The UKAR politics thread

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Post Reply
MiG_Eater
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 4:58 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by MiG_Eater »

Bobby Marley wrote: ...always have and always will.


This is a crazy attitude.

User avatar
Mooshie1956
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2011, 11:46 am
Location: Manchester

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Mooshie1956 »

MiG_Eater wrote:
Bobby Marley wrote: ...always have and always will.


This is a crazy attitude.


I agree, although I'm Tory at heart, since we had Cameron/Osbourne through to the great BJ now, I could never vote Tory at the moment.
Last edited by Mooshie1956 on Fri 29 Nov 2019, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mooshie1956/
Panny G80 12-60 Lens
Panny 100-400 Lens
Olympus 60 Macro Lens

User avatar
Mooshie1956
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2011, 11:46 am
Location: Manchester

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Mooshie1956 »

CJS wrote:
The Lib Dems by contrast very much let you know who their stuff is from - because they actually don't have anything to hide from. They also take part in the debates, put themselves up there to be scrutinised and not run away from the potentially more challenging arguments - as of course Labour, the SNP, Greens and PC have all done tonight.



Th unfortunate thing for me is our local Lib/Dem candidate lost a healthy majority over the last two elections (even though I live in a 72% remain area) to Labour. I don't like the guy for various reasons and it would appear others feel the same way but for some reason they keep on putting him up as our candidate, I think he even lost his seat on the local council.
I'm really only left with our Labour candidate but in all fairness he does seem to care for his constituents. Also he always voted to remain in the EU.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mooshie1956/
Panny G80 12-60 Lens
Panny 100-400 Lens
Olympus 60 Macro Lens

User avatar
CJS
Posts: 7369
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2010, 3:30 pm
Location: Hogwarts

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by CJS »

Mooshie1956 wrote:
CJS wrote:
The Lib Dems by contrast very much let you know who their stuff is from - because they actually don't have anything to hide from. They also take part in the debates, put themselves up there to be scrutinised and not run away from the potentially more challenging arguments - as of course Labour, the SNP, Greens and PC have all done tonight.



Th unfortunate thing for me is our local Lib/Dem candidate lost a healthy majority over the last two elections (even though I live in a 72% remain area) to Labour. I don't like the guy for various reasons and it would appear others feel the same way but for some reason they keep on putting him up as our candidate, I think he even lost his seat on the local council.
I'm really only left with our Labour candidate but in all fairness he does seem to care for his constituents. Also he always voted to remain in the EU.


Then you vote Labour. I think, despite what I keep saying, you do need to vote for who will do the best for you locally as much as anything else.

We lost a great Lib Dem mp in 2015 - liked across all parties - to an unknown (and it turns out useless) Tory candidate. Still, we're a marginal seat, so fingers crossed.

Bobby Marley, 2 things:

1. Why on earth would you vote one way just because you always had? Could Labour put literally anyone forward and you'd vote for them?
Weird. Reminds me of a letter sent to Q magazine years and years ago; "if Neil Young pissed in a bucket would you still give it 5 stars?" Even they said "we'd have to hear it first." Do yourself a favour - at least attempt to find out a bit about the other candidates, rather than blindly voting Labour 'just because'.

2. Please explain how having dyslexia is a reason to vote Labour? That's as new one on me...
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13163
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Brevet Cable »

Mooshie1956 wrote:
MiG_Eater wrote:
Bobby Marley wrote: ...always have and always will.


This is a crazy attitude.


I agree, although I'm Tory at heart, since we had Cameron/Osbourne through to the great BJ now, I could never vote Tory at the moment.


There are plenty who still will though.
The old saying that 'you could paint a turd red and people would vote for it' also applies if you painted it blue.

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13163
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Brevet Cable »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50593975
The Conservatives are promising to strengthen England's education watchdog Ofsted, as they attack Labour and Liberal Democrat plans to replace the current inspection system.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is announcing plans for longer inspections and an extra £10m funding for Ofsted.

