Tories to Spend More on Defence - Manifesto

[soddim]

The Tory Manifesto promises more money for Defence:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=manifesto.index.page

[Anton Meyer]

It's funny but, when I think of a Conservative Government and Defence, I think of DCS 15 and Portillo's who dares, wins speech.

Lets face it, Joe Public doesn't really care about Defence expenditure so long as we win.

:bored:

[pr00ne]

Soddim,

Read what the manifesto actually says very carefully, they are going to spend £2.7 Billion more than Labour ON THE FRONT LINE by 2007/8.
There is no new money, that £2.7Billion is going to come from within the existing Defence budget allocation by savings and efficiencies made on “non front line defence expenditure.”

They are going to find this money by, amongst other things;

Merging the DPA and the DLO

Privatising or outsourcing 12 Defence Agencies.

Cutting an additional 15% of Headquarters staff over and above the cuts proposed by Labour in the same area.

Quotes from Nicholas Soames on these measures;

“ …the reorganisation will be painful and difficult and the armed forces may not agree with the changes.”

“A lot of sacred cows are going to be slaughtered.”


All this from the very same people who brought you the sell off of the Married Quarters estate and the absolute destruction of the Defence Medical services.

[vecvechookattack]

yep - just sounds like the same old Tory defence cuts to me. Lets just hope that come the end of May the Secretary of state for defence can actually fit inside a tank and not look like one.

[ILLUC IVI ILLUD FECI]

Why do we need tanks? Perhaps this could be one of the sacred cows mentioned!:hmm:

[Training Risky]

I'll bet a million pounds that you are not a Cavalry officer!

[uncivilservant]

"Why do we need tanks? ..."

Apache is why we need tanks! Late, unreliable and too few. Challenger 2 is far more effective - as well as in service and cheaper.

... and I'm not Cavalry (neither of my parents were equine or rich)

[soddim]

I just knew this would draw comment from pr00ne!

If it makes him feel better why not view it as cuts without a smirk?

[BEagle]

Have to agree with pr00ne in some areas.....

The Tory party brought you:

1. The infamous 1957 Duncan Sandys White Paper which inflicted massive cuts on the RAF. All based on the flawed personal opinion of a total idiot.

2. The appalling economic situation of 1974 with 17% inflation which led to the 1975 defence cuts - more savaging of the RAF.

3. Nott's 1981 cuts under Mad Old Maggie. Fortunately they hadn't had time to take too much effect before the Malvinas war.

4. Death by a thousand cuts which started with the 1990 defence cuts. But Labour have continued them since the gurning slimeball took over.

Nevertheless, it was Blair who licked Dubya's bum like a trusty poodle and took the UK to war in Iraq with no justified cause. For that alone, the Labour party needs to be booted out in May....

[passpartout]

We need tanks so that we can stay on task longer without going to the tow-line.

[lippiatt]

And who can remember the staggered pay rises? A bit in April the rest in January, therefore resulting in a pay rise BELOW inflation in real terms. Funny though, any rise in charges was always actioned in full on 01 Apr without fail!!

There, glad thats off my chest!

[McAero]

So what do the other parties say? I'm about to begin a job which will rely heavily on large contracts (as do most people in this industry). Curious to know if anyone has any info on the military agendas of each.

[rivetjoint]

I can't wait for my current MP to come and visit me as an "undecided voter". I'll have the tea and biscuits ready along with a thousand nice defence questions. Of course he'd never want to leave thinking I wasn't going to vote for him would he?!

[tablet_eraser]

Fatty Soames has an advantage over Buff in that he was actually a serving member of the armed forces. A captain in the Hussars, if I recall correctly. At the very least, he can offer something we haven't had for years, and that is actual experience in the forces.

His policies, though, ring a little hollow. The claim of a £2.7bn hike in front-line spending makes it sound like the defence budget is being increased; actually, this money would be reallocated from within the budget. He also says that the Conservatives would keep all of the regiments Labour plans to axe, as well as three out of the six axed frigates. Nothing about the RAF, though, and the fact that we copped the biggest cuts of all out of the three services! Nothing about the cuts in Typhoon or MRA4 orders, or closure of airfields.

Why not save all six frigates? The RN are overstretched massively. What about buying new ships, keeping the 12 D-Class T45s instead of cutting back, keeping the original CVF tonnage? What about beefing up the infantry with more troops? All he's talking about is maintaining capability. That's not what we need. At the moment, more than ever, we need a growing defence capability, not needless bloody cuts. A government that would actually spend appreciably more on defence.

Oops... seem to be a little delusional today! All the same, give me Soames over Hoon any day. Better still, position Soames over Hoon and then crush the smarmy prat.

[Archimedes]

McAero,

The Conservative policies are pretty much outlined here - £2.7 bn increase, with £1.6 from reorganisation within the MoD (DLO merger, etc, etc) and £1.1 bn from savings made elsewhere and allocated to defence (See Bunter's recent RUSI speech). This all presupposes that the James review savings targets would be met, though...

Labour policy seems to be steady as she goes, although Buff is, by all accounts, likely to be replaced as he wants to do something else. Of course, we should be due an unanticipated defence cutbac...sorry, restructuring process about two years in.

