happyslapper
04-02-2010, 05:13 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be basing a large part of my vote on defence, in the coming general election. It's a struggle to get any party to say something meaningful, but here's a short piece which gives some general outlines on what each of the main opposition parties intend:
What would your party do for defence if elected?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
It is often remarked that the defence of the realm should be the first priority of any government. But what does the government need to do – and, indeed, what will it do – for defence? With an election approaching, DMJ asks a selection of contributors from different parties to share their thoughts
Nick Harvey, Liberal Democrats' Shadow Defence Secretary
The government's defence priorities 20 years on from the end of the Cold War remain hopelessly skewed towards the kind of big ticket, state-on-state priorities of that era.
Recent news reports have suggested Gordon Brown plans to commit to further huge numbers of fast jets, including completing the extremely costly Eurofighter programme. At the same time, Labour and the Tories are committed to pushing ahead with a like-for-like replacement of Trident. There is no sign of the radical rethink that Britain's Armed Forces so badly need.
Talk of a Strategic Defence Review is widespread, but the government appears determined to fiddle round the edges rather than ensure this is truly comprehensive. In particular, the replacement of Trident – despite being one of the highest-spending programmes – will bizarrely be left out of the Strategic Defence Review.
Meanwhile, our forces' ability to fight the conflicts of the present has been hampered by a procurement process that is too often out of date, hopelessly late or downright inept.
Nowhere has this been more apparent than the government's reliance on Urgent Operational Requirements to ensure troops in Afghanistan have been given the equipment they need – such as armoured vehicles. When it comes to capabilities such as helicopters, delivery has often not even been lastminute – see the government's recent announcement on new Chinooks, which will not be ready for operations before 2012.
So what would the Liberal Democrats' priorities be? First and foremost must be a thorough Strategic Defence Review. It must not be undermined beforehand through exceptions: everything, including the replacement of Trident, must be included. There must be no sacred cows.
Second, we need to see a much more responsive, faster-moving approach to procurement. It cannot be right that it has taken over eight years in Afghanistan before an order for new Chinooks even goes in. Equally, it does not make sense to sign up to spending billions more on Tranche 3B of Eurofighter when we are already committed to far more of these costly aircraft – conceived primarily as a defence against the Soviet threat – than we need.
Last but by no means least, we need to do much more to ensure the needs of the people we ask to carry out this dangerous work for us are prioritised.
Recent years have seen far too many procurement scandals – from a lack of body armour to the long-running problems of the SA80 rifle – which have endangered the safety of our troops. At a time when we are asking the British public to accept belt-tightening, and our troops to endure great hardships on the front line, we must be able to demonstrate that not one penny is being wasted while doing everything we can to support our forces.
The Liberal Democrats want to do more to support our troops, and ensure they are better able to do their jobs – from fairer pay and conditions to better housing and kit.
All of this will mean asking tougher questions of the MoD, on every issue, from the amount spent on staffing and top brass salaries to serious problems with procurement – from overruns to a flat-footed process that sees the delivery of programmes decades after they are needed. A truly comprehensive Strategic Defence Review is the vehicle for this – but it must not be neutered beforehand by a raft of exceptions, pre-emptions and caveats.
Liam Fox, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
The next government will inherit an economic train wreck. Naturally, this will have an impact on how national defence structures are organised.
Any future government will have the task of balancing defence priorities between the conflict we face today and wars of tomorrow, but will also have the challenge of putting back on track a decade of mismanagement and neglect of the MoD's finances.
But saying that we can only focus on 'the war' at the expense of 'a war' is not good enough for the British people, and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.
Given the degree and velocity of global change, defining our strategic interests and determining how to protect them is one of the biggest challenges facing any government. How do we balance competing defence priorities? How do we ensure that current commitments are properly resourced without neglecting future strategic challenges?
In order to make sense of this, a wide ranging and detailed Strategic Defence and Security Review should immediately be launched.
In sum, an SDSR will serve as the primary means of the MoD to assess the global and strategic threats to the United Kingdom and how our response to these threats will be translated into potentially new policies, capabilities and force structure.
There is a lot of speculation and talk on what part of the equipment programme will take the biggest hit under a Conservative Government.
Before anything can be decided we must first finish our foreign policy-based SDSR. There has not been a review in 12 years and if you start to cut programmes in a piecemeal fashion on the basis of costs, it's likely to have implications for your foreign policy that you may not have intended.
However, there is one programme that is exempt from the SDSR process.
In a world where unpredictable and rogue states are developing nuclear weapons, it would be indefensible for Britain to give up its minimum nuclear deterrent. We cannot know what risks we might face in the future. That is why our party wish to guarantee a round the clock, submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system for as long as it is needed.