There will also be trials of "no-notice inspections", where schools could be visited without any prior warning.


There ya go, an excellent reason for all you educationalists out there to vote for Boris!
:whistle:
:snack:
:biggrin:

User avatar
CJS
Posts: 7369
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2010, 3:30 pm
Location: Hogwarts

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by CJS »

Brevet Cable wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50593975
The Conservatives are promising to strengthen England's education watchdog Ofsted, as they attack Labour and Liberal Democrat plans to replace the current inspection system.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is announcing plans for longer inspections and an extra £10m funding for Ofsted.

There will also be trials of "no-notice inspections", where schools could be visited without any prior warning.


There ya go, an excellent reason for all you educationalists out there to vote for Boris!
:whistle:
:snack:
:biggrin:


Woo hoo, gets my vote, just what we need that - longer inspections. They already massively help children with their education, so more can only be a good thing... :up:

I don't actually totally disagree with drop in inspections, but the goal posts need to shift if they're going to try introducing them.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 5547
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Tommy »

Finningley Boy wrote: Out of all the rest, who do you most trust with the defence of the realm and whoever it is, do you regard your choice of party as more reliable on this matter than the tories?


Tbf I did rebut this line from you before by saying that it wasn’t Labour that axed a perfectly serviceable fleet of Harriers at the peak of their capability (which I would imagine had an in-turn effect of knackering the Tornado GR4 Fleet into an earlier-than-imagined retirement), left us, an island nation, with no real credible MPA capability for nearly a decade, scrapped the brand new Nimrod MRA4s, purchased replacement equipment in tiny numbers, oversaw the ongoing crapastroshambles of the implementation MFTS, dicked around with the F-35B/C u-turn, and sliced personnel and equipment budgets to the bone.

I haven’t read into it in considerable depth, but it seems to a layman like me that, much like what Ben Dunnell said to me on Twitter (and given his involvement with aviation journalism, he’d know), that it’s a fallacy that the Tories are somehow any “better” at defence and national security than any other party. Especially not the current crop of Tories.

So yeah, I think I would trust anyone other than these current austerity-loving, bean-counting, budget-slicing back-patting “fellow from the Bullingdon Club”, lying, bloviating Tories better with the defence of the realm, Tbf.

I know the stock response will be “but the cuts were to fix Labour crashing the economy” but that’s not really washed for me beyond 2012. It’s a decade on, and the Tories continue to woefully treat our armed forces and everything else. Even if it was due to Labour, if one can’t balance the books in 10 years, then the Tories were clearly not the ones up to fixing whatever problem it was. Plus, it was a global recession/downturn. I’m sure Labour in that period could have done more, but I never thought they caused it. Plus, if the focus then shifts away from defence and onto economic protection and “saving money cos of Labour”, I don’t think that washes, either. For three and a half years we’ve wasted money and time (and goodwill, which is material, if less tangible) on Brexit. If the argument is the Tory defence cuts came as a result of Labour’s economic inadequacy in 2008-10, how does one then explain the amount of money wasted on Brexit? Wasted on May buying out the DUP to keep herself in power in 2017? The general wasted or lost money from Brexit? The £100million “get ready for Brexit” campaign on October 31st that was pretty bloody pointless in the end? The losses from the pound being worth less than it was?

So I’m not really sure, logically, one can put Tory defence cuts at anyone’s door but themselves. And if that’s the case, then they aren’t very good on defence if they've cut it so drastically, and if that’s the case, then one must surely conclude that other parties are therefore more trustworthy (or at least should be given a crack) on defence than this brigade of Tories.

I’m happy to be proven wrong by empirical data, but I don’t think there’s anything to support the “myth” that the Tories are any better at defending the realm than anyone else.

