Defence under a Corbyn Government
Thread Starter
Defence under a Corbyn Government
I think I'm on the right forum here for this, but given the level of political turmoil at present and the now just in sight possibility of a Corbyn Government, just what do we imagine, in all seriousness, a Corbyn administration would approach the nation's defence and security arrangements? I'm curious to see what would actually happen given the man's Hinterland. I also note, with interest, how a lot of people support Corbyn openly without any seeming concern for this particular issue. An issue which I'd have thought was one of major concern and worthy of addressing by all.
FB
FB
Normally, I would say a Corbyn government is unimaginable but nothing in politics surprises me these days.
If BoJo loses the bap with tory remainer MPs and calls a snap election, there is a scenario of the pro-Brexit vote getting split and JC getting in via the back door, at the head of a 'remain/2nd ref' coalition. Unlikely but, dear help us, entirely possible.
If BoJo loses the bap with tory remainer MPs and calls a snap election, there is a scenario of the pro-Brexit vote getting split and JC getting in via the back door, at the head of a 'remain/2nd ref' coalition. Unlikely but, dear help us, entirely possible.
From the people I know who support Corbyn, they are all to a person also anti-establishment, anti-services, and all bar one, pro-republic & anti-monarchy.
I blame Harold Wilson.
It was his Labour government which started closing all our bases 'East of Suez' and successive Labour governments continued his policy of reducing our defences.
Nobody seems to remember that GW1 wasn't the first time Kuwait had been threatened by Iraq; it happened first in the early '60s and we conducted our successful campaign there without the USA and others because we still had the capability (in spite of Duncan Sandys)..
It was his Labour government which started closing all our bases 'East of Suez' and successive Labour governments continued his policy of reducing our defences.
Nobody seems to remember that GW1 wasn't the first time Kuwait had been threatened by Iraq; it happened first in the early '60s and we conducted our successful campaign there without the USA and others because we still had the capability (in spite of Duncan Sandys)..
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
IF Corbyn ever got in which I doubt, it was seen with the cross party talks he is seen to be a liability, so much so that even with their worst fears of Brexit looming they wouldn't have him running a caretaker Government, that speaks volumes. labours only chance would be to ditch him and elect someone like Benn in charge.
It would be a disastrous day for the Military, I could see the independant deterrent being binned, the forces cut back, future programmes chopped and current ones scaled back and all those serving in operations around the world pulled back to the UK.
Myself, I would probably take early retirement and retire onto benefits as one would probably be rich on his give aways to the unemployed.
..
It would be a disastrous day for the Military, I could see the independant deterrent being binned, the forces cut back, future programmes chopped and current ones scaled back and all those serving in operations around the world pulled back to the UK.
Myself, I would probably take early retirement and retire onto benefits as one would probably be rich on his give aways to the unemployed.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 2nd Sep 2019 at 12:01.
From the outside, Corbyn appears to be much more interested in domestic issues that international ones, so one would expect his defense policies to reflect that.
Logically that would suggest a greater emphasis on the tactical navy, rather than the more force projection oriented carrier navy.
Doubt he would want to spend heavily to modernize the nuclear deterrent force either.
His stance on European force integration remains to be determined.
Logically that would suggest a greater emphasis on the tactical navy, rather than the more force projection oriented carrier navy.
Doubt he would want to spend heavily to modernize the nuclear deterrent force either.
His stance on European force integration remains to be determined.
I blame Harold Wilson.
It was his Labour government which started closing all our bases 'East of Suez' and successive Labour governments continued his policy of reducing our defences.
Nobody seems to remember that GW1 wasn't the first time Kuwait had been threatened by Iraq; it happened first in the early '60s and we conducted our successful campaign there without the USA and others because we still had the capability (in spite of Duncan Sandys)..
It was his Labour government which started closing all our bases 'East of Suez' and successive Labour governments continued his policy of reducing our defences.
Nobody seems to remember that GW1 wasn't the first time Kuwait had been threatened by Iraq; it happened first in the early '60s and we conducted our successful campaign there without the USA and others because we still had the capability (in spite of Duncan Sandys)..
"..and successive CONSERVATIVE Governments continued his policy..." There, fixed it for you.
I think you'll find that the policy of reducing the size of the British defence establishment was firmly and decisively started by the Conservative Government in 1957.
It was only a few months ago, in a public address, that Corbyn stated, unequivocally, that "this Government has left the UK armed forces in a desperate state and they need more men, ships and aircraft." Not sure that I have heard anything so clear from Johnson. Not sure that I would believe either.
I'm sure I read somewhere that it's under Conservative Governments that Defence gets cut and that Labour tend to be more neutral or increase spending. I could be wrong.
Thread Starter
chevvron,
"..and successive CONSERVATIVE Governments continued his policy..." There, fixed it for you.
I think you'll find that the policy of reducing the size of the British defence establishment was firmly and decisively started by the Conservative Government in 1957.
It was only a few months ago, in a public address, that Corbyn stated, unequivocally, that "this Government has left the UK armed forces in a desperate state and they need more men, ships and aircraft." Not sure that I have heard anything so clear from Johnson. Not sure that I would believe either.
"..and successive CONSERVATIVE Governments continued his policy..." There, fixed it for you.
I think you'll find that the policy of reducing the size of the British defence establishment was firmly and decisively started by the Conservative Government in 1957.
It was only a few months ago, in a public address, that Corbyn stated, unequivocally, that "this Government has left the UK armed forces in a desperate state and they need more men, ships and aircraft." Not sure that I have heard anything so clear from Johnson. Not sure that I would believe either.
Next came Heath, his government stayed the execution of the Ark Royal, it along with Eagle, Victorious and Hermes was to have gone under Labour's East of Suez which included, as a result a drastic drop in the number of F-4s for the Navy, the few they had were to go to the RAF. But Ark Royal carried on under Heath's government. Next came Wilson again, and again extra money for public services was the priority, defence was to be pruned to help pay for this. Hence this time, the cull of Air Support Command and the removal of units in Cyprus. In 1977 a Labour Defence Study Group, rather like the ERG, only in regards to Defence, published their recommendations to Callaghan, that the Tornado should be scrapped entirely and the BAOR be reduced from 55,000 to 30,000.
Then Thatcher, carried out significant cuts to the RAF and Navy, the effects hadn't taken place in time to affect the Falklands deployment. John Nott resigned as Defence Secretary. Meanwhile, the promise to unilaterally disarm the UK nuclear arsenal strategic and tactical were clear from the Labour opposition along with further defence cuts. The Thatcher government, however, did make good on some points, they bought additional F-4s to replace the Squadron deployed to the Falklands permanently. They pressed ahead with further Invincible Class cruiser carriers and were looking to order an additional 40 Tornados on top of the 385 being delivered, tha was in early 1989.
The rest is largely history, the Tories cut defence through Options for Change and Front Line First. Blair got into that many overseas rucks one might have thought Labour at the time would have significantly increased defence spending to some substantial level. Instead, units of the RAF in particular were disbanded, Jaguar Force etc, to balance out the cost of the overseas operations. More to protect public avarice again. Next credit crunch, austerity and Liam Fox MD, apologising, as a Tory MP, for presiding over the deep cuts to come.
2015, the Tories in office have indicated a willingness to consolidate and stop any further cuts, but they continue here and there, Scampton, Linton-on-Ouse? I suspect Corbyn only criticises the Government over Defence to confuse people who look to his passed history,, he will conduct a root and branch SDSR on arrival in office. Whatever he says now will be dismissed by the findings of a Corbyn government SDSR.
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 2nd Sep 2019 at 12:52.
Corbyn and Defence are two words that do not naturally fit together. As others have mentioned he and other commie friends (McDonnell) will be laying down in front of Comrade Putin and other "so-called" friends of Labour like Hezbollah and its Iranian paymasters.
It would undoubtedly be an interesting dynamic when the intelligence community didn’t trust the PM - as I think would happen. Without opening up a detailed discussion, the question of national security, our place in the world and the UK’s ongoing association with the Five Eyes partnership would to my mind be at risk under a Corbyn administration. And given that all our recent operations have been conducted in an international / alliance context, that is a big issue.
Not that I would expect Corbyn or his acolytes to worry about that. They would probably be quite happy to sideline the entire intelligence and security architecture, citing an anti-democratic agenda.
And beyond our military partnerships and alliances how does all that translate? A lack of ‘Understanding’ (see JDP 4 https://assets.publishing.service.go...ing_jdp_04.pdf), some pretty questionable statecraft and a general mess in terms of our entire approach.
Not that I would expect Corbyn or his acolytes to worry about that. They would probably be quite happy to sideline the entire intelligence and security architecture, citing an anti-democratic agenda.
And beyond our military partnerships and alliances how does all that translate? A lack of ‘Understanding’ (see JDP 4 https://assets.publishing.service.go...ing_jdp_04.pdf), some pretty questionable statecraft and a general mess in terms of our entire approach.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
The first priority of any government is defence of the realm. I don't think that is Corbyn's first priority.
It would undoubtedly be an interesting dynamic when the intelligence community didn’t trust the PM - as I think would happen. Without opening up a detailed discussion, the question of national security, our place in the world and the UK’s ongoing association with the Five Eyes partnership would to my mind be at risk under a Corbyn administration. And given that all our recent operations have been conducted in an international / alliance context, that is a big issue.
Not that I would expect Corbyn or his acolytes to worry about that. They would probably be quite happy to sideline the entire intelligence and security architecture, citing an anti-democratic agenda.
And beyond our military partnerships and alliances how does all that translate? A lack of ‘Understanding’ (see JDP 4 https://assets.publishing.service.go...ing_jdp_04.pdf), some pretty questionable statecraft and a general mess in terms of our entire approach.
Not that I would expect Corbyn or his acolytes to worry about that. They would probably be quite happy to sideline the entire intelligence and security architecture, citing an anti-democratic agenda.
And beyond our military partnerships and alliances how does all that translate? A lack of ‘Understanding’ (see JDP 4 https://assets.publishing.service.go...ing_jdp_04.pdf), some pretty questionable statecraft and a general mess in terms of our entire approach.
In his case, it has taken him most of his first term just to get to a marginal situation, even though as C in C and Chief Executive, he has much more freedom than
a British PM.
So I'd expect a Corbyn administration to be deliberately boring. Just as Corbyn, an excellent tactician, has thus far been able to deflect or overcome numerous efforts to sideline him in politics, I'd expect the same in defense and intelligence.
Indeed, most likely he would start with a dollop of sugar and a dash of kindness for the Services, just to take the wind out of the sails of his more rabid opponents.
That would buy him time to come to grips with the reality of restoring a shrunken resource base and of re balancing the country's global commitments.