Lib Dem policy has been discussed somewhere on the Army means... In essence, though, policy seems to be:

1. No replacement for Trident

2. Cancel Eurofighter and use all that money elsewhere (someone's not been paying attention nor heard of the phrase 'cancellation clause'....)

3. Er.... can we get back to you on that, please?

[Incipient Sinner]

It's the ultimate answer for a fully deployable military. We don't need more transport or battlefield helicopters, just keep reducing the size of the forces until we can all fit into the back of a London cab and you're sorted. :E

[Si Clik]

All those who with and for Fatty Soames said the guy was an A%$SE. I met him at a dinner party and he talked down to everybody. The Tory party have NO credence with defence policy over the past 50 years. Options for Cuts anb Front Line Last typical.

:hmm:

[PileUp Officer]

Labour: Stand by Iraq war - even if weapons intelligence was wrong, Saddam flouted UN resolutions; extra £3.7bn on defence over three years to modernise armed forces, shedding 20,000 posts.

Tory: Still back Iraq war but say Tony Blair lied over the intelligence; pledge £2.7bn more on front line defence than Labour over the next 3 years, saving historic regiments.

Lib Dems: Opposed Iraq war and demand Blair reveal when he promised to commit UK forces; would start phased withdrawal of troops after Iraqi polls; worry troop cuts will affect peacekeeping.

[Biggus]

Maybe we should opt for a military coup, or should that be a pprune coup? But who would we have running the country, BEagle, WEBF....... hmm, who would be your choice?

Answers on postcard, or perhaps we could vote on it, that would be a novel idea................!!!!!

[BEagle]

The trains WILL run on time.

Rapists will be castrated.

Adulterers will be stoned.

Drug dealers and drug users will be boiled alive in their own excreta.

OK - that's Day One sorted. Now for Day Two.........

[L1A2 discharged]

bit of drift setting in but, well wtf ...

'joy'riders will be neck shot

revenue cameras situated where the risk is, not the money

no scottish MPs at westmister, (yes I did mean by nationality, not just by constituency)

same for welsh

1 MP per 10,000,000 votes cast per party, don't get 10, 000,000 votes? no MPs

illegal drug users placed on Lundy Island, one-way tickets only.

build concord mk2 as UK only enterprise

[PhilM]

L1A2 & BEagle, that may be said light heartedly, however what a better place to live this would be if that was the case!:ugh:

[soddim]

Sadly, I fear that it is too late for any party proposing an authoritarian regime to get elected. The chavs have got so used to doing only what pleases them regardless of the effect on others that they simply will not vote for anybody offering a different form of government.

Only solution is to get elected on a woolly touchy feely tree hugging loony lefty manifesto and then do what is needed to put things right.

[pr00ne]

soddim,

Pleasure to oblige!

BEagle,

I also have to agree with YOUR points, Iraq was a disgrace and it will rankle for a good while yet.

I am no great fan of Mr Blair, I was in 1997 but not now..........

Pileupoffice,

Very simplistic stuff old chap, NONE of what the Tories are saying on spending is a pledge, how can it be with such fantasy finance as; Tax cuts, more spending on Health and Education than labour, more national debt reduction than Labour?

L1A2,

You still have time to form a party! Like points 3 and 4 especially.

soddim,

Chavs vote? Surely not...................

[Pureteenlard]

BEagle, stone adulterers???

there'd be nobody left in the country except a few catholics, moslems and high kirk elders!

I hope your policies don't come to pass - I wouldn't survive day one . . .

As for "What do we need tanks for?" the answer is simple. When you invade some poor sod's country, you can't hide behind an Apache gunship when he decides to empty his AK-47 on you from his back garden!

[idle-centralise]

Sorry, but the simple answer to that is that if you were in an apache he'd already be toast :E

[McAero]

LIA2,

You're lucky I've had a few beers, or else I would eat you alive.

Having no Scottish MP's in Westminster would have major implications on the UK, European and World economy. We are the people who keep the whole place ticking over nicely. Disagree and grunt all you like, but the truth hurts.

:cool:

Archimedes,

Cheers. I do appreciate it, although it\'s still difficult to see how the parties will benefit me.

[Navaleye]

Assuming we did form a PPRuNe govt, who would be Minister for Fun?:confused: :rolleyes: :(

[vecvechookattack]

Well the Minister for fun couldn't possibly be Beagle....as he stated "drug users will be boiled alive in their own excreta"....and all that just for smokin a few leafs...!!!

[BootFlap]

BEagle

Adulterers will be stoned.

Drug dealers and drug users will be boiled alive in their own excreta

Is this not entrapment? "I order you to get stoned.............. ah-hah you are a fillthy drug user!

Still, it has merits!

Bootflap

[soddim]

See the Labour Party's Manifesto here:

http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto.html

A lot to read - 112 pages - but obviously Defence is not a best seller for their voters. One interesting quote:

We will never commit forces to battle unless it is essential

Guess that means a change of policy then.

[Navaleye]

Thank you Soddim, that saves me buying more lavatory paper for a while. :yuk:

[soddim]

Might just last 'till polling day - after that they forget it anyway.