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4320
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by pbeardmore »

Conservatives portray themselves as patroitic and wave the Union flag at any opportunity. They are happy to conflate this with "strong on defence" but there does seem to little evidence to support this over the last decade or so. Tommy is spot on with his observations. Many still dream of the Thatcher/Falklands era but lets not forget that John Knott was specifically brought in to oversee huge defence cuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Paper

Meanwhile, BJ getting a kicking on LBC
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff
Posts: 10497
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by LN Strike Eagle »

I know the quoted post was directed at me, and I had started typing a response last night, but I couldn’t have put it any better, Tom.

In terms of money wasted on Brexit, I’ve had a quick look on google and the most recent figure I could find was from an article posted in early October: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thew ... e-uk%3famp

The Treasury allocated an additional £2.1bn of Brexit funding this August, bringing the total spending for Brexit preparations by government departments since 2016 to £6.3bn.

Madness.

I consider myself to be a “floating voter”, but after the damage, division, wasted time and money of their Brexit idiocy, the Tories will find it extremely hard to ever win a vote from me. To everyone else, I’m open minded, but the lasting damage from this stupid referendum will require an act of forgiveness I don’t think I’m capable of.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13163
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Brevet Cable »

pbeardmore wrote:Conservatives portray themselves as patroitic and wave the Union flag at any opportunity. They are happy to conflate this with "strong on defence" but there does seem to little evidence to support this over the last decade or so. Tommy is spot on with his observations. Many still dream of the Thatcher/Falklands era but lets not forget that John Knott was specifically brought in to oversee huge defence cuts.


Which is what I've posted several times.
Those who are too blinkered wouldn't admit it then, so they still won't admit it now.

You could argue that whichever Party was in Government when the various cuts & SDSRs were made were usually only following the recommendations of the CDS at the time, but ultimately the responsibility lay with them.

Last heard there are plans to cut Army numbers by about another 15,000 ( hell, they may as well....they're currently losing that many due to retention issues anyway ) and they can't exactly blame Labour for that.

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4320
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by pbeardmore »

Watching the LBC interview and recalling all of BJ's quotes on various issues plus his record in public office so far, it's a very fair, binary question:

Is he suitable for the role of PM? I'm personally amazed and shocked that anyone would think that the answer is yes.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

verreli
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun 12 Mar 2017, 6:05 pm
Location: Lake District

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by verreli »

pbeardmore wrote:Watching the LBC interview and recalling all of BJ's quotes on various issues plus his record in public office so far, it's a very fair, binary question:

Is he suitable for the role of PM? I'm personally amazed and shocked that anyone would think that the answer is yes.


The question is irrelevant. You don't have to pass a test to become PM. In less than two weeks c.32 million UK citizens will cast their vote and the leader of the party with most seats will form a government. It's not a perfect system but it is arguably the best.

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4320
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by pbeardmore »

"You don't have to pass a test to become PM"

Asside from winning enough votes within the Party to lead it:

Leading a politcal party in a GE, winning enough votes to be in a position to form a government. Do I have to list all of the previous party leaders who failed the test?
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

MiG_Eater
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 4:58 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by MiG_Eater »

I think the importance of the Prime Minister's position is overstated.

The important thing to consider is the way your local MP is going to be representing your views. After all, the Parliamentary Party is ultimately far more powerful than a single Leader.

verreli
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun 12 Mar 2017, 6:05 pm
Location: Lake District

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by verreli »

pbeardmore wrote:"You don't have to pass a test to become PM"

Asside from winning enough votes within the Party to lead it:

Leading a politcal party in a GE, winning enough votes to be in a position to form a government. Do I have to list all of the previous party leaders who failed the test?


A test implies competence. Competence needs to be examined. Many of the 32m voting will do so because they 'look right', others because they wear an identifiable rosette, others because their parents always voted that way [I know people who fall into all these categories]. If Mr Corbyn was to be examined, as he was by Andrew Neil the other day, he'd likely get another 'E grade' to add to his collection. That won't stop him becoming PM if he convinces enough people to vote Labour.
Last edited by verreli on Fri 29 Nov 2019, 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

starbuck
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue 28 Mar 2017, 9:35 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by starbuck »

Looking on the bright side 2 weeks from today either BJ or JC will be resigning as leader!

