Conservative Defence and Security Policy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by meridian, Jan 16, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

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

  1. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    Not seen this done on ARRSE but it is potentially crucial to the UK armed forces.

    The Conservative Party launched their national security policy yesterday with a speech at Chatham House and the release of a document.


    In full, David Cameron's speech

  2. Lets see if it happens.

    Not holding my breath, if he gets in, he'll have bigger fish to fry and more pressing problems than re-aligning in place secuity and intelligence systems from day one.
  3. All well and good but it looks like he's going to cut defence, so he can go f*ck himself.
  4. Don't expect too much, then you won't be disappointed.......
    Remember, Options for Change was the Conservatives' plan, & the resulting outflow of experience from the Army it generated is one of the reasons we're in crap order today. Not forgetting of course Neu Arbeit's buffoonery with Defence & Govt. finances in general.
  5. Have already emailed Liam Fox pointing out that the proposal to establish a permanent HQ for UK Ops happened 8 years ago and is now called HQ SJC(UK)...
  6. Well none of the things he is talking about will cost much money, apart from the cyber center...which should really be an agency with a decent acronym rather than 'Cyber Threat and Assessment Centre' which just sounds shite. The things he says make a decent amount of common sense but it is the 'Strategic Defence and Security Review' organised by the future national security council (couldn't we have a more British sounding name? why not just call it the War Cabinet? I'm tired of all these american style new fangled things, would be nice to have 'offices' instead of 'departments' etc.), which will prove how committed he is. The defence budget will be cut, but it's how it's cut that matters. The russians seem to be able to maintain an army of a million men (though i realise the quality is shit) and now have some first class equipment in large numbers for less than our budget, we should be able to do the same for 200-300 thousand. trident replacement will need to go.
  7. Looks ok to me - especially if it means better Civil-Military cooperation on ops and at home. Even better if we are actually allowed to spend DFID's money for them!
  8. We should rename the MOD the War Department coz that's exactly what it does.
  9. This isn't all bad, they are right about Prevent for instance. Some of it rather is pious stuff, almost Blairite. I'm not reassured by the emphasis on bureaucratic tinkering though Whitehall does need fixing.

    Key phrase: We can’t go on like this followed by-
    This is not the language of a government that will be happy to fund defense even at the current skinflint levels.

    The Cyber security thing will be an expensive private sector boondoggle just as in the US. But they remain committed to Trident, a costly cold war relic.

    Annex 1: Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is little more than a sop to team Barry. It could have been dictated by yermam Holbrooke.
  10. All three services have made costly mistakes in their major purchases. We seem to pay a King's ransom for a piece of equipment only to find we haven't bought the engines, or the spares, or some other key part.
    If a defence review got rid of some of the costly howl-ups and concentrated money where it was most needed, even at the expense of other services, then that wont be a bad thing. Of course we may have to be prepared to keep our newly funded upgraded equipment a while longer when it becomes the turn of one of the other services but that is a small price to pay.
    The only other way they can possibly look at Afghanistan is to look at it in an entirely separate light to Defence and build a specific budget from the FO including money from Development and Aid budgets, maybe try to attract more EU money to boost the coffers.
    I like the speech, I'm just far from certain about the man making it. He has always been far too similar to Blair for me to ever be able to trust him. Blair was once the great hope for a new beginning and a new, cleaner, style of politics instead it was the same old, same old but even worse. I may be laughed/shouted down for saying this but I have more trust in William Hague than I ever will in Cameron.
  11. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    The charity sector is having a proper whinge about it

    There is a lot of common sense in the paper but funnily enough, much of it is already happening

    No extra cash though, remember Private Efficiency-Savings and General Do-More-With-Less will need to get on parade
  12. The charity sector has been on a roll since Liabour took over and its time they were got a grip of. When I was a demining consultant to the european comission (just after Liarbour took over) I recommended that the NGO's funded by the EC to do demining should be accountable in the same way as any commercial organisation is. I had death threats from those yoghurt knitting twats who were too full of their own bullshit to realise that the supply of govt money is not endless. But at the same time, DFID (that dog ugly woman - and I use the term loosely, minister) told me that my views were incompatible with new liarbour policy. Which meant that she, and Liarbour were not interested in accountability.
  13. So…

    Is CMD proposing that the Defence Budget be set every 5 years by Parliament in the light of what the Gov expects the Armed Forces to do and then become a fixed budget, or will it still be the same old balls were the treasury raid the budget each year to pay for the latest Government handout splurge?
  14. If it was not unfair to pigs, I would say Cameron is pig-ignorant and has no idea of the purposes of armed forces.

    He says there must be greater thought on whether Britain should be involved in a foreign conflict. Dear God, that is arse about face. We must first decide why, where and how we are prepared to become involved in foreign conflicts, and HM Forces must be configured accordingly.

    “Should” sounds all very fine from the comfort of Chatham House and Whitehall but it is merely hand wringingly wet if we can’t.

    As for the Services acting in support of the police and the fire service et al, that is merely a by-product of having military forces in the first place. If they are not involved in military activities then they may as well be available to help the civil authorities as and when required.

    However, if Cameron is suggesting this should be a major role then the Services will end up as little more than a gendarmerie. It is interesting to speculate as to why he made this point. Does he expect HM Forces to be deployed to suppress mass revolt and riots in the UK?

    Finally, if having a “a proper reconstruction force ready and waiting to deliver a stabilisation strategy as soon as the fighting stops” is a condition of our becoming involved in the first place, then hell will freeze before that occurs. No way will the UK, nor even the US, be able to afford to have such a group on permanent standby for eventualities.
  15. Well, arguably, we already have most of the bits required, do we not? RE Infrastructure Gp, RE tradesmen, 81 Sig Sqn, Med Sp, RMP and specialist Provo bits....the armed forces are admittedly weak on the social/economic end, and that's the gap I assume the deployed FCO/DfID bods are supposed to slot into.

    In fact, on a closer reading, I don't see that we really *need* anything new - what we need are an "after-the-war" plan ready to go before things kick off, and civil service sp that's actually willing to have anything at all to do with the military in place. And in a nod to the "Britain is too risk-averse" thing, an acknowledgement that even if absolute security were possible, your reconstruction package will have to begin long before that's achieved - in fact, without it, it's unlikely you'll even get close.

    Again, there seems to be another niche role for the TA here - specialist Civil Admin pool under the AG, anyone? ISTR the US military had a whole Civil Affairs department in WWII - which amounted to a military government-in-waiting. How's that for post-invasion planning?