British Politics Thread

Does that also include copying large parts of the last Labour Manifesto?

edited 5th Oct '15 12:47:41 PM by Greenmantle

Such as?

See here.

You know that the living wage thing is a lie right? It's not a living wage, in fact the living wage is now going to go up due to the tax credit cuts. Osborn's living wage is like Gove's free schools, they've nicked a name from something good and are now pretending that their shit is actually the good thing.

Sure, but the Tories are pushing their 'we're the real workers' party' angle hard. And since when was the electorate smart enough to see through them?

It's more that they're trying to position themselves to catch the displaced Blairite voters.

@Aszur:

I don't think that would be a wise course of action. If memory serves we can only sustain a brigade level deployment as is^note To give a sense of scale, the smallest unit capable of independent action is the battalion, of which 3 to 6 make a brigade, and even that seriously strains us. We have already sliced away each and every vestige of fat - all that is left is muscle and bone, and increasingly atrophied muscle and weakening bone at that. You can only make our armed forces "do more with less" so far before you get diminishing returns. I recall recently there was an embarrassing u-turn over cuts to our area CBRN reconnaissance capabilities once we realised that - surprise! - we did need it after all. A brigade, no matter how resourceful, cannot be expected to defeat all threats or even make gains against them. That in turn limits our capability to intervene in international affairs where Britain's interests are at stake.

Soft power is ultimately a concept that has shortcomings - I strongly encourage you to read this piece by King's College London's Defence Studies Department. I think we should all be proud of the fact that Britain recently came first on a ranking of soft power, but I also feel it is irresponsible to let our armed forces wither on the vine under the comforting pretense that we're "punching above our weight" or "doing more with less". In this, as in many other things, balance does a world of good.

More or less the motto of the British Armed Forces, even during World War II. Although, there comes a point, as you've said — which we're very near — where there isn't enough less to do more with, either in terms of kit or manpower.

edited 5th Oct '15 2:09:34 PM by Greenmantle

I never mentioned that it was necesary to keep a small force, or brigade, in other nations.

Got to keep the Argies out of the Falklands, the Venezuelans out of Best Guyana, and the KEBAB out of Oman.

Argentina did take the Falklands though. For a while.

Then the British sailed there and kicked their asses. Thanks for that btw.

The nuclear weapon was no deterrent, however now was it? Which is my point. If there was some sort of economic or other sort of deterrent that could cripple their population instead of the threat of force which continually does not work, why not try something different?

I mean. Remember what you guys did with the Ghurkas?

Also, the day Venezuela is an actual threat to anything but themselves, I will eat my hat.

edited 5th Oct '15 2:32:45 PM by Aszur

Actually nukes did play a role in the Falklands, apparently Thatcher got the French to give us technical details on the missiles they sold Argentina, by threatening to nuke Argentina if they didn't.

Aside from what Achaemenid said, the fact of the matter is that if we wish to project power (and thereby secure our interests more reliably than relying predominantly on soft power) or intervene in crises - particularly those of a time critical nature - we require armed forces capable of sustained deployment and perhaps just as importantly ones capable of defeating or at least deterring peer opponents who for whatever reason may not appreciate our contribution^note I feel it's short sighted to assume we'll be plinking at terrorists from here until eternity.

...And it was always a close run thing - if either of our aircraft carriers had taken a hit, the task force would have instantly had its ability to support landings cut in half.

I could also argue that the Falklands is in fact a prime example of why Britain needs to beef up its defence budget. The islands were, Royal Marines aside, lightly defended. Add to that misleading diplomatic signals and an opponent who was disinclined to listen to us, and hard power was really our best option.

Well, although Silas brought up an interesting example of how we employed nuclear coercion, I believe one of the implicit messages of the Black Buck raids was that if we could strike the airfield on the Falklands with conventional weapons, it was eminently possible for us to strike the Argentine mainland with conventional or nuclear means.

This presumes that you have economic leverage over your opponent - something which, regrettably, I do not think Britain can be confident of in this day and age. Conversely, so long as you maintain it and the relevant capabilities at sufficient levels, the military can always provide leverage, even if only as a last resort.

Never mind that by that point we didn't have any Instant Sunshine we could load onto the Vulcans.

I think.

Hadn't we switch to a purely sub based deterrent by then? Or did we still have conventional nuclear bombs?

Also there's the conflict limiter factor, that while Britain could (but chose not to) strike Argentina, if Argentina actually threatened to hit the UK itself we might decide to bust out the nukes.

As for the Falklands being a reason to buff up the defence budget, not really. Argentina isn't currently a threat even to the existing garrison. I'm pretty sure the Argentinian navy is outclassed by the Bolivian navy at this point.

Edit: It seems that DBL and I are wrong, wikipedia says that we had free-fall bombs till 1998.

edited 5th Oct '15 2:52:15 PM by Silasw

Thank you for the corrections!

At any rate, I meant more that it showed how much we had let our armed forces degrade - a "warning shot", of sorts. I am pretty certain that it couldn't threaten the current garrison, but it does provide a cautionary tale against slicing our defence budget to the bone.

edited 5th Oct '15 2:52:34 PM by Flanker66

Yeah, The Other Wiki says that most of the ships in the Task Force had WE.177As aboard when they sailed south. They were initially moved to the carrier magazines for safety then loaded on two of the RFA ships to keep them out of an internationally recognised "no nukes" zone around South America.

edited 5th Oct '15 2:55:17 PM by Deadbeatloser22

And again I return to my point: You really beleive there is no other way 61 billion sterling pounds can be expended that can achieve the desired results without it being about killing people?

I am not talking about bribing governments. I am not talking about royalties. I mean, it is not as if destabilizing argentinian economy is hard. I am not talking about dispatching heroic 00 agents to solve the crisis and get the girl, just that it strikes me as too much money spent on implicit threats whereas the right alliances in the better place might have yielded more.

Argentina is, for example, really antagonistic to Chile, which was pretty helpful to the U.K during the invasion.

And I return with my example to the Gurkhas...I mean. You get along pretty well with them, don't ya, or am I misinterpreting history here?

Honestly no, the position we hold at the nuclear table is one we have because we have nukes, we give up the nukes and we lose that position. The effect that nukes have on ones international position is rather unique.

Oh and as for Chile, it's not so friendly any more, possibly because it only used to be friendly because we supported the dictatorship that was in power at the time.

And yeah we have the Gurkhas, and they're good, very good, but they're not nukes.

See that makes me sad cuz' I expect that outta the yankees but the brits are way cooler!

My idea with bringing up the Gurkhas was not "Use THEM as a deterrent" but more like "Look at the gurkhas. You used to fight, now they are your allies even tho you did not appeal to the "I am going to blow the fuck out of you" option"

It's a pretty old sentiment, Churchhill said that the bomb was "the price we say to sit at the high table".

edited 5th Oct '15 3:22:41 PM by Silasw

@Aszur:

You neglect the deterring effect of a strong military presence. Properly employed, just the possibility of military action can have a sobering effect and if necessary coerce without firing a single shot or taking a single life. As the British military has proven on multiple occasions, the armed forces can also