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by iainpeden »

starbuck wrote:Looking on the bright side 2 weeks from today either BJ or JC will be resigning as leader!

Or even both of them :yahoo:
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13163
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Brevet Cable »

I wouldn't be so sure of that, unfortunately.
And in the case of BoJo it'll only mean replacing one tosser with another - possibly bigger - tosser, such as Gove....and that's not a pleasant thought.

Finningley Boy
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sun 12 Oct 2008, 10:07 am

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Finningley Boy »

Tommy wrote:
Finningley Boy wrote: Out of all the rest, who do you most trust with the defence of the realm and whoever it is, do you regard your choice of party as more reliable on this matter than the tories?


Tbf I did rebut this line from you before by saying that it wasn’t Labour that axed a perfectly serviceable fleet of Harriers at the peak of their capability (which I would imagine had an in-turn effect of knackering the Tornado GR4 Fleet into an earlier-than-imagined retirement), left us, an island nation, with no real credible MPA capability for nearly a decade, scrapped the brand new Nimrod MRA4s, purchased replacement equipment in tiny numbers, oversaw the ongoing crapastroshambles of the implementation MFTS, dicked around with the F-35B/C u-turn, and sliced personnel and equipment budgets to the bone.

I haven’t read into it in considerable depth, but it seems to a layman like me that, much like what Ben Dunnell said to me on Twitter (and given his involvement with aviation journalism, he’d know), that it’s a fallacy that the Tories are somehow any “better” at defence and national security than any other party. Especially not the current crop of Tories.

So yeah, I think I would trust anyone other than these current austerity-loving, bean-counting, budget-slicing back-patting “fellow from the Bullingdon Club”, lying, bloviating Tories better with the defence of the realm, Tbf.

I know the stock response will be “but the cuts were to fix Labour crashing the economy” but that’s not really washed for me beyond 2012. It’s a decade on, and the Tories continue to woefully treat our armed forces and everything else. Even if it was due to Labour, if one can’t balance the books in 10 years, then the Tories were clearly not the ones up to fixing whatever problem it was. Plus, it was a global recession/downturn. I’m sure Labour in that period could have done more, but I never thought they caused it. Plus, if the focus then shifts away from defence and onto economic protection and “saving money cos of Labour”, I don’t think that washes, either. For three and a half years we’ve wasted money and time (and goodwill, which is material, if less tangible) on Brexit. If the argument is the Tory defence cuts came as a result of Labour’s economic inadequacy in 2008-10, how does one then explain the amount of money wasted on Brexit? Wasted on May buying out the DUP to keep herself in power in 2017? The general wasted or lost money from Brexit? The £100million “get ready for Brexit” campaign on October 31st that was pretty bloody pointless in the end? The losses from the pound being worth less than it was?

So I’m not really sure, logically, one can put Tory defence cuts at anyone’s door but themselves. And if that’s the case, then they aren’t very good on defence if they've cut it so drastically, and if that’s the case, then one must surely conclude that other parties are therefore more trustworthy (or at least should be given a crack) on defence than this brigade of Tories.

I’m happy to be proven wrong by empirical data, but I don’t think there’s anything to support the “myth” that the Tories are any better at defending the realm than anyone else.


Tommy,
there isn't time or space here to address all your points, I have also said before that none of the parties genuinely place any true priority on defence spending, and I'll agree that skint or not skint. the Tories we've had since Major, or really since Thatcher, have had the worst relation with defence related matters. We've seen the worst of them at it and in the worst of situations, whoever is to blame.
But if you do care to take a trip down memory lane, and there are plenty of examples of Tory cuts, the most significant of which was Duncan Sandys dream of replacing the manned fighter entirely with SAGWs. In 1957, clearly nobody outside the RAF was looking at the concept of shadow and identify, not really suitable to use SAMs for that role! However, what needs to be hoisted aboard is the rational for the cuts. TSR2 cancelled by Labour in favour of F-111, that latter cancelled also by Labour because the government devalued the pound sterling in order to help exports to help balance the books for heavy increases in public spending. The devaluation put the price up on the supposedly cheaper F-111s. Result, cancelled, next step, Buccaneer. The two new Aircraft Carriers of the day were cancelled resulting in the resignation of Sir David Luce, the First Sea Lord.
Cancelled because Labour felt we had no business swanning about the Globe overseeing distant former colonies, despite our membership of SEATO. They also ran down the order for Phantoms on account of this radical change in defence policy.
However, Labour have always been at their worst, admittedly, when out of office with regards to defence matters. I would like to call my next witness me'lud, Michael Foot. This was the leader, backed by Tony Benn, Eric Heffer, Joan Ruddock etc, who wanted to pursue unilateral disarmament and order the Americans to remove their Tactical nuclear weapons from Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, rendering their F-111s pointless. Naturally they would have cancelled and reversed the Cruise Missile deployments, had Footy become PM in 1983.
Defence spending was maintained at a relatively high level in the Blair/Brown years, because of the cost of the deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. They offset the cost by disbanding the recently upgraded Jaguar Force and closing Coltishall. They decimated the Interceptor Fighter Force and under them the introduction of the Typhoon was leaden to say the least. The Sea Harrier upgrade bit the dust under New Labour, bringing about the tendered resignation of Sir Nigel Essenhigh, the First Sea Lord of the day.
On 12 December, if Labour win, HM Forces current and planned posture could be in big trouble and I'm sure Nia Griffith is sincere about defence spending. But that view certainly won't be shard by Corbyn, Momentum, Abbott, McDonnell, Butler and so on. None of which would qualify for the most basic security clearance at MOD. Two of them would instantly fail the CTC clearance. I'm sure I've made this point before as well. Going further back, Labour have always had in their midst a radical left element which gets near power from time to time. 1933 to 1935, George Landsbury, then leader, called for the comprehensive and total disbandment of the Armed Forces, yes, in total. His successor, the great Clement Atlee, fell only slightly short of this originally, he criticised and opposed government's rearmament schemes, up to about 1938, before he saw the light. Didn't stop him screaming at Chamberlain across the despatch box when the Wehrmacht trundled into France and the low countries.

There you are, an answer worthy of your own comprehensive addresses Tommy!

FB :cuppa:
I have danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings!

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4320
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by pbeardmore »

So Clement Atlee's actions form part of your strategy in weighing up who is best trusted on Defence in 2020?
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

Bobby Marley
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri 01 Nov 2019, 11:21 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Bobby Marley »

Evening all, so another slagging off of the working class by Boris's dad - absolute disgrace but bet Boris echo's the same feelings, towards manual workers.

BM.

Bobby Marley
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri 01 Nov 2019, 11:21 pm

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by Bobby Marley »

CJS wrote:
Mooshie1956 wrote:
CJS wrote:
The Lib Dems by contrast very much let you know who their stuff is from - because they actually don't have anything to hide from. They also take part in the debates, put themselves up there to be scrutinised and not run away from the potentially more challenging arguments - as of course Labour, the SNP, Greens and PC have all done tonight.



Th unfortunate thing for me is our local Lib/Dem candidate lost a healthy majority over the last two elections (even though I live in a 72% remain area) to Labour. I don't like the guy for various reasons and it would appear others feel the same way but for some reason they keep on putting him up as our candidate, I think he even lost his seat on the local council.
I'm really only left with our Labour candidate but in all fairness he does seem to care for his constituents. Also he always voted to remain in the EU.


