask for weapons. They’ll say they’ll help attack whoever the enemy will be by then, and the western weapons-builders will make a fortune.

That is what this is about.

Then we’ll get more terrorist attacks, and more spending of public money on responding to them. Perhaps more UK citizens will die.

So the result is that UK citizens – both civilian and in the armed forces will die, and the nation’s finances will suffer by around a fifth of a trillion pounds, in order to make a very few already-wealthy people richer.

Bear in mind that defence spending has a negative fiscal multiplier – in other words, it harms the economy. At the moment This Writer is told defence spending has a fiscal multiplier of -9.8, so for every pound spent, the economy loses £9.80.

That’s a loss to the UK economy of nearly £2 trillion, along with a loss of life that nobody can know in advance.

And people are ridiculing Jeremy Corbyn for suggesting there may be a different way?

Words fail me.

Britain’s army is to be restructured to form two “strike brigades” of 5,000 soldiers which can be deployed immediately to fight terrorists and others threatening the country, the Prime Minister will announce on Monday.

In an article for The Telegraph, David Cameron: sets out how he will spend £178 billion on military equipment over the next decade as Britain rushes to tackle the threat posed by Isil.

The Prime Minister will on Monday travel to Paris for talks with Francois Hollande, the French President, before returning to Parliament to set out details to overhaul Britain’s armed forces.

He hopes to convince dozens of Labour MPs to defy Jeremy Corbyn and back international air strikes against Isil in Syria, in a Parliamentary vote which is expected to be called within the next fortnight.

Source: David Cameron announces 5,000-strong ‘strike brigades’ to take the fight to terrorists – Telegraph

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

25 thoughts on “David Cameron is now fully engaged in creating the next generation of terrorists

  1. ian725

    I take it that it is 2 Brigades of 2500 men in each Brigade total 5000 . I also take it that these Brigades will be formed from existing Regular servicemen and not the existing Special Forces? Or is he to use the existing Special Forces such as the SAS? Sounds to me that Cameron will use this as propaganda to deflect from other problems in the UK such as cuts cuts and cuts again. By the way Trident won,t be able to help these Guys if they are cut off.

      1. ian725

        Mike 5000 men in a Brigade is a very large Brigade , I could well be wrong but I don’t think the UK has ever had a Brigade of that size formed. Sometimes the USA counts up to a 5000 soldier Brigade on paper but then they always want all things bigger. I would imagine an up to 3000 soldier Brigade far more pliable for quick thrusts into enemy territory… again just my humble opinion. Mind you that many men need logistical support and that would take up to a small Brigade.

  2. FreddieMays

    I like this article and there the common sense position is perfectly put. The cycle of death and yet more spending on arms is totally insane.

    But that 9.8 multiplier sounds like bad economics to me. You should explain it a bit better. eg how you believe it works. How does a £1 spent on arms lead to a loss of £9.80 (it just doesn’t.) And multiplying by 9.8 to arrive at £2 trillion?? It’s fanciful and a is a bit ridiculous, exaggeration which spoils your article.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      £178 billion multiplied by 9.8 is £1,744,400,000,000. Nearly two trillion pounds.
      I published an article yesterday with a link to an explanation of the negative fiscal multiplier. It’s not bad economics; it’s a fact of economics.

      1. freddiemays

        Do you seriously call that an “explanation”? It is “not a fact of economics” just because you state it to be. It’s not a “fact of economics” full stop and no serious economist would agree with you.

        How about attempting to explain the actual mechanism by which increased expenditure on arms leads to decreased income. Through what links, what is the causation? I think you would struggle.

        As for patronising us with a lesson in the 9.8 times table? Well yes I can do multiplication Sir. But can you do any economics?

        You ought to refrain from making these frankly ridiculous claims – especially when the bare facts are enough to make your point. People might take you a bit more seriously.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        How about doing the reading instead of haranguing me with economic illiteracy?
        I’m not here to explain every tiny nuance of every article to you – go and find out the rest for yourself.
        Try using a search engine to look up “fiscal multiplier” for a start.
        For the defence-related fiscal multiplier: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1744-8603-9-43.pdf
        There. I’ve made it easier for you.

