Political Crossfire Forums

[DSwain]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5209190.stm

Well, DC is making the right noises - supporting the troops, wants to make sure sufficient numbers and resources available etc. Obviously, choosing Afghanistan over Iraq was a smart move - I think the Tory position on Iraq is still rather awkward, then again so's the Government's position.

How does the Conservative Party as being the party of strong defence sit within Cameron's vision for the New Tories? I know that the 2005 manifesto made good noises: an extra £2.7bn was promised in funding and an end to amalgamations in the infantry was proposed (guaranteed to please the Telegraph reading former Services types). But under David Cameron, I've not heard a lot on defence - or perhaps I've just not been listening. Obviously, a visit to British Forces in Afghanistan isn't the time to announce defence policy - as inherent would be a criticism of HMG - but is defence an issue the Conservatives should try to highlight as an area where they will do things differently than Labour? Or should Con policy merely be more of the same with just a little more money?

[thundertaker]

Defence is one of the few areas of government that I would support an increase in government spending, if only to ensure that the military is properly equipped to do the jobs it is frequently called out to do....

[DSwain]

This is quite an interesting piece from Michael Ancram about British defence policy

http://www.globalstrategyforum.org/articleshow.asp?ref=6

He makes the point that we are doing too much with too little and proposes additional defence spending of £10-15bn exclusive of costs for a Trident replacement. That is a huge amount of money - certainly a lot more than the £2.7bn mentioned by the Conservatives in 2005. I think though that it is that amount of money we need. But will - and should - the Conservatives stand up and say it?

[Kenna]

Personally, I baulk at the notion that we still call it "Defence". When it is plain to see that The Ministry of Offence would be a more honest term as regards our foreign policy. And it scares me to think what we would do with an increase in budget of £10-15 Billion.
Even by reading Ancrams piece, it has not convinced me that the funds available at present, would not be enough if "defence" was actually the aim. But that we have spread out our adventures abroad, which is causing the strain on the purse. That, and how much is wasted on projects running up huge amounts over budget. Maybe the arms dealers like BAE should be forced to put national interest over profit, and give value for money instead of skimming tax-payers money for personal gain.
And when Lord Guthrie states "The world has not broken out in peace and there is no reason why we should imagine that things will get better – in fact, they have reason to get worse.
The phenomenon of globalisation means that we get involved in countries where we never thought we would. Twenty years ago, it was unthinkable that we would be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are. Now it still seems unlikely that we would get involved in somewhere as far afield as Taiwan – but we could in the future." makes me think that more funding=more world instability=more funding. A never ending cycle of hostility is our future. What a wonderfull world we are going to leave to future generations.

[Chymical]

Well said, maybe is finally time for uk to keep a low profile...