Then you vote Labour. I think, despite what I keep saying, you do need to vote for who will do the best for you locally as much as anything else.

We lost a great Lib Dem mp in 2015 - liked across all parties - to an unknown (and it turns out useless) Tory candidate. Still, we're a marginal seat, so fingers crossed.

Bobby Marley, 2 things:

1. Why on earth would you vote one way just because you always had? Could Labour put literally anyone forward and you'd vote for them?
Weird. Reminds me of a letter sent to Q magazine years and years ago; "if Neil Young pissed in a bucket would you still give it 5 stars?" Even they said "we'd have to hear it first." Do yourself a favour - at least attempt to find out a bit about the other candidates, rather than blindly voting Labour 'just because'.

2. Please explain how having dyslexia is a reason to vote Labour? That's as new one on me...


Hi,

1) I am a member of the Labour party always have been from an early adult, and they some up my working class and ethics.

2) Its been drummed in here how Very very important spelling and corect gramma is - almost more important than the content being discussed, hence why I explained why I sometimes struggle with words and writting.

BM.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: 2019 General Electionbuses

Post by iainpeden »

Bobby Marley wrote:Evening all, so another slagging off of the working class by Boris's dad - absolute disgrace but bet Boris echo's the same feelings, towards manual workers.

BM.

Watching Politics Live at lunchtime (retirement is so good) an article by Boris in the Spectator in the mid 1990s was quoted. Basically he slagged off every British male as lazy and feckless and condemned every unmarried British female who got pregnant. The Tory rep on the programme was sweating, fingering his collar and messing about with his glasses and clearly wishing he was anywhere but where he was.

I don’t share Bobby’s idolatry of Corbyn but Johnson is a failed politician who somehow has wormed his way to the top. He achieved very little in London, except inflammable buses and was a disaster as foreign secretary.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
rockfordstone
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed 14 Feb 2018, 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: 2019 General Election

Post by rockfordstone »

Finningley Boy wrote:
Tommy wrote:
Finningley Boy wrote: Out of all the rest, who do you most trust with the defence of the realm and whoever it is, do you regard your choice of party as more reliable on this matter than the tories?


Tbf I did rebut this line from you before by saying that it wasn’t Labour that axed a perfectly serviceable fleet of Harriers at the peak of their capability (which I would imagine had an in-turn effect of knackering the Tornado GR4 Fleet into an earlier-than-imagined retirement), left us, an island nation, with no real credible MPA capability for nearly a decade, scrapped the brand new Nimrod MRA4s, purchased replacement equipment in tiny numbers, oversaw the ongoing crapastroshambles of the implementation MFTS, dicked around with the F-35B/C u-turn, and sliced personnel and equipment budgets to the bone.

I haven’t read into it in considerable depth, but it seems to a layman like me that, much like what Ben Dunnell said to me on Twitter (and given his involvement with aviation journalism, he’d know), that it’s a fallacy that the Tories are somehow any “better” at defence and national security than any other party. Especially not the current crop of Tories.

So yeah, I think I would trust anyone other than these current austerity-loving, bean-counting, budget-slicing back-patting “fellow from the Bullingdon Club”, lying, bloviating Tories better with the defence of the realm, Tbf.

I know the stock response will be “but the cuts were to fix Labour crashing the economy” but that’s not really washed for me beyond 2012. It’s a decade on, and the Tories continue to woefully treat our armed forces and everything else. Even if it was due to Labour, if one can’t balance the books in 10 years, then the Tories were clearly not the ones up to fixing whatever problem it was. Plus, it was a global recession/downturn. I’m sure Labour in that period could have done more, but I never thought they caused it. Plus, if the focus then shifts away from defence and onto economic protection and “saving money cos of Labour”, I don’t think that washes, either. For three and a half years we’ve wasted money and time (and goodwill, which is material, if less tangible) on Brexit. If the argument is the Tory defence cuts came as a result of Labour’s economic inadequacy in 2008-10, how does one then explain the amount of money wasted on Brexit? Wasted on May buying out the DUP to keep herself in power in 2017? The general wasted or lost money from Brexit? The £100million “get ready for Brexit” campaign on October 31st that was pretty bloody pointless in the end? The losses from the pound being worth less than it was?