None of this will be easy and difficult choices will have to be made, but we are ready for the challenge.
David Campbell Bannerman MEP, UKIP Deputy Leader and Defence Spokesman
Over the years, the British Armed Forces have been starved of proper funding by successive governments of all colours. This has meant insufficient equipment, overstretched resources, as well as excessive tours of duty, which can badly damage the fabric of family life.
During the current economic down - turn, UKIP is committed to making hard decisions on public spending, as we regard defence as a special case – our armed forces are fast losing critical mass and face yet more devastation post the General Election.
An extra 1% of GDP should be spent on the British Armed Forces as we believe they need better support and that the economy would benefit. This is an increase of 40% on the current defence budget. Under our plans, the British Army will be expanded to 125,000 personnel and the TA will be doubled to 80,000. Moreover, as the only party committed to leaving the EU, we will restore many of the British Army's historic regiments such as the Highland regiments, which have been subsumed into EU-inspired regional units.
The Royal Navy will be restored to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers (one extra), 12 Fleet submarines and some 70 other ships. There will also be 50 extra Merlin helicopters and some 7,000 extra personnel, and the future of naval ports Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth guaranteed.
Britain's independent nuclear deterrent with existing Trident submarines will also be maintained and then replaced in the near future with four British built US missile armed submarines. For the RAF, a UKIP Government will modernise the transport fleet, buy more helicopters and JSF aircraft and bring in 5,000 more personnel.
We strongly believe in properly supporting those who risk their lives for their country. A much more generous compensation scheme for injury should be introduced and the system of military hospitals be reinstated over time. In addition, service pay will be increased substantially to broadly match the police and fire services, and service families will be provided with much better accommodation.
Crown immunity will be restored and the Human Rights Act scrapped – it will not hold individuals responsible for collective military action, putting a stop to unjust persecutions of military personnel. And the operation in Afghanistan will also be appraised, and a proper single strategy set out.
We believe we are the only party prepared to give the British Armed Forces the proper resources, backing and equipment needed to fulfil their demanding global role.
--------------------
My comment.
For me, I'd love to say ''yeah great UKIP will give us the most'', but it's just not realistic, and we need experienced heavyweight politicians to get us out of this economic muddle. The Lib Dems are completely clueless, Labour's on a last minute damage-control vote-grabber, and the Tories are non-commital in the middle somewhere.
Feel free to post further info or opinions, and hopefully by the time of the election the British contingent of this site will have a far clearer understanding of how to get the most (r.e. defence) out of their vote.
What would your party do for defence if elected?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
It is often remarked that the defence of the realm should be the first priority of any government. But what does the government need to do – and, indeed, what will it do – for defence? With an election approaching, DMJ asks a selection of contributors from different parties to share their thoughts
Nick Harvey, Liberal Democrats' Shadow Defence Secretary
The government's defence priorities 20 years on from the end of the Cold War remain hopelessly skewed towards the kind of big ticket, state-on-state priorities of that era.
Recent news reports have suggested Gordon Brown plans to commit to further huge numbers of fast jets, including completing the extremely costly Eurofighter programme. At the same time, Labour and the Tories are committed to pushing ahead with a like-for-like replacement of Trident. There is no sign of the radical rethink that Britain's Armed Forces so badly need.
Talk of a Strategic Defence Review is widespread, but the government appears determined to fiddle round the edges rather than ensure this is truly comprehensive. In particular, the replacement of Trident – despite being one of the highest-spending programmes – will bizarrely be left out of the Strategic Defence Review.
Meanwhile, our forces' ability to fight the conflicts of the present has been hampered by a procurement process that is too often out of date, hopelessly late or downright inept.
Nowhere has this been more apparent than the government's reliance on Urgent Operational Requirements to ensure troops in Afghanistan have been given the equipment they need – such as armoured vehicles. When it comes to capabilities such as helicopters, delivery has often not even been lastminute – see the government's recent announcement on new Chinooks, which will not be ready for operations before 2012.
So what would the Liberal Democrats' priorities be? First and foremost must be a thorough Strategic Defence Review. It must not be undermined beforehand through exceptions: everything, including the replacement of Trident, must be included. There must be no sacred cows.
Second, we need to see a much more responsive, faster-moving approach to procurement. It cannot be right that it has taken over eight years in Afghanistan before an order for new Chinooks even goes in. Equally, it does not make sense to sign up to spending billions more on Tranche 3B of Eurofighter when we are already committed to far more of these costly aircraft – conceived primarily as a defence against the Soviet threat – than we need.
Last but by no means least, we need to do much more to ensure the needs of the people we ask to carry out this dangerous work for us are prioritised.
