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.
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.
Bookmarks