So I’m not really sure, logically, one can put Tory defence cuts at anyone’s door but themselves. And if that’s the case, then they aren’t very good on defence if they've cut it so drastically, and if that’s the case, then one must surely conclude that other parties are therefore more trustworthy (or at least should be given a crack) on defence than this brigade of Tories.

I’m happy to be proven wrong by empirical data, but I don’t think there’s anything to support the “myth” that the Tories are any better at defending the realm than anyone else.


Tommy,
there isn't time or space here to address all your points, I have also said before that none of the parties genuinely place any true priority on defence spending, and I'll agree that skint or not skint. the Tories we've had since Major, or really since Thatcher, have had the worst relation with defence related matters. We've seen the worst of them at it and in the worst of situations, whoever is to blame.
But if you do care to take a trip down memory lane, and there are plenty of examples of Tory cuts, the most significant of which was Duncan Sandys dream of replacing the manned fighter entirely with SAGWs. In 1957, clearly nobody outside the RAF was looking at the concept of shadow and identify, not really suitable to use SAMs for that role! However, what needs to be hoisted aboard is the rational for the cuts. TSR2 cancelled by Labour in favour of F-111, that latter cancelled also by Labour because the government devalued the pound sterling in order to help exports to help balance the books for heavy increases in public spending. The devaluation put the price up on the supposedly cheaper F-111s. Result, cancelled, next step, Buccaneer. The two new Aircraft Carriers of the day were cancelled resulting in the resignation of Sir David Luce, the First Sea Lord.
Cancelled because Labour felt we had no business swanning about the Globe overseeing distant former colonies, despite our membership of SEATO. They also ran down the order for Phantoms on account of this radical change in defence policy.
However, Labour have always been at their worst, admittedly, when out of office with regards to defence matters. I would like to call my next witness me'lud, Michael Foot. This was the leader, backed by Tony Benn, Eric Heffer, Joan Ruddock etc, who wanted to pursue unilateral disarmament and order the Americans to remove their Tactical nuclear weapons from Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, rendering their F-111s pointless. Naturally they would have cancelled and reversed the Cruise Missile deployments, had Footy become PM in 1983.
Defence spending was maintained at a relatively high level in the Blair/Brown years, because of the cost of the deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. They offset the cost by disbanding the recently upgraded Jaguar Force and closing Coltishall. They decimated the Interceptor Fighter Force and under them the introduction of the Typhoon was leaden to say the least. The Sea Harrier upgrade bit the dust under New Labour, bringing about the tendered resignation of Sir Nigel Essenhigh, the First Sea Lord of the day.
On 12 December, if Labour win, HM Forces current and planned posture could be in big trouble and I'm sure Nia Griffith is sincere about defence spending. But that view certainly won't be shard by Corbyn, Momentum, Abbott, McDonnell, Butler and so on. None of which would qualify for the most basic security clearance at MOD. Two of them would instantly fail the CTC clearance. I'm sure I've made this point before as well. Going further back, Labour have always had in their midst a radical left element which gets near power from time to time. 1933 to 1935, George Landsbury, then leader, called for the comprehensive and total disbandment of the Armed Forces, yes, in total. His successor, the great Clement Atlee, fell only slightly short of this originally, he criticised and opposed government's rearmament schemes, up to about 1938, before he saw the light. Didn't stop him screaming at Chamberlain across the despatch box when the Wehrmacht trundled into France and the low countries.

There you are, an answer worthy of your own comprehensive addresses Tommy!

FB :cuppa:


Any point you were making was lost in the very tiny gaps between your paragraphs mate.

Post Reply