Which party favours Defence?

[Pontius Navigator]

A reasonable question was asked in a recent thread now closed.

The short answer is perhaps none. A more surprising answer may well be Labour; Labour that is and not NuLabour.

There has been discussion before and we know that Labour under Harold Wilson cancelled TSR2. However it was Labour that set us on path to the bomb. Labour that approved the V-bomber programme. Labour that ordered the F4 and C130 and Harrier.

Labour that had one Defence Minister for the whole of a 5-year term.

Labour that actually wanted us to remain East of Suez and reduce our committement in Europe.

It would be very instructive to create a time-line comparing project start dates and the party in power.

[Easy Street]

In answer to the direct question, I suspect that Labour would probably spend more on defence than the Conservatives would over the course of the next parliament.

However, Labour have traditionally thrived by obtaining and holding the votes of "client" groups including unionised labour and the benefit-claiming classes. I would hope that no-one in the military would consider voting Labour purely to preserve defence spending, and thus help the Armed Forces become yet another Labour "client".

People should vote according to their beliefs/visions for the UK as a whole and not out of self-interest. Otherwise the country deserves whatever trouble it gets.

[Madbob]

The real question those still serving need to ask is "which party is going to leave me with the best job prospects when I leave?":bored:

This needs to be the real decider when casting ones vote, irrespective of where you are (or though you were) in your military career. I suspect that many service personnell will find themselves in civvy street a lot sooner than they had planned!:(

On the other hand, as a self-employed person in civvy street you can be your own boss, have a company car, work your own hours and live in your own house. Wife can have her own career and kids can go to the same school and keep their old friends. None of which applied when I was in....All one needs now is a government that recognises the value of capitalism, entrepreneurship and free enterprise and which doesn't tax the private sector into oblivion!.:E

MB

[airborne_artist]

Leaving aside the issues of spending on Iraq and Afghanistan (not small ones) just bear in mind that this Parliament has seen four DefSecs, including one part-timer (Des Browne, also Scottish Secretary).

That's four in five years. The Conservatives managed four in 11 and a quarter years from 81-92 (Nott, Hesletine, Younger and King), for example.

Personally I don't think that Labour has taken Defence seriously in fifty years except when it came to ensuring defence expenditure benefited their voters.

[Army Mover]

I'd be more interested them in conducting an effective defense review, then fund it properly; but we're talking about politicians here, so my interest is almost certainly a wasted effort ............ :hmm:

[philrigger]

;)

The short answer is perhaps none. A more surprising answer may well be Labour; Labour that is and not NuLabour.

There has been discussion before and we know that Labour under Harold Wilson cancelled TSR2. However it was Labour that set us on path to the bomb. Labour that approved the V-bomber programme. Labour that ordered the F4 and C130 and Harrier.

Labour that had one Defence Minister for the whole of a 5-year term.

Labour that actually wanted us to remain East of Suez and reduce our committement in Europe.

It would be very instructive to create a time-line comparing project start dates and the party in power.


They also gave us the military salary in 1970.
(Although it actually came in when the Tories were in power).



Philrigger

[airborne_artist]

ISTR that in the mid/late 70s when inflation was running at 10% or more that Labour normally implemented the findings of the AFPRB over two years, thus ensuring that the settlement was less in real terms. Lose two marks, one for running the economy almost as badly as GB, and another for keeping the Services very badly paid.

Maggie made up the 33% gap in one hit in 79.

[VinRouge]

what does this tell you?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/08/article-1226031-0720C79F000005DC-38_634x825.jpg

Labour getting back in would be a disaster for this country. Fortunately, it would also be a disaster for labour. I will be voting Labour this election, for that simple reason.

Look at Obamas approval ratings if you want to see what will happen to the Tories if they get a clear majority.

[The Old Fat One]

what does this tell you?

That you need to get out more???

[Pontius Navigator]

what does this tell you?

Labour getting back in would be a disaster for this country. Fortunately, it would also be a disaster for labour. I will be voting Labour this election, for that simple reason.

Look at Obamas approval ratings if you want to see what will happen to the Tories if they get a clear majority.

Not sure how this post addresses the question - which party favours defence?

[Double Zero]

As all in the services know, a lot of the problem lies in ' £5,000 for an oxygen bottle trolley ' etc etc, not the actual cost of aircrew inc training, engineers & aircraft...

Does anyone really think the Tories would be less inclined to give contracts to their chums / constituencies ?

Accounts & Statistics can be made to say whatever one wants, for example 1/3rd of car accidents are caused by drunk drivers, which means at 2/3rds these sober types are obviously a major menace, let's ban them !!!

As real life & accountants are worlds apart, they ( bean counters ) are the real enemy; remember the ' Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy ' where all such non-productive types inc' telephone sanitisers' & P.R. people were sent to a distant planet; when discovered by perplexed normal people, the answer was " okay you've invented the wheel, if you're such a smart-arse, YOU decide what colour it should be " !

While even high-up forces people think only politics & self interest, all we can hope for is something the size of the USS Enterprise ( starship not carrier ) to load them up & send on their way...

I do think the best current example is while the U.S. Have explosive cable firing ( old tech ? ) custom anti-mine tanks, we have Selly Oak.

Tories would not change this, it needs someone with balls from the Forces.

[Thelma Viaduct]

**** is ****, no matter what colour the wrapper.

[Double Zero]

KF,

'What are you blithering on about you old fool ?'

I object to the word old, as to the rest I'm sure someone can read it out loud to you.