    2. Daniel

      Let’s try explaining how the defence spend has a fiscal multiplier of -9.8

      A fiscal multiplier is, as I hope you are aware (though others reading this may not be) how much the economy grows (or shrinks, for negative multipliers) by for each £1 of government spending.

      Positive multipliers, such as infrastructure (i.e. spending on roads both improves transport times and reduces vehicle “down time” due to pothole damage) and education (training young people gets them into more productive and better paid jobs, increasing future tax takes and productivity).

      Defence is a negative multiplier, though considered an essential public good. There’s only 2 main spends in defence, and that’s inventory (equipment, ammunition etc) and logistics (both inventory management and transport), both of which do little to improve GDP.

      Note that, while defence spending has a negative multiplier, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t spend on defence, since ultimately GDP depends on us being able to defend ourselves, hence why it’s described as a public good. Except that the spending being proposed by Cameron is not on defence, hence why Mike has flagged this as “bad” spending.

      1. freddiemays

        Glad that someone is at least attempting to explain the issue. You’ve said that defence spending does little to improve GDP.

        But why would defence spending do little to improve GDP if the money is spent on British made equipment – with orders going to British factories that employ British workers who spent their wages (and pay taxes) in the UK? These effects work their way through the economy in a positive manner whether or not the equipment is used to defend the country or bomb brown people to further imperialsitic ambitions.

        So what effects do you maintain are at play to create this negative fiscal multiplier of 9.8? There would have to be some pretty drastic negative effects to counter those I’ve just mentioned. What do you presume they are?

        The notion that £178 billion spent on defence actually decreases future income by the the £2 TRILLION that the author is shrieking about is absurd. Remember that the entire UK GDP is not even 2 trillion.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        But then, the UK government does not have £178 billion to spend at this time. The spending must be spread across the next few years, if not at least the next decade. Therefore a £2 trillion loss is entirely possible.
        You see, I’m not shrieking about anything. You simply haven’t understood what Cameron is planning.
        In any case, continually demanding an explanation of basic economics from myself and This Blog is not productive at all. I don’t have time to nursemaid you through this information. I have provided links to the information you need in order to get started. Please use them.

      3. freddiemays

        I love the way you keep pointing to resources as if it’s me who has his failure to understand the issue.

        I’m not asking you to “nursemaid” me through basic economics. I’m criticising your blatant distortion of the numbers and asking you to justify your hyperbole. And you obviously can’t.

        I have a degree in economics. Do you? (no need to answer). If you were able to nursemaid me through the topic, or if you had any decent explanations to the criticisms I’ve made, then you’d have written them by now.

        If you had a better grip on the subject then maybe you’d be less prickly ie by patronising your readers, telling me what I don’t understand, pointing to papers and presenting their conclusions as “economic fact” without understanding them.

        The author wouldn’t say his findings were “economic fact” in a million years. His 9.8 negative multiplier is a result of his own empirical study. (And did you notice how wide his 95% CI was – between -3 and -16? He’s basically admitting it’s a huge guess up). But you blatantly didn’t read the paper yourself apart from the headline.

        If you asked 100 economists what the defence spemding fiscal multiplier was you’d get 100 answers and none of them would dare call it “economic fact” as you have done. So please, don’t ever accuse me of economic illiteracy.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        You’ve had two fellow readers trying to explain the reasoning to you and still you’re complaining and accusing? I’m starting to wonder whether you’re trolling me.
        I haven’t offered further explanation because I have already made available all the information necessary. The negative fiscal multiplier associated with defence spending is an established economic fact – you don’t have to take my word for it; there are others here who’ll happily tell you the same.
        Of course I read the paper I was quoting – I ‘m glad to see you have now done so as well, even if only in order to find ammunition to use against me.

      5. freddiemays

        I hope you’re not including yourself in the “two fellow readers”. You’ve made no attempt whatsoever to “explain the reasoning” yourself. None at all, because you obviously can’t. (The other guy merely restated it as a fact and couldn’t explain the mechanics either.)

        And please please please for the love of Jesus and Mary stop claiming it as “fact”.You’re starting to sound like Rafa Benitez. It is not a fact just because you keep repeating it. It is a theory. It is conjecture. There will be other economists who insist it is a positive multiplier, not negative.

        Given that none of your high handed, defensive replies have contained a solitary indication as to the mechanisms I’ll just have to give up asking you to explain HOW you get a negative multiplier. (yeah yeah, you “don’t need to explain nuances”, “it’s a fact”, “try searching”, “why don’t you read for yourself” – in fact anything but a simple explanation).

        There’s no point talking to you. I’d expect a bit of humility from a left wing blogger but you’re enormously condescending, thin skinned and intellectually dishonest. (Yes, dishonest – refer to my first sentence).

        And lastly your pathetic attempt to label me as a troll. Because anyone who dares to disagree with you MUST be a “troll” right? Pathetic.

        I’d be more careful when you splash numbers and economic ideas around if I were you. You should stick to politics.

      6. Mike Sivier Post author

        He does explain how it has a negative multiplier effect, though. You are wilfully ignoring this because it undermines any point you had.

        The insults with which you have padded out your comments only serve to weaken your own position. On the other hand, you are a troll because you are ignoring the arguments that show you are mistaken and punctuating your argument with insulting behaviour.

        You claim to have a qualification in economics, but it seems you have learned very little. Go away, study a little more, and comment a little less. I shall not be accepting any more comments from you until you alter your tone.

  3. Joan Edington

    The man’s swiftly becoming more of a warmonger than Thatcher and Blair combined. Restructure the army with 2 brigades, 5,000 strong each? I’m surprised that there are as many ground troops left in the army after Tory cuts and defence spending centred on Trident.

  4. no bull

    It seems to me like the build up to a war were a lot of well-heeled people benefit. Not least the Rothschilds who funded both sides in world war two. Perhaps we should not be supporting the war mongering US who have funded isis to bring down Assad in Syria! Maybe then the public would not be required to repay the bankers who are about to make the arms dealers very rich.

  5. no bull

    Good article by the way explaining the circle of profit and public manipulation. Divide and conquer the bankers’ favourite when the economy’s off the boil.

  6. mrmarcpc

    If he’s intending to go to war without a UN mandate like Blair did, then it should end him and get him kicked out of office like Blair should’ve done!

  7. felthamrich

    It would be stupid if Cameron was for humanity but he isn’t. He’s working for the establishment and the new world order aka agenda 21 therefore this cycle of death, profit and increased security, serves his agenda and his masters very well.

  8. Daniel

    @Freddiemays Sorry, cannot reply directly to your question, so I will try here instead.

    First, a disclaimer – I’m an economics enthusiast, but not actually done a formal qualification in it. But I do tend to follow logical assumptions, which is pretty much what economics used to be, though idealism seems to be more descriptive of modern economics imo!

    Buying bombs and bullets cannot increase GDP. Sure, if bought from UK companies, it would have a slightly better (less worse) multiplier than buying foreign, but then real resources (labour, metals, chemicals etc) are being diverted from more productive endeavours into defence, so spending less on defence will nearly always produce better multipliers!

    In addition, there is no “investment” in buying bombs and bullets, it’s just inventory, and inventory is sometimes described as “negative investment”, and for good reason – it’s stock that’s not realised it’s profit, and must be stored. Any business would rather sell all their products rather than be forced (due to underselling) to hold surplus inventory. Bombs don’t realise a profit at all!

    It’s a fine balance, don’t spend enough and you’re vulnerable, spend too much and you’re “crowding out” real resources – materials and labour – that could be put to positive productive use.

    The worst kind of defence spending is buying bullets and bombs to use on mostly civilian targets in the hope of hitting an enemy. Not only are you spending far more to take out the enemy, you’re usually also making more enemies (often of people who would take your side in the conflict otherwise) and you’re reducing spending on actually protecting your own population as well – how much has armed forces and police spending been/is being cut to pay for the bombs we want to drop on Syria to kill IS targets (but mostly innocent civilians)?

  9. mohandeer

    I’m OK with it as long as those earning over £250K and advocates of this madcap expenditure are paying for it, works for me, not sure if the Board Directors and Politicians will want to fork out though.

Comments are closed.