“We need to maintain defence spending to protect jobs”
Protecting jobs does not seem to matter in any other sector. Why should defence be different from other sectors such as health, social services or education?
The defence sector comprises private industry, other government spending is mostly public sector. Why should private industry jobs be protected by the government when public sector jobs are being cut?
“We need to maintain defence spending to protect jobs”
It is illegal under European law to prop up a filing industry to make it competitive. This has been applied a number of times, for example to stop the French government propping up French airlines. Counter argument: Why is the defence industry being propped up with government money?
“We need to maintain defence spending to protect jobs”
The UK defence industry is hailed as a great success as it is our biggest exporter. If it is so successful and bringing in so much money, Why does the defence industry need propping up?
“We need to maintain defence spending to protect jobs”
If the purpose of defence spending is to protect jobs, why not give them jobs in another useful sector, working in a constructive way, such as civil engineering, major environmental projects, improved land management, improved water management, pollution control or research? Why should they continue to work in the arms industry and not something else?
“We need to maintain defence spending to protect jobs”
It’s not really jobs that matter to maintain votes, it is standard of living. If the purpose of defence spending is to keep these people in a manner to which they are accustomed, pension them all off. Sell off their places of work, stop buying raw materials, stop using energy making stuff for the sake of it and stop producing unnecessary products that will require careful storage and subsequent disposal. Why not save money by paying those people to stay at home?
Claiming “we need to maintain defence spending to protect jobs” does not stand up.
What do you think?