Election choices based on defence.
 

If defence were the main issue for you in this upcoming election (For some it will be) which party do you trust to best serve the nations interests of Defence?
Which party will spend what you want it to? MPA, Trident replacement etc etc.
Or are they all as bad as each other as I suspect lol

OK, I'll have a go, though I doubt this thread has a great deal of relevance to many military aviation subscribers.

This lot seem to offer at least some understanding of the needs of a nations armed forces. Defence is covered on Page 64. Compelling enough for me to buy a years membership.

http://issuu.com/ukip/docs/theukipma...18137/12380620

At 62 I reckon I've had enough of the yo yo politics practised by the Tories and Labour for the whole of my life. Only to find that my real political leaders all operate from Brussels. I know they won't win, I know they probably won't even improve their current seats in parliament, that's a fault of the system.

Smudge :ok:

The local Kent on Sunday newspaper asked readers to put in order their list of priorities. Defence came bottom with 1%
I don't agree with it but there is.
mmitch.

Monster Raving Loony Party - at least they're honest enough to admit that they haven't the faintest idea about anything in the real world, whereas all the other parties pretend that they do!

Purely on defence issues it would appear that UKIP are the only ones who have clearly stated intentions to maintain a 2% funding.

Having had a quick look at the Monster Raving Loonies a lot of what they are proposing seems to make an awful lot of sense .... or maybe I'm getting more loopy with advancing years.

In any event I'm thankful I don't have to make decision - we've got more than enough political problems back in Oz to worry about.

Unfortunately it's not close to the top of any party's manifesto. If defence is the only concern, it has to be whatever party you feel will generate the strongest economy. The 2% commitment, or any %, is meaningless if the economy tanks. Pretty much every conflict in history has been won by the side with most money.

But in terms of honesty and general appeal, I'm with Beagle for Monster Raving Looney!

The Daily Politics Show Defence & Security debate is on BBC2 now.

None of them. They are all amateurs in their understanding of international relations and the importance of deterrence - not just nuclear.

If you missed it, Radio 4's The World Tonight did a good programme from Chatham House last month looking at Defence. As I recall it, it featured General Wall, Lord Hennessy, Lord Robertson plus one more.

When asked what constituted the biggest threat to UK security they all said Putin etc apart from Lord Robertson who said our own complacency and refusal to take defence seriously.

An interesting listen if for no other reason than hearing what Lord Hennessy has to say which is always interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b055jslv

etimegev and smujsmith,

Your promotion of UKIP as "the" party of defence conveniently ignores the fact that whilst Labour and the Tories have both committed to a continuous at sea deterrent force of 4 submarines, the LibDems AND UKIP have not and would examine whether the force could be reduced to 3 submarines.

Hardly the stuff of a party that "seems to understand the needs of a nations armed forces" eh?

I watched the defence debate yesterday and it was mostly depressing. The only one who demonstrated any degree of honesty was the Lib Dem bloke who said that there would be a shortfall with no idea how it could be filled. Both Labour and Tory ducked the funding question like Ali in his prime.

The other 2 provided some great comedy moments, the lady from the Greens who personally disagreed with her party policies and could only see climate change as a real threat. The top moment was the SNP rep trying to explain the threat from the North with the commentator trying to pin down if he meant Greenland, Iceland or Canada. Perhaps he was confused with the plot for the Game of Thrones.

Judging by the response of our sitting MP when he came canvassing for the Cons ... they're NFI :mad::ugh:

Just listened to the link Melchett posted. I'd forgetten what a good SoS Robertson was (wouldn't trust anyone currently in that party though) - his point on complacency was absolutely c0ck-on. As was Peter Wall stating that putting western BotG in the ME now would only worsen the situation.

The moonhowling Prof from LSE who thinks that you can deal with world events by improving governance in failing states (method completely unspecified) is unfortunately part of the problem. Obviously if force / deterrence is unacceptable, harsh language is out as well - maybe a bribe and some lentil soup would work instead.....

Did anyone pick up, on the BBC challengers' debate a couple of weeks ago, that Nicola Sturgeon, whilst opposing Trident, said "we're a maritime nation and yet we don't have a maritime patrol aircraft - how ridiculous is that?"
On the face of it, she seems to have put more thought into defence issues than the others.

To be honest, regurgitating a soundbite she's probably been fed does not mean she could answer the question - "so what is a maritime patrol aircraft for"?

if Ms Sturgeon was so incensed about the lack of an MPA - she could have made it a Scottish Govt priority instead of the free university tuition, free prescriptions and free bus-passes for the elderly. A couple of s/hand CN235s would have been affordable and a starter for 10. However, as mentioned, I suspect it was a comment fed to her by Angus Robertson prior to the show

Admiral Lord West made the most valid point today on BBC news - he highlighted that all the other election topics, NHS, welfare state, education, economy were all meaningless unless your country had long term security.

He also reminded the BBC that reviews of our deterrent had been made several times in recent history and kept coming back to Trident as the best in terms of value vs capability. Well said!

Now Pre-Blair/Brown, from a light blue perspective, I would have opted for Labour.

Now I am not absolutely clear on chronology but Labour gave us nuclear weapons, having cancelled TSR 2, the Buccanner, the Phantom, the Herc, Nimrod C17 and no doubt a fair number of others.

Apart from screwing the aircraft programme in 1957 there were the Nott cuts and the peace dividend from the Tories.

I know it can be argued that Labour left the finances in such a state, but to counter, in doing so the RAF got the kit.

MPAs
 

Please tell me Sandy Parts why the Scottish Government should purchase MPAs out of their limited budget when the Scottish taxpayers already pay Westminster to provide all UK defence assets? Incidentally, the Scottish Government (through Marine Scotland) operate the only dedicated and equipped surveillance aircraft flying over UK waters right now, on fishery patrol duties.

And yes she probably was briefed by Angus Robertson, as it is normal for any party leader to be briefed by their specialised spokespersons on all subjects.

"If we managed with 3 R-class bombers that could suggest 4 V-class was luxury unless there were other issues."

We always had 4 R Class, and there was planned to be a 5th.

3 is fine right up until they get old, start breaking and then need emergency repairs etc. Then you are in deep deep trouble.