Labour manifesto: Defence

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Apr 13, 2005.

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. I've been perusing the Labour manifesto - it's the expected mixture of half-truths, selective quotation, and downright lies. Good examples include giving British Crime Survey data as if it represents recorded crime ["Total crime is down 30% since 1997" - according to recorded crime stats it's not...]. They proudly mention all the types of guns they've banned without saying that armed crime is actually up a bajillion %. "13,000 more police"... since when? And why do they all seem to be driving desks?

    Anyhoo, on to the important stuff for the majority of Arrsers - Defence policy:

    Some questions:

    a: What planet are they on?
    b: does anyone have access to any figures that would show any of their claims up to be lies?
  2. You don't honestly believe that they're going to base the general election on truth, do you?
  3. "We will never commit forces to battle unless it is essential; but when they are committed they will have the investment, strategy, training and preparation they need."

    Given Iraq that is priceless.

    "Commit to battle unless essential" .. to what? UK sy, TWAT, economics?

    "Investment" - Kit shortages, no money etc etc!

    Unfortunately no amount of figures will show this up to be lies as it a manifesto for the future not the past. The wording is so ambiguous and subjective that no-one will be able to take them to task after events in the future either.
  4. How dare that cnut BLiar dishonour the troops who have fallen, been wounded or just been plain sh1t scared by printing such crap. This man sent our country to war on by lying to the people and now will again lie to the people to say that he has supported them.

    RSM, fetch my gun, we have a cretin to shoot.
  5. First thing I'd like to say, I don't like Tony B and I didn't vote for him.


    Once Iraq fades away (either we give up or win), is there any party that will.....

    *spend more money on defence such that it would make a noticeable difference? (defence might get enough to cover inflation)
    *buy the right kit for the job?

    I doubt the Tories will increase defence spending, since they've promised to keep the health spending the same and cut taxes.

    We could rely on the yanks to fill any gap, but after Iraq, will they?

    Best solution in my view is an integrated European army made up of volunteers, with one leader and once given a mission, freedom to act.

    (I suspect people on arse will hate this idea, but seems the logical route to go if you've got little in the way of cash and crap kit)
  6. Aah, yes, I can see it now - the British Regiment of the Imperial EU Army, wearing Flecktarn and carrying FAMASes :roll:
  7. Instead of the British Regiment of the Imperial US Army? ;-)
  8. Dear Leader's Latest Manifesto...

  9. I agree with Guardian_Reader about the other parties. Does anyone here remember that clusterfcuk "Options For Change"?

    If the Common Foreign and Security Policy idea does get off the ground then hopefully at some point we will be able to get more bang for the buck and start spending the money more wisely.

    Two questions though:

    1.) Does anyone want to go to war under the command of an Italian general?
    2.) Would the Household Division be entitled to sport mullets like the Dutch and Germans?
  10. Erm...if I close an infantry battalion today, how many engineers, signals, intelligence, loggies et cetera do I immediately produce? Answer zip, nada, zero. It takes a long time to produce a CSS soldier but this is typical of the easy delivery approximation to the truth that Mr B & Co love. Yes I close the Blankshires down and free up a battalion's worth of operating money but I am still paying the personnel costs of the old battalion. Plus I now have to pay for all the capability elements of the new push. So it is actually more expensive isn't it Tone, with the pay-off at an indeterminate point in the future. If you then discount the cash flow it gets even worser but that is all in the future and no one will remember what we promised exactly and we'll just say it was a "target" or an "aspiration", so that's tiddly...Cnuts, don't they realise people can decode this caca?

    Question 1 - Does Arthur Denaro count? Question 2 - do you mean the Toms, most of the officers already have bizarre mullet hairdos anyway...
  11. Good point. I'd forgotten about the officers, I guess they're just so easy to ignore as soon as you learn to tune out the nonsensical inbred braying.