UKIP Defence Policy

#1
Now, I have voted UKIP but at the last election I voted tactically Cons because I knew UKIP didn't have a chance of getting in and I thought it more important to get Labour out. But now it looks like the Cons are unelectable on their own and we've ended up with not much difference. So I'm back to UKIP.

What I would like to know from people on here is whether they think the UKIP defence policies stack up, with particular regard to costs. Extracted from their website:

"Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP

· Restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70 other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth bases

· Increase RAF capability by buying more essential helicopters, transport aircraft and 50 extra JSF Lightning aircraft

· Restore historic regiments, such as the Highland regiments, which are being subsumed into planned European battle groups

· Maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent with existing Trident submarines and then replace them with four British-built submarines armed with US missiles"


So that means 3.5% of gdp to cover that list etc. Personally, I'd live with 5% and balance the rest of the budget around that priority. Is anyone able to authoritatively criticise that 3.5% or point me somewhere that can?
 
#3
How much British defence procurement runs on time and on budget?
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#4
Now, I have voted UKIP but at the last election I voted tactically Cons because I knew UKIP didn't have a chance of getting in and I thought it more important to get Labour out. But now it looks like the Cons are unelectable on their own and we've ended up with not much difference. So I'm back to UKIP.

What I would like to know from people on here is whether they think the UKIP defence policies stack up, with particular regard to costs. Extracted from their website:

"Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP

· Restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70 other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth bases

· Increase RAF capability by buying more essential helicopters, transport aircraft and 50 extra JSF Lightning aircraft

· Restore historic regiments, such as the Highland regiments, which are being subsumed into planned European battle groups

· Maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent with existing Trident submarines and then replace them with four British-built submarines armed with US missiles"


So that means 3.5% of gdp to cover that list etc. Personally, I'd live with 5% and balance the rest of the budget around that priority. Is anyone able to authoritatively criticise that 3.5% or point me somewhere that can?
Hardly the most pressing policy at the current juncture, and considering they have no MP's and are not likely to, somewhat akin to playing Dungeons and Dragons....maybe a policy of giving everyone a thousand quid would be a good move.....?
 
#5
UKIP can promise pretty pink bows on solid gold F22s because they are totally and utterly unelectable. They are a protest vote against the EU and it's no surprise that their kindred spirits at the BNP also do well in Euro elections.

UKIP = BNP in blazers
 
#6
UKIP can promise pretty pink bows on solid gold F22s because they are totally and utterly unelectable. They are a protest vote against the EU and it's no surprise that their kindred spirits at the BNP also do well in Euro elections.

UKIP = BNP in blazers
That is not quite a fair representation. I don't think UKIP could fairly be described as 'racist'.
 
#7
Have fixed this for you....

What I would like to know from people on here is whether they think the UKIP defence policies stack up, with particular regard to costs. Extracted from their website:

"Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP

· Restore the Royal Navy to its 1815 strength with three new Victory class 100 gunners and nearly 70 other ships plundered from the Spanish, at the same time guaranteeing the future of the press gang in Pompey.

· Increase RAF capability by buying more essential helicopters, rather than non-essential ones and giving the Yanks a trouser load of cash buying the JSF, which we don't need.

· Restore historic regiments, such as the Highland regiments, Baron Castleshortt / Ott's Frontiersmen and letting them march about rather than, God forbid exercising with planned European battle groups

· Maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent with lots of American made kit"
No wonder UKIP are considered to be a bunch of cocks.
 
S

Screw_The_Nut

Guest
#10
Are UKIP planning a major war? What on earth do they want to spend 3.5% extra on defence for? What is all that kit going to do for us? Don't we have other, more pressing matters to attend to?

I'm all up for strengthening the Armed Forces, but 3 aircraft carriers and a load of non-existent Yank planes is a waste of cash we don't really have to spend at the moment anyway!
 
#11
#12
..What I would like to know from people on here is whether they think the UKIP defence policies stack up..
Stack up against what? Perhaps a thorough definition of their FP - beyond leaving the EU - would assist in making that judgement? I believe that is the traditional, though neglected, way to shape defence policy.
 
#13
Cloud cuckoo land stuff. As pointed out we don't need all that stuff and couldn't afford it if we did.

What's the harm in training in European formations other than getting Daily mail reader painfully errect at the idea of proud Brits working along side dastardly foreigners.

I have taken part in excellent training exercises with French German and a host of other EU countries. While I don't agree with a sole EU army it docent matter as despite what some fringe lunatic may suggest it won't happen no country will put it's sovereign forces under the sole command of the EU. The fact we have trained for joint operation is a bloody good idea.
 
#15
Ooh, ooh, he said the enn-word.

That one remark by one bloke must mean everyone in the party is a racist.
But it does suggest that it's the view of a senior member of the party and it's not out side the realms of possibility that others feel the same way.

Mostly if UKIP have senior members that crushingly stupid as to make rasist remarks and be documented doing them then they are not ready for power. Which is ok as the only seats they have are as MEP a institution they despise. Scooby doo was less confused then they are.
 
#16
Ukips basically the bnp in a nice suit reading the telegraph instead of the big print version of mein kamp.
 
#17
They've always struck me more as a bit mental and weird rather than racist. The ones handing out their literature look like the sort of blokes you'd report if you saw them hanging about a playground.
 
#18
They've always struck me more as a bit mental and weird rather than racist. The ones handing out their literature look like the sort of blokes you'd report if you saw them hanging about a playground.
That's my feeling. Trying to gain military support with the promise of a 3rd aircraft carrier and bringing back the Black Watch is a bit weak. There can't be more than 200,00 military voters including dependants MOD etc and I suspect that most won't simply vote on defence matters.
 
#19
· Restore historic regiments, such as the Highland regiments, which are being subsumed into planned European battle groups
The first three words are the sure sign of a defence policy based on a total lack of any understanding of defence and/or an author writing safe in the knowledge that they will never have to implement such populist nonsense - see the SNP and, although I haven't looked for a while, probably the BNP, defence 'policies'.

And on a practical note, is the male population of Fiji large enough to raise the requisite number of battalions?
 
#20
They've always struck me more as a bit mental and weird rather than racist. The ones handing out their literature look like the sort of blokes you'd report if you saw them hanging about a playground.
True. But Farage leads the party. So if it transpires that he's a poisonous little oik, what does that say about those who follow him? Tainted by association.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top