Recent years have seen far too many procurement scandals – from a lack of body armour to the long-running problems of the SA80 rifle – which have endangered the safety of our troops. At a time when we are asking the British public to accept belt-tightening, and our troops to endure great hardships on the front line, we must be able to demonstrate that not one penny is being wasted while doing everything we can to support our forces.
The Liberal Democrats want to do more to support our troops, and ensure they are better able to do their jobs – from fairer pay and conditions to better housing and kit.
All of this will mean asking tougher questions of the MoD, on every issue, from the amount spent on staffing and top brass salaries to serious problems with procurement – from overruns to a flat-footed process that sees the delivery of programmes decades after they are needed. A truly comprehensive Strategic Defence Review is the vehicle for this – but it must not be neutered beforehand by a raft of exceptions, pre-emptions and caveats.
Liam Fox, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
The next government will inherit an economic train wreck. Naturally, this will have an impact on how national defence structures are organised.
Any future government will have the task of balancing defence priorities between the conflict we face today and wars of tomorrow, but will also have the challenge of putting back on track a decade of mismanagement and neglect of the MoD's finances.
But saying that we can only focus on 'the war' at the expense of 'a war' is not good enough for the British people, and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.
Given the degree and velocity of global change, defining our strategic interests and determining how to protect them is one of the biggest challenges facing any government. How do we balance competing defence priorities? How do we ensure that current commitments are properly resourced without neglecting future strategic challenges?
In order to make sense of this, a wide ranging and detailed Strategic Defence and Security Review should immediately be launched.
In sum, an SDSR will serve as the primary means of the MoD to assess the global and strategic threats to the United Kingdom and how our response to these threats will be translated into potentially new policies, capabilities and force structure.
There is a lot of speculation and talk on what part of the equipment programme will take the biggest hit under a Conservative Government.
Before anything can be decided we must first finish our foreign policy-based SDSR. There has not been a review in 12 years and if you start to cut programmes in a piecemeal fashion on the basis of costs, it's likely to have implications for your foreign policy that you may not have intended.
However, there is one programme that is exempt from the SDSR process.
In a world where unpredictable and rogue states are developing nuclear weapons, it would be indefensible for Britain to give up its minimum nuclear deterrent. We cannot know what risks we might face in the future. That is why our party wish to guarantee a round the clock, submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system for as long as it is needed.
None of this will be easy and difficult choices will have to be made, but we are ready for the challenge.
David Campbell Bannerman MEP, UKIP Deputy Leader and Defence Spokesman
Over the years, the British Armed Forces have been starved of proper funding by successive governments of all colours. This has meant insufficient equipment, overstretched resources, as well as excessive tours of duty, which can badly damage the fabric of family life.
During the current economic down - turn, UKIP is committed to making hard decisions on public spending, as we regard defence as a special case – our armed forces are fast losing critical mass and face yet more devastation post the General Election.
An extra 1% of GDP should be spent on the British Armed Forces as we believe they need better support and that the economy would benefit. This is an increase of 40% on the current defence budget. Under our plans, the British Army will be expanded to 125,000 personnel and the TA will be doubled to 80,000. Moreover, as the only party committed to leaving the EU, we will restore many of the British Army's historic regiments such as the Highland regiments, which have been subsumed into EU-inspired regional units.
The Royal Navy will be restored to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers (one extra), 12 Fleet submarines and some 70 other ships. There will also be 50 extra Merlin helicopters and some 7,000 extra personnel, and the future of naval ports Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth guaranteed.
Britain's independent nuclear deterrent with existing Trident submarines will also be maintained and then replaced in the near future with four British built US missile armed submarines. For the RAF, a UKIP Government will modernise the transport fleet, buy more helicopters and JSF aircraft and bring in 5,000 more personnel.
We strongly believe in properly supporting those who risk their lives for their country. A much more generous compensation scheme for injury should be introduced and the system of military hospitals be reinstated over time. In addition, service pay will be increased substantially to broadly match the police and fire services, and service families will be provided with much better accommodation.
Crown immunity will be restored and the Human Rights Act scrapped – it will not hold individuals responsible for collective military action, putting a stop to unjust persecutions of military personnel. And the operation in Afghanistan will also be appraised, and a proper single strategy set out.
We believe we are the only party prepared to give the British Armed Forces the proper resources, backing and equipment needed to fulfil their demanding global role.
--------------------
My comment.
For me, I'd love to say ''yeah great UKIP will give us the most'', but it's just not realistic, and we need experienced heavyweight politicians to get us out of this economic muddle. The Lib Dems are completely clueless, Labour's on a last minute damage-control vote-grabber, and the Tories are non-commital in the middle somewhere.
Feel free to post further info or opinions, and hopefully by the time of the election the British contingent of this site will have a far clearer understanding of how to get the most (r.e. defence) out of their vote.