PM Gordon Brown - Defence Policy
 

So thats it, after a thrilling week on the hustings, it's been confirmed that the Rt Hon member for Kirkoddee is to be our next Prime Minister. I must confess I did not see that coming :hmm: Congratulations on a well fought campaign Mr Brown.

As this is a Mil forum, I wondered if any of you had heard Mr Brown outline his policy on Defence, and if he's updated it since the famous quote:

"Every defence pound is a wasted pound."

Three questions:

a. Which direction do you think GB plc will take with foreign policy and how will that affect the structure of our beloved Armed Forces?

b. Will GB do the honourable thing and legitimise his position by calling a general election, thereby obtaining the mandate of the people?

c. Mrs Margaret Beckett for SoSDef - anyone?

The answers to all these affect everyone on this forum.

The floor is yours Ladies and Gentlemen. Crack on :ok:

Ha ha, ha ha ha ha haaaa.:rolleyes:

Why would he want to do that?

He knows Labour will lose to the Tories at the next general election so it'd be better for a future Labour opposition that he mess the country up as much as possible so that the incoming Tory government is left with the problems to sort out making them look bad*, as happened the last time Tories replaced Labour.

* Such as having to pay off (through higher taxes) 10 years of not seen since WW2 levels of borrowing under Labour, with no gold reserve to fall back on as that was sold off as well.

Don't get me started. I'm just watching the guy lay out his priorities and plans for the future. Of course, defense has not been mentioned, and why should he. It's something he can stay schtum on so he can talk about the NHS and education.

The military have always stayed silent and carried out whatever orders we have been given. Unfortunately for the PM, the military are voting with there feet and getting out of dodge.

He said he's going to travel round the country and listen to the British people about their views on policy. Hmm, why do I get the feeling that the military view is in a file marked 'B1N'!

Let's face it, it's not what we joined up for all those years ago.

Can the last one out please turn the light off and lock the door, thanks.

FbS

Many people in the country want out of Iraq and Afg. If we get out then we do not need the expeditionary forces we are building up.

If we adopt a more passive Belgique approach then we need patrol boats not cruisers.

We don't need troop transports, tankers what have you etc etc.

Defence is the servant the Homeland Security and the Foreign Office. If Foreign Office policy changes to non-involvement then we only need forces for homeland security.

In the absence of a short term military threat but a high terrorist threat we need more immigration and less airmen. We need more Customs and less navy. We need more police and less squadies.

So put my P45 in the post, and a bonus, and I will even switch the lights off.

Don't the politicians ever get it? You only NEED a military when it's too late! Common sense dictates that you only pick on those countries weaker than you. So what happens if and when we continue to weaken ourselves? Maybe Gordon Brown should read his history books? The Nott review of the early 80's (not sure when exactly, wasn't born!) then, surprise surprise, the Falklands were invaded. Round and round we go.... :ugh:

Unfortunately there has been a precident in recent history.
When John Major replaced the great Margaret Thatcher, there was no General Election.

Unlike the events of 1990 though, today the leader of the opposition has not proposed a motion of no confidence in the government, nor has there been a challenge for the leadership of the Labour Party. Because of this TB has been allowed to walk away from his post with the confidence and backing from all parties that after all, 'he did the right thing'.

Also, as JM left power in 1997 he left us with the words;

"The new Government inherits a sparkling economy and unemployment below 6 per cent and falling rapidly. No Government have ever had such an inheritance" - 1997 "

What inheritance does the Labour Govt leave us!
After many years of bleating that the blame for anything happening now is squarely put on the shoulders of the previous (Cons) Govt and 'we have been unable to change anything in out 10 years of power', you can bet your bottom euro that when Gordon is in opposition (as if he will stay in politics after a Labour defeat!) the opposition party will be blaming everything going wrong on the present(future) Govt.

Besides, with millions of the people telling the Gov't invading Iraq was a wrong move to make, Military experts telling the Gov't invading Iraq was a wrong move to make, weapons inspectors telling the Gov't invading Iraq was a wrong move to make and other countries telling the Gov't invading Iraq was a wrong move to make, not a jot of notice was taken. There is no way we as a people make any difference for 4 years once the ballot paper is in the box.

