Originally Posted by whitecity

The UKIP defence policy [sic] is incoherent fantasy analysis and planning using ToothFairy Finance funding calculations.

Lockheed Martin,BAE,HMG and the US goverment are so much better at Funding calculations then? I am just waiting for our current Conservative/Lib Dem coalitions row back on defence spending 2 years after SDR.
Suprisingly the numbers quoted in the document, although out of date, equate to the direct payment we send to the EU every year.

Originally Posted by cookie65

Lockheed Martin,BAE,HMG and the US goverment are so much better at Funding calculations then?

The private manufacturers you mention are very good at funding calculations, despite their pretence otherwise. The 2 governments you mention have far too many wishful thinkers, but the professional civil and military servents who make the decisions are in on the game.

Originally Posted by cookie65

I am just waiting for our current Conservative/Lib Dem coalitions row back on defence spending 2 years after SDR.

SDR came out in 1998. What are you on about?

Originally Posted by cookie65

Suprisingly the numbers quoted in the document, although out of date, equate to the direct payment we send to the EU every year.

You don't do irony well.

How many UKIP policies [sic] used that money to give the impression of increased spending with lower cost to the taxpayer?

I am fairly sure you realise I meant SDSR. All of our policies were costed in a comprehensive budget plan. It is more convenient to use a similar figure that can be easily visualised. Hence I used that figure.
So do you actually disagree with any of the conclusions or are your views based purely on what we can afford?

Originally Posted by cookie65

I am fairly sure you realise I meant SDSR.

I guessed it was a demonstration of the level of real knowledge within UKIP circles and the (general lack of) attention afforded to defence and security measures. SDR or SDSR; to be or not to be. Ho hum, the reader is too stupid to know the difference so why should I bother to get it right?

Originally Posted by cookie65

All of our policies were costed in a comprehensive budget plan. It is more convenient to use a similar figure that can be easily visualised. Hence I used that figure.

Or is it merely a "convenient" opening to peddle the only real message uttered by the one-trick pony: we don't like the EU?

We'll pretend we care about defence, but really we just want to knock the EU for 'stealing' our cash!!!!

Originally Posted by cookie65

So do you actually disagree with any of the conclusions or are your views based purely on what we can afford?

I do not find the risk and/or threat analysis to be of any value. It varies between overt vagueness to bland nothingness. The step to explain how that translates into a need for equipment X, Y and Z is non-existent.

Consider this scenario, Argentian scrap merchants land on Easter Island and raise the Argentinian flag. What would be UKIP's (as the government) response?

UKIP Should fight a general election on one issue and one issue only.

That if elected they promise to deliver a referendum on continued membership of the EU.

Once they have secured victory they immediately stand down (as having achieved the one thing they were created for) forcing another election with the winning party honour bound to deliver the referendum.

Originally Posted by whitecity

They are not 'the best'. They are the least smelly because it is their, and only their, ideas that matter at the moment. 3 years ago, the answer was Labour for the same reason.

If, and only if, one or more of the political parties start to talk sense in security matters, then can we start to judge which policy is 'best'.


PS. You should also read the remainder of the same post.

The least worst equals the best. If you had the 10 politicians in power, one of them will still be the best (from that group of ten)
I did read the rest of the post, I didnt comment on it because I wasn't questioned UKIP policy.

Originally Posted by stacker1

The least worst equals the best. If you had the 10 politicians in power, one of them will still be the best (from that group of ten)

I understand what you're saying. However, I refuse to polish turds or grade their shinyness after somebody else had tried to polish them to prove a point.

Originally Posted by stacker1

I did read the rest of the post, I didnt comment on it because I wasn't questioned UKIP policy.

Did you miss the bit about Labour and Liberal? There was more to my post than just, Tories are in power full stop.

We are trying to discuss defence policy, how does that equate to one trick pony, and no, I do not wish to discuss the EU. I do agree with you over the 'missing step', however can you deny the need for more Frigates, Chinooks? Do you believe the PFI on MRTT is a good idea? Would you not prefer to not have service hospitals again? Do you agree we are facing overstretch in Afghanistan?
Take your party head off and look at the issues.

Originally Posted by whitecity

Did you miss the bit about Labour and Liberal? There was more to my post than just, Tories are in power full stop.

I'm just reading the liberal policy,they want to raise a toms pay to that of the emergency services. (That will be a vote winner then), mince about with the EU/Nato instead of worrying about the cold war and scrap tridents replacement.
Only a short policy it seems
The Liberal Democrats on Defence
http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/...%20Defence.pdf

Hardly outrageous and although I'd rather stick my foot in a bacon slicer than work with the EU, it doesnt say they will make 20k redundant (I assume Trident costs are rather large).

Originally Posted by cookie65

We are trying to discuss defence policy, how does that equate to one trick pony, and no, I do not wish to discuss the EU. I do agree with you over the 'missing step', however can you deny the need for more Frigates, Chinooks? Do you believe the PFI on MRTT is a good idea? Would you not prefer to not have service hospitals again? Do you agree we are facing overstretch in Afghanistan?
Take your party head off and look at the issues.

Party head. Collectively, they're all worthless, self-serving, military and defence ignoramuses!

First, the notion of 'defence policy' is no longer valid given the lack of genuine military threat to the UK. That is the first indication of UKIP's failure to grasp the real world.

Second, military equipment procurement and manning levels should be predicated upon a) genuine threats/risks extant and likely during the policy period; b) how the military is to advance foreign and security policy in the national interest; and, c) the resources that the decision-makers are willing/able to provide. UKIP's policy [sic] is a wish list designed to grab the eye of the less discerning reader. There is no connect between that wish list and even their own wishy-washy commentary on what it could be used for - let alone a discussion of how it may apply in the resal world.

So, for example, when I read the UKIP defence policy [sic] paper (yes I've been sucked in to another brief glimpse), I see no need for Chinook post Helmand - unless a UKIP government is going to continue the slavish following of US foreign policy! Do we need any MRTT if we're going to defend all those 13 overseas dependencies with the 2 CVFs in service - or vice-verca? The incoherence of the document is unbelievable.