Originally Posted by
Finningley Boy
Ok, take it easy Sir, or court will be adjourned and you'll have to see the Judge in his Chambers, or whatever it is. Yes indeed I'm not overlooking the disastrous defence decisions of many a post-war tory government. However, some of your examples are a little disingenuous. Options for Change was unavoidable following the Conventional Arms in Europe Treaty, I will give the Front Line First asset reduction exercise in 1994. The next big budget cuts were under Labour, SDR and the unwieldy titled Delivering Security in an ever changing World, translation, more heavy cuts. 1957 was the other great tory defence disaster, I understand Mr Sandys had a particular soft spot for the Navy and Marines, he though the Army and the RAF were only good for soaking up the National Service flotsam and jetsam. He was certainly wrong about the manned fighter. Even when we had about 12 Squadrons of Bloodhounds fully deployed about 1963, luckily, Lightnings and Javelins mks 8 and 9, still equipped about eight squadrons in Fighter Command, but were to lose more. The biggest sin was that the Bloodhounds were reduce to two squadrons over the next two years or so. The hidden devil in the detail is largely, both tory and labour have acted with a bare minimum approach. However, it is Labour which has had to fight off a prominent left-wing, which have always given the unmistakable impression that they would be utterly reckless with the nation's military posture. That's why I mention Corbyn, this is the same chap who had too close a relationship with people fronting the murder of British Servicemen in the 1980s. He has revealed how he would have reacted recently over Ukraine, opposing the supply of British, or any other arms and munition to Ukraine, he thinks as Bean Counter Sunak, I always suspected he thought deep down, that there is a negotiating point to be pursued. Only difference, Corbyn would have, through his stance, seen Ukraine over run by Russians by now. Can you remember the position of the Labour Party in the 1930s, since proud of their anti-appeasement position. If this was some kind of award, they should have handed it to Neville Chamberlain, the true recipient. I can explain this assessment.
FB
Don't you tell me to take it easy! Who the hell do you think you are, the Chairman of the BBC?
Your description of the 1957 white paper is an exercise in sheer reductionism and generalisations, the Army and the RN took equally large cuts in the white paper and many of the planned RAF cuts never actually happened, apart from the overnight disbandment of a large percentage of the RAFG Hunter and Venom force. The Mark one Bloodhound force was deployed in the late 50's and withdrawal began in 1963 at the same time as the Thor force was withdrawn. The reason for the cuts in RAFG and Fighter Command were actually recommended by the Air Staff who saw the complete futility of the manned fighter against the ICBM, don't forget this was before the era of flexible response, the main threat was a missile threat, and against that we had NO defence at all, so 20 to 30 odd fighter squadrons were a waste of money. And please leave Corbyn out of this! He is an irrelevance and not even a member of the Labour Party! He didn't get into power, he never even came close, and all you do is demean your position if that is all you can argue with. The Tories have been a disaster without precedent for defence over the last 13 years, dogma driven idiots who hate public expenditure and public services.