DZ

[Pontius Navigator]

00,

many moons ago I was talking with an engineer whose job it was to assess industry invoices. He challenged one from Hawker Siddley, as it was then, for an extortionate sum to provide and fit a settee to the Royal Flight Andover.

The invoice duly came back "To source and procure from Harrods one settee - £1000. To submit same to HS stress engineers - £4000"

This was then queried, "and what did they have to do to make it secure."

"Nothing it was strong enough to have the hooks."

[Tankertrashnav]

To source and procure from Harrods one settee


I very much doubt if Harrods sell settees, Pontius, nor whether HM has ever sat on one.

Sofas possibly ;)

TTN

[Thelma Viaduct]

Vinrouge,

Your lovely spreadsheet tells the fascinating story of what happened to the North (the industrial heartlands that once made Britain truly Great) the last time the cons were in power.

Reap what you sow and all that. ;)

[Uncle Ginsters]

That old story that all Labourites go back to eventually - when all other argument proves fruitless, blame the Tories.

Face it, Labour have had 13 years to do something, anything good for the Services and this country as a whole but have failed at every hurdle. The sorry state of affairs we're in now is nobody's fault but Labour's. I'm just hoping that the Tories see fit to improve matters when they get back in in May.:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

A_A,

Service pay used to be set by the Grigg committee. Under its proposals and with Government spin, pay rises tended to e in the region of 7% over two years, 3 % this year and 4% next. Now it didn't take an Einstein to work out that this was not 7% but it did show that Governments were spinning in the 50s even and the media was happy to play along.

Around 1968 the AFPRB was formed and commenced their 'job comparison' work to establish a base line with which to compare service and civilian jobs. It was driven by the need to boost recruitment. The idea being that the men in the pub would compare pay packets and not the Serviceman's "£20 but I also get free food, accommodation and clothing."

The big falacy of course was the Serviceman still only had £20 after deductions. And the big mistake was that the food and accommodation elements became pensionable.

By 1970 the system was up and running but you could only get a refund of food charges if you were off the unit on leave. There were one or two other wrinkles.

As far as I can recall pay rises under AFPRB have always been annual. The only criticism I would level at the AFPRB, certainly in the early days, was they would moderate their proposals to fit with the Government's pay policy. If that was 2% then they were very reluctant to depart from the Government line although to their credit they did try and level the playing field recommending the lowest paid be given the higher award..

[you'llneverguesswhat]

I cannot comment about who was better during the 1970's, after all I was very young at that stage.

A more relevant answer would be who sent us into 2 wars, that then turned into 2 long term conflicts, without funding the military properly. Thus making the people up top cut areas to fund the front line, reducing over all capabilities and running other areas into the ground without being able to improve and replace them before they get trashed - most notably helicopters, ground support aircraft, anti submarine warfare and aircraft carriers.

What is needed is a review into what can be provided now and what we should aim to be able to achieve. Tell the politicians this and then tell them that we can or more importantly we cannot do their wishes when they need to win more votes.

[you'llneverguesswhat]

Sorry, was meant to add that I am very sceptical that this bunch of muppets would be able to do this. But you never know!

[Stretch182]

People should vote according to their beliefs/visions for the UK as a whole and not out of self-interest. Otherwise the country deserves whatever trouble it gets.

But surely if everyone voted for his/her best interests we would get just about as representative government as possible? ie - I have kids, and therefore I have interests in education as well as defence, and would include same in my overall assessment of which party would do best by me. My pal doesn't have any kids, and won't do - he objects to paying for my kids' education with his taxes but on other things we agree (save the argument about educating kids to be the doctors that will one treat his dementia - I've done that to death!) - so his overall assessment of parties would be slightly different.
Now, if every voter carried out a similar assessment of the various parties, and voted accordingly, we would have a truly representative government, would we not.



ok, I know - I'll get my coat....

[Pontius Navigator]

I cannot comment about who was better during the 1970's,

Quite right except with 13 years of Labour misrule you need to go back to a similar distance in Tory rule for a comparison which means back to 1984. But that was after the Falklands wake-up call, so you need to go before the Falklands and so on.

The end of the Cold War, GW1 is perhaps as good a start point as any with the Major Government reaping the peace dividend and E3, EF2000 and MRA4 all running sweetly.

Then Labour who probably sank the RN more comprehensively than Nelson did to Villeneuve's fleet. And continue to throttle what life is left in the Army.

It is difficult to imagine how it could be worse under a new Government.

[Easy Street]

Stretch182,

People do have valid views and opinions on matters that don't directly affect them, and those opinions deserve to be expressed at the ballot box.

Take 50% tax for example. It will never affect me; in fact it benefits me - because some other poor suckers are paying more tax, which is propping up my income and reducing the amount of tax I have to pay. However, I see 50% as an excessive proportion of someone's money to be taking away, so I disagree with the policy. It is perfectly valid for me to use that opinion when deciding who to vote for.

Historically there have been plenty of wealthy people who supported Labour because they believed in the welfare state (out of genuine altruism). There also used to be a tradition of working-class support for the Conservatives in some areas of the country (not sure if there still is, anyone care to enlighten me?). Were these groups both doing something wrong in voting based on principles, rather than on their own direct requirements?

In fact, I've just though of a decent sentence to summarise all that. The government should be representative of people's opinions and not just their needs.

[Pontius Navigator]

Easy Street, my father in law, by any definition, had been an aspirational member of the working class but would never have voted for labour. I can't think why that would have been the case in years past but it was.