The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Louis VI the Fat]

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

Mhmm...sure they do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

Why would I willingly write nonsense? What's that all about?



As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

Labour took over in 1997: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Labour is as aware as I am of the discrepancy between words and actions when it comes to Tories and defense spending, and is already using it in the elections.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

Defence may avoid fall of spending axe if Labour wins election, says Mandelson

Defence would be exempt from Whitehall spending cuts if Labour won the next election, Lord Mandelson suggested yesterday in a surprise bid to outflank the Tories in the ongoing row about the funding of the military operation in Afghanistan.

The business secretary said that Labour would seek to protect defence spending if it won the general election and that this contrasted with the stance of the Tories, who have made it clear that the Ministry of Defence is not one of the two departments that would be exempt from spending cuts under a David Cameron regime.


The claim is surprising, because Whitehall is braced for deep cuts in most departments after the poll, and Mandelson's main purpose may have been to intensify divisions among the Conservatives, some of whom believe Cameron should be doing more to protect the defence budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...meron-military

[Furunculus]

As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

It was called the post cold war peace dividend, and it was inevitable that since the evil empire had been defeated once and for all that people would want to spend public money on the finer things in (public) life rather than tanks. funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

As to the Dark Lord himself, has it escaped your attention that Labour is promising jam tomorrow while you blithely ignore the fact that Labour just announced a massive cut, i.e. that Afghanistan would be funded from the core defence budget in contravention of all previous policy that active operations are funded by treasury appropriation. And this after a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

[Vladimir]

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

[Furunculus]

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

Never take my word for anything.

Instead, rely on facts.


UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

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.