As the main MoD web site and related activity goes into shutdown mode as part of election campaign norms we though a quick look at the main parties defence and security policies might be in order.
No analysis yet just, I will do that as the campaign progresses but how accessible are the parties policies to those interested in green and a couple of shades of blue?
I will try and keep things updated but if anyone knows of any other parties or independents with a defence policy let me know via the comments system.
Contents
The Labour Party
Defence is not on the front page or policies menu but making the assumption that defence comes under the category of Britain in the World we got to a page where in further reading there was a link to the defence policy. The link to the Labour Party’s defence policy is here
The Conservative Party
Pretty easy to find the defence policy, click on the policy menu option and select from the pictures representing the policy area, click here
The Liberal Democrats
Buried in international affairs and not easily accessible from the home page the Liberal Democrats defence policy can be found here
UK Independence Party
UKIP have an easy to find defence policy, accessible directly from the policies menu, here
The British National Party
Access the BNP’s policy here
The Green Party
Fairly difficult to find but the Green Party Peace and Defence policy is here
The Libertarian Party
Access the Libertarian Party’s defence policy here
English Democrats
Access their defence policy here
Scottish National Party
I couldn’t find a specific policy but the defence area of the web site is here
Plaid Cymru
I couldn’t find anything at all about defence policy, the main site is here
Democratic Unionist
I couldn’t find anything at all about defence policy, the main site is here
Sinn Fein
I am not going to post any link to Sin Fein for obvious reasons
Ulster Unionist
I couldn’t find anything at all about defence policy, the main site is here
SDLP
I couldn’t find anything at all about defence policy, the main site is here
Official Monster Raving Loony Party
My particular favourite policy is
National Defense, All soldiers serving abroad would be issued with a long ranged laser guided water pistols
More details here
English Democrats policy is
http://www.voteenglish.org/manifesto/#313
No, sorry, Michael Codner’s paper (FDR article 3 April) doesn’t get me any closer to a view on the shape of Britain’s forces post FDR.
Away from the abstract, I suspect some more pragmatic issues will have a bearing on the outcome:
- Firstly, what view might be taken of the expected financial constraints. Undoubtedly a period of austerity is to come but is this a short term thing that might last as long as it takes to make a decent dent in the budget deficit incurred bailing out the Banks and then return to a level we are accustomed to, or is it to be viewed as a permanent feature where a future return to posterity will not be shared with defence?
- Cost. Britain is a high cost place to purchase resources. It is obvious to note that a million pounds spent in Britain would probably add, say for example, 20 soldiers to the army whereas a million pounds spent by China would add several hundred. Is then, defence going to be measured in terms of cost input (which would suggest Britain already has one of the largest forces in the world) or outputs which indicate a much lower level of capability. Britain has willingly purchased air defence destroyers and helicopters locally at above market prices. Will the new tankers for the RFA be purchased from Korea at world competitive commercial rates or built in Britain at greater cost. To what extent is Britain prepared to go offshore to equip its forces?
- Cost saving. What can, practically, be saved from current defence structure without diminishing operational capability – do we, for example, need 80,000 civil servants in the MoD? Do we need two bases in Cyprus? Does the RAF need all the bases it has?
- The often quoted shortfall in current funding, 36 billion pounds, contains a good chunk, 20 billion pounds, to replace Trident. What then is spent on the nuclear deterrent, and equally when it is spent, will majorly impact funding requirements over the term of the FDR.
- If the FDR starts with the question of what Britain specifically wishes to do may well lead to a hybrid of capabilities that don’t fall under any one of Michael Codner’s categories, and would not be irrational for doing that. If for example the FDR supports the wish to defend Britain’s overseas territories that would imply the requirement of maritime expeditionary capability. But the capability to wrestle back the Falklands from the Argentineans doesn’t mean Britain is specifically signing up to full Global Guardian status, it just means it is providing for its unique requirements.
- A committee of MPs has finally said what has been obvious since the British Prime Minister was first described as a Poodle – that the relationship with the USA is no longer a ‘special relationship’. Therefore the long held assumption that any international operation would allow Britain to rely on the USA providing the heavy lifting to Britain’s benefit, is no longer a valid planning assumption.
However, these thoughts are all abstract as well. What you will get will depend on the party leading the government at the time of the FDR. Neither main party has promised to ring fence the defence budget:
If Gordon Brown is re-elected, then the future is clear – it will be more of the same. Gordon is no friend of the military and has shown himself happy to inflict surreptitious cuts to defence funding, reducing programs and mothballing assets. His cut of the helicopter budget in 2004 has come back to haunt him so he has responded with his familiar tactic of assuaging the newspaper headlines by championing a raft of other initiatives facing down criticism from a more cautious Opposition. With this, perversely, the person least disposed to the proper funding of Britain’s defences is promising the most – a full replacement of Trident, to press ahead with the two carriers, purchase of the JSF, a guarantee not to reduce the size of the army, additional helicopters and an apparent step towards a new fleet of warships, the T26. Although personally the supposed four year design phase of the T26 looks too much like a device to defer any real costs until either the cost doesn’t matter or he can cancel it without fear of the electorate. That unkind thought aside, he will certainly follow through all of the initiatives he has personally endorsed, but everything else is at risk of being cut once the unavoidable need to make real savings takes precedence. Moreover, noting the pointed comment in the Green Paper that the future includes striking new alliances to meet defence needs, we will not be too surprised if for example after the FDR there is an announcement of some understanding with France to, say, jointly police the North Sea, which eventually leads to the perfectly reasonable assessment that the navy no longer needs quite so many ships!
The Conservatives have avoided saying anything specific other than that they would provide anything required for Afghanistan. They have made mumblings about wanting to be in the first division of military powers, suggested that the navy be deployed to safe guard shipments of oil and gas, suggested that the size of the infantry be increased, and to pay for it have demanded a reduction of 10,000 MoD civil service places and finding a cheaper nuclear deterrent. More telling than their sparse comments on defence is George Osborne’s centrepiece policy of near manic determination to reduce government deficit. This together with their silence on the whole subject of defence funding suggests heavy cuts are on their agenda. Accepting that some levels of cuts are inevitable with the Conservatives the FDR could go two ways. One may be your traditional whitewash where there is suddenly a benevolent view of the world with the result that cuts can, they say, be safely made, balanced eventually they hope by some cleaning up of the MoD’s profligate tendency to waste. Or it could be a more honest review that will admit a desire for genuinely adequate capabilities in the longer term, but with a nod to the financial situation, make a pact with the defence establishment to curtail spending in the near term with a guarantee to return to normal funding after three or four years.
The Liberal Democrats will not lead the government after the election. In terms of conventional forces they perhaps have the most honest assessment of force requirements and an FDR with their fingerprints on it may not be a bad thing – except that if they have their way it would be at the price of surrendering the nuclear deterrent. Perhaps then the best outcome of the election for defence would be a hung parliament with the Conservatives governing at the whim of the Liberal Democrats.
Thanks Fiale, post updated
@ Richard Stockley:
you mention tory plans for FDR, so this might be of interest:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/britain’s-future-strategic-direction-4-–-reading-the-tea-leaves-of-a-resilient-nation/
It’s a pity the OMRLP didn’t include my favourite defence policy from the 2005 election.
“Anyone criticizing defence will be made to fix it with dehammer and denails”