The price of power.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Stirlin, Dec 15, 2014.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I think it's a given that if Labour or Labour/LibDem gain power in 2015 the boats & Trident will be scrapped, & with them both being decimated by the SNP in Scotland there would be no political gain by trying to save/support the ship building industry north of the border.

    At the moment it appears to be a lose-lose situation because no one knows what the Tory intentions are post the 2015 election & the 2015/2020 SDSR.

    Just of course a personal opinion!
  2. I think Labour would pretty much sell their soul to the Devil to get back into government but I don't necessarily believe that the SNP will be in a position to call the shots.
    As for the Tories and Trident, they're talking of balancing the books and getting rid of the deficit in the next parliament(if they're elected) so lobbing out £35 billion for new Trident boats doesn't actually look the best option for taxpayers cash.
  3. FH , almost half of those who voted in the Scottish referendum wanted independance so a fair number of Lab voters , the very same who have already condemned Labour for backing the stay together campaign and are set to lose votes to the SNP.
    FAAF , since when did Labour say they would scrap Trident ?.
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2014
  4. They haven't, & that's the problem, Labour haven't said anything about defence spending but it's common knowledge that they & their union backers are anti nuclear as are the LibDems & the SNP.

    Plus they're still trying to distance themselves from the new carrier debacle that Gordon Brown ordered purely for political/Scottish votes reasons & the Tories would have cancelled at the drop of a hat if the contracts had allowed it, & under who's flag they will eventually be sailing still isn't clear.

    It would seem that the Labour party are trying to follow the Tory mantra of slash & burn on welfare/government spending/immigration as these are the only popular causes amongst the majority of the voting masses, & you only have to consider the comment from the UNITE union yesterday that stated "it's time to stop feeding the corpse" when asked about funding for the new Scottish Labour party to know who really holds the power & is calling the shots.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  5. Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to remember the Lib Dems saying they would re-new Trident but only 3 boats.
    I would not trust Labour as far as I could chuck them but this from the Independant of 16th july last year.

    Britain looks certain to retain its current round-the-clock Trident nuclear weapons system after Labour rejected a scaled-down version proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

    Opponents of the £25bn like-for-like replacement of the existing four Vanguard submarines favoured by the Conservatives had hoped that Labour and the Liberal Democrats would agree on a much smaller programme. It could have been part of a Lib-Lab coalition agreement if the 2015 election ends in a hung parliament.

    The Liberal Democrats said downgrading to three submarines would save £4bn as they unveiled a review into the alternatives carried out by Cabinet Office officials. The Liberal Democrats called for an end to the current continuous at-sea deterrence, under which one of the vessels is always on patrol. The option of a two-submarine fleet will also be considered by the Liberal Democrats’ annual conference in September, and is likely to become the party’s policy.

    The Blair and Brown governments backed a like-for-like replacement but Labour’s policy is being reviewed by Ed Miliband. He has received conflicting messages from different advisers about whether to water it down.

    Yesterday Mr Miliband authorised a statement leaving Labour’s policy much closer to the Conservatives than the Liberal Democrats. Jim Murphy, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: “Labour has always said we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent. It would require a substantial body of evidence for us to change that, but this review does not appear to offer such evidence.” The Tories argue that a round-the-clock deterrent requires four submarines.

    However, the Labour manifesto in 2015 may pledge to reduce the number of warheads carried by the submarinesl. Mr Murphy said: “Labour would keep momentum on our disarmament efforts, looking at further reduction of missiles and warheads on deployed vessels, as well as taking a lead internationally to push the agenda of global anti-proliferation.”

    John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow and Furness, where Royal Navy submarines are built, described the Liberal Democrat-led review as “shambolic”. He said: “The Lib Dems’ attempt to show Britain could scrap Trident or make do with a part-time nuclear deterrent has been fundamentally discredited.”

    The Conservatives also criticised the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron said the Government’s policy was unchanged by the review, while Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said the Liberal Democrats were “either naive or reckless”.

    But Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Treasury Secretary who led the review, insisted that reducing the submarine fleet to three vessels and ending the continuous deterrent would be a major step towards nuclear disarmament. “Trident is the last, unreformed bastion of Cold War thinking. Britain in the 21st century, almost a quarter of a century after the fall of the Berlin Wall, needs to think about nuclear deterrence and disarmament in a fresh way,” he told the Royal United Services Institute.

    Mr Alexander said: “We have a big decision to make in 2016, and this study shows that there are credible alternatives that don’t compromise our security but do allow us to move on from the Cold War.”

    He conceded that alternatives to Trident were not affordable, and criticised the previous government for closing off in 2006 the option of installing nuclear-tipped Cruise missiles on Astute class submarines, which would now be too expensive because the four existing Vanguard subs were reaching the end of their life.

    Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, welcomed what he called the most thorough review of the UK’s nuclear deterrent ever. “I hope that today marks the beginning of a fact-based debate about Trident that will see us discussing what kind of deterrent is right for Britain in the 21st century,” he said.
  6. A lot of theory & waffle saying very little, I hold the view that with the continuing home grown threats of cyber/biological/chemical terrorist strikes the nuclear option for the UK should/will be dumped into the 20th century dustbin, & we will move away from being an overseas fighting military to a more homeland, intelligence led, security system.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2014
  7. Last edited: Dec 16, 2014
  8. Only time will tell, but with the three main political parties in turmoil over the rise of UKIP & the SNP + the prediction that defence spending will fall to about 1.2% of GDP my money is on the nuclear option being binned.

    With regard to the UK being the 51st state the UK will have to decide within the next 10 years in what camp it wants to plant its military flag, either the EU or America, we won't be able to to sit in both because of culture & cost changes/challenges.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  9. Thing is FAAF , with a name like Jeb as Us President I fear the worst.
  10. George Osborne announced £48bn of cuts in his autumn statement for the next parliament. It's hard to see if he's true to his word how this will not impact on defence.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  11. Yes, & there's already rumblings that the police/UK border force/ defence budgets will all be paid out of one pot, that would provide some interesting discussions in the HoC for all the parties when trying to appeal to the public for votes.

    Added to the fact that there's very little interest/votes both by the UK & American public to get/be involved in anymore overseas "brush fires" that only lead to more home grown terrorism & disquiet.

    You can imagine it, well whats it to be this year people, more money for bobbies on the beat, better border security, or another F35B?
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  12. F*** me you lot are negative!
  13. No one is being negative, we're discussing the possible scenarios & options that are available based on the financial information that's being drip fed to the public.

    Doing anything other then this is looking at the situation through "rose coloured spectacles".
  14. I'm of the opinion that GEO should pay off the national debt asap regardless of what has to be affected by doing so, the savings of the interest paid on this debt would more then justify any short term suffering incurred.
  15. As an aside, bobbies on the beat are a massive waste of money if the aim is to reduce crime; police can be used far more effectively, and when a politician offers this he's either criminally stupid, or lying.
  16. You're correct, but politicians don't use/quote facts, only soundbites.
  17. Cameron said give us 5 years to make a difference , they made promises they could not keep to and some have stalled or shown little improvement but no one could have predicted the stagnation of the world economy. Slowly but surely it is picking up.
    Health service -- is suffering and having 3 relatives working there, one in A&E they say that it is still bloated with far too many administrators , target setters , target chasers and their admin runners and flunkys , who appointed these peeps in the first place ? , the poor bloody A&E consultant spends most of his time doing paperwork.
    Day to day living expense --- a kid I know is always manking about the cost of food and stuff but his re-cycling bins tells another story, overflowing with empty tinnies and wine bottles , and he is not the only one.
    Councils making cuts to services --- York is no exception but they built their new HQ at a cost of £45 million , at first wanting to build it next door to a 15th century pub , and I do mean next door, about 3 foot away a monstrous pile would have blighted one of our best tourist attractions, tourism is all we have FFS. Luckily York Civic Trust and English heritage stepped in and told them to do one , they did and stuck it somewhere else but made sure they spent the whole £45 million budget. Did I mention York council is Labour run ?.
    George Osborne V Ed Balls --- Balls reminds me of Ken Livingstone when he was leader of the GLC , ''Hello I'm Ken Livingstone , would you like some money '', nuff said.
    Tories are the nasty party --- yes they are but given the alternatives I would give them another five years.
    • Like Like x 4
  18. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    We either have one boat continuously at sea or we don't have a deterrent at all.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page