The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[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.

[Furunculus]

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.

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.

i have never said that tories increase defence spending, i wish they would, but the reality is i trust no politician with defence spending. all parties have a proven track record of decreased military spending in the last 80 years.

i have already credited labour with creating the most far-sighted Strategic Defence Review ever, and i am fully aware that the Cons chopped defence budgets far more than they should. The post cold war dividend is a fact, all i did was enter it into the blithely ignorant equations you are churning out for general consumption.

the britain is now, arguably, still a Great Power much as the definition is amorphous, the fact that we are not a world power has everything to do with decline of empire and the debt of two world wars.

the tories have never got away with defence cuts, at least not from me. labour has got the majority of my ire because they are the party in government during the period of my internet ranting.

British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

no it hasn't louis. it has risen in line with inflation. it has not risen in line with defence inflation. and it certainly has not risen in line with government spending, you know the one i am always banging on about, 2.2% of GDP etc, less than 3.5% of GDP etc. it has not been treated as the primary duty of the state, instead it has been treated like the red-headed step-child of government spending, evidenced by its continual decline as a proportion of government spending, by all parties.

the treasury reserve has never coverered all operational costs, worse it has in some cases been clawed back. to top it off, there has been a massive defence cut announced only last month when the gov't announced that afghanistan operational funding would be taken from the core defence budget. that is a CUT, as i have said before.
------------------------------------------------------
edit -

for the record, i have no expectation that cameron will increase defence spending either, regardless of having to clear up labour finances or otherwise.

labour spends high, but actively dislikes the military = x ammount
conservatives spend low, but like to court the defence vote = y amount

amount x and amount y are usually pretty similar.

my sympathy naturally lies with the tories, because i actively dislike any brit who actively dislikes britains military institutions, but i'm under no illusions that neither does anything but chop defence budgets.

[Furunculus]

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:

Iraq inquiry: 'Gordon Brown cut budget for helicopters':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...licopters.html

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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

ahem, bringing this discussion back to matters relating to the 2010 election in general, and defence politics in particular:

Iraq inquiry: 'Gordon Brown cut budget for helicopters':


......... what was that from our resident expert on British defence matters; Louis?

What that was from me? The same as ever: Labour drastically increased UK defense spending over the past decade.

The problem is, this increase was not enough to fund all the tasks that were politically required of the UK armed forces: two costly wars, the maintainance of 'Great Power' illusions, fulfillment of treaty obligations, protection of the UK.


Because defense spending is too low to fund all of these requirements, Labour underfunded all of them despite massively increasing expenditure.

What really needs to happen, but which no Conservative Briton wants to hear, is a change in UK defense policy. To fulfill every role, defense spending would have to be raised so much that it would bankrupt the UK.

That not being an option, tough choices will have to be made:

Defence spending unsustainable, warns think-tank

Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR

The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.
The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”.



“Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.




The IPPR report calls for spending on the new aircraft carriers and on the RAF's Tornado and Eurofighter-Typhoon aircraft to be urgently reviewed.



It also says that Britain’s defence system needs to be overhauled to reflect the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, calling for investment in cyber-warfare and in special forces designed to respond to a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.



It adds that it is “delusional” for Britain to believe that it can continue to rely on US military protection as an alternative to greater European defence co-operation.
It warns: “There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when Nato's political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/...-ippr-aircraft

Either:
- Cut back on foreign missions. (Yes, it's way cool to have this many soldiers in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq. But these troops are underfunded, and suffer high casualties and a low mission achievement rate because of it)
and/or
- Join common European defense initiatives.
and/or
- Give up the illusion that the UK can maintain a force capable of performing each and every one of the conventional tasks required of a Great Power. British military efficiency would drastically increase if this illusion was cast aside.

- And lastly, build some ships. In three months time, not a joke this, for the first time in 300 years, the French Navy wiLL BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
As soon as Global Warming has turned Britain into a habitable land, we'll invade.

From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.
You may refer to me from that day on as 'God'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...r-than-ours.do

[Brenus]

“From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.”
That is if we can pay for our armies and renew our material. Or even we have material. The tanks level is historically lower than ever...

Louis,if you don’t, go to Libé blog “Secret Défence”.
Make me crazy…

In fact it is the same than England. The Right pretends to be patriotic and to keep the Army in order when de facto destroying what the Left built previously…

[Furunculus]

What that was from me? The same as ever: Labour drastically increased UK defense spending over the past decade.

The problem is, this increase was not enough to fund all the tasks that were politically required of the UK armed forces: two costly wars, the maintainance of 'Great Power' illusions, fulfillment of treaty obligations, protection of the UK.


Because defense spending is too low to fund all of these requirements, Labour underfunded all of them despite massively increasing expenditure.

What really needs to happen, but which no Conservative Briton wants to hear, is a change in UK defense policy. To fulfill every role, defense spending would have to be raised so much that it would bankrupt the UK.

That not being an option, tough choices will have to be made:

Defence spending unsustainable, warns think-tank

Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR

The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.
The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”.



“Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.




The IPPR report calls for spending on the new aircraft carriers and on the RAF's Tornado and Eurofighter-Typhoon aircraft to be urgently reviewed.



It also says that Britain’s defence system needs to be overhauled to reflect the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, calling for investment in cyber-warfare and in special forces designed to respond to a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.



It adds that it is “delusional” for Britain to believe that it can continue to rely on US military protection as an alternative to greater European defence co-operation.
It warns: “There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when Nato's political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/...-ippr-aircraft

Either:
- Cut back on foreign missions. (Yes, it's way cool to have this many soldiers in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq. But these troops are underfunded, and suffer high casualties and a low mission achievement rate because of it)
and/or
- Join common European defense initiatives.
and/or
- Give up the illusion that the UK can maintain a force capable of performing each and every one of the conventional tasks required of a Great Power. British military efficiency would drastically increase if this illusion was cast aside.

- And lastly, build some ships. In three months time, not a joke this, for the first time in 300 years, the French Navy wiLL BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
As soon as Global Warming has turned Britain into a habitable land, we'll invade.

From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.
You may refer to me from that day on as 'God'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...r-than-ours.do

i read the IPPR report when it came it, and it is drivel.