I predict an almighty, brilliantly timed crash of Britain as a country in all respects, as soon as Labour leave power due to someone 'doing what they thought was the right thing to do, ignoring everyone elses opinion' and simply walking away from it.


Have the next General Election with an additional voting slip box saying 'None Of The Above'.

Let's go and fly. 1981, the FI followed as swiftly as dawn follows dusk in an Arctic summer. If they had waited a few minutes longer we would have sold Illustrious to the Australians, sold Hermes, and withdrawn Endurance, which, incidentally, still endures.

Pontious

By post No. 20, someone'll have explained how that was the Labour Party's fault too!

CG

CG, well actually it probably was.

Remember the wonderful Callaghan years?

IMHO, Simple. Chancellor becomes PM. He knows that the next election is derived from the 'popular' vote, and Defence isn't it. Quite the contrary, it's a thorn in his side, what with IRQ and AFG and all that mess.

He will very quick distance himself from IRQ and AFG, and the Millitary in general. His stool, will be NHS and Education. Defence will quickly fall into the background, and when it does... it will get the biggest chop job ever seen. This will be justified by: Cohesion in Europe, extraction from IRQ and AFG since by then we will have pulled out.

I can envisage merges of services, European defence force ideas and the effective disbandment of 'regular' standing forces (vice SF which will get a boost).

Black days indeed. I really hope I'm wrong.

The good news is, we'll still have the Arrows, Royal Flight and BBMF.... but, that's pretty much all.

Just Dispondent,

Advo

It's a different ship, Ponty (ex-MV Polar Circle); but I take your point.

As for:

Or Patsy Hewitt, Gawd 'elp us. :hmm:

That was never an option. Illustrious was always going to stay.


Lets just hope and pray that GB doesn't pull the Armed Forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Vecvechook
Sorry - not with you there
Let's hope he DOES pull UK Forces out of the two places you mention

The previous vessel of the name was an antiquity even in the late 70s, with a fixed pitch single propeller with no reverse - to go astern the engine (huge 2-stoke diesel) had to be stopped, and re-started using compressed air. The compressed air tank only held enough for three/four starts.

She had no real ice-capability, beyond a thicker hull, and the flight deck sloped down towards the hangar.

Didn't have a wardroom - as a merchant vessel she had a saloon, and that's what it was called even when she was flying the white ensign.

Every day the Armed forces are in the news. Every news bulletin be it on TV, radio or T'internet has a story about the Armed Forces. Some of the publicity is good, some is bad but at the moment Joe public knows that we have a Royal Navy, an Army and an Air Force and he knows where they are and what they are doing.

If we wiithdraw from combat operations then what do we do? what are we for? Sweeping defence cuts will follow as there is no requirement for any new kit. Joe public forgets that he has an Armed Force defending him.

Lest not forget.

Vecvechookattack, sorry can you speak a little louder please.

You see my friend, I just can't here you from the other planet that you're standing on!!!!:ugh:

FbS

Douglas Alexander is likely to be the next Defence Secretary, I believe.

And I agree - we're in for a rough time.

Vec,

I disagree about Illustrious, or certainly one of the cruisers (sic). I agree entirely with your next post however.

The Armed forces had 3 possibile roles in 1997.

1. A force in being.

2. An intervention force.

3. A token force.

One of the leaders of the Government selected option 2. The other disliked option 1 as well. With a leadership change, if we withdraw from option 2 this leaves Option 1 force with tired and inappropriate kit that would cost money and which would not be used, certainly in the next few years, which leaves us with Option 3.

Remember even the Army COS said it would take 2 years or more to recover from intervention and that would mean leave, barrack refurbishment, kit replacement etc etc.

To clarify on the carriers, the first was HMS Invincible, which was planned to be sold to the Australians. The second was HMS Illustrious which was finished at the rush in order to take over from the others after the initial recovery of the islands had taken place.

The third was HMS Ark Royal, which I suspect will be our last carrier, since I think one of Gordons likely first moves will be to bin the new ones.

I think vecvec may be saying that pulling the forces out of Iraq & Afghanistan would result in further massive defence cuts. While the forces are in IRQ AFG the have a role. Pull them out, no role. No role = surplus to requirements = cutbacks. :uhoh:
Oh, I knew I should have gone for a job as a bean counter. It is so simple! :hmm: