In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.
Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.
ahem, bringing this discussion back to matters relating to the 2010 election in general, and defence politics in particular:
Gordon Brown forced cuts on the defence budget that reduced the number of helicopters available to British forces today, Geoff Hoon told the inquiry into the Iraq war.
By James Kirkup Political Correspondent
Published: 5:50PM GMT 19 Jan 2010
The former defence secretary revealed that in 2003, Mr Brown, then the Chancellor, insisted on a reduction in Ministry of Defence spending, which forced him to make “difficult cuts” in orders for equipment including helicopters.
He also told Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war that he delayed ordering body armour for British troops going into Iraq after being told by Tony Blair not to make any visible preparations for war.
Mr Hoon, the first former Cabinet minister to give evidence at the inquiry, was defence secretary from 1999 to 2005.
The Prime Minister has rejected repeated claims that he has denied the Armed Forces the helicopters they need in Afghanistan. British commanders say that fewer British servicemen would have died in roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan if more helicopters were available
There would be more helicopters available today if Mr Brown had not made cuts in 2003, Mr Hoon told the inquiry.
He revealed that in a Whitehall row over departmental accounting, Mr Brown insisted on recouping some earlier spending from future years’ defence budgets.
Mr Hoon said: “We had to look hard at our budget and we had to make some rather difficult cuts in the future equipment programme as a result.”
“It is reasonable to assume that by now, had that budget been spent in the way that we thought we should spend it, then those helicopters would probably be coming into service any time now.”
Mr Hoon also suggested that Mr Brown never gave the MoD enough money, which was underfunded when he arrived in 1999.
He said: “In the subsequent Comprehensive Spending Review programmes, we asked for significantly more money than we eventually received.”
Mr Brown will not give evidence to the inquiry until after the general election, but Mr Hoon’s testimony will renew pressure on the Prime Minister over his support for the Armed Forces.
ARMOUR
Mr Hoon also set the scene for Mr Blair to face difficult questions when he gives evidence next week.
He told the Iraq Inquiry that he had been explicitly ordered by Downing Street in the autumn of 2002 to avoid any “overt” preparations for the conflict that was to begin the following year. When he pressed for authorisation to begin vital planning, he was told to “calm down”.
Under pressure from No 10, the Ministry of Defence delayed an order for extra sets of Enhanced Combat Body Armour until November 2002.
When the war began the following year, there was not enough body armour for servicemen to have one set each. At least one soldier, Sergeant Steve Roberts, was shot dead after being told to give his armour to a colleague because there was not enough to go around.
Mr Hoon said in September 2002, he said that he and Admiral Lord Boyce, then the chief of the defence staff, were told by No 10 that they could not make preparations that might attract publicity.
“We were both made very well aware of the attitude in Downing Street towards the requirement for minimizing publicity and for avoiding the visibility of preparations,” he said. “We could not go out, either of us, and overtly prepare.”
Mr Hoon said that he and Lord Boyce had urged Mr Blair to give a clear instruction to begin preparing for war.
But the Prime Minister refused, worrying that could make it harder to agree a new United Nations Security Council Resolution on disarming Saddam.
As a result of that pressure, Mr Hoon said he did not take action on a military request to order more body armour from manufacturers until November 2002.
ah, the working mans hereoes, dependable friends of Her Majesty's Armed Forces!
......... what was that from our resident expert on British defence matters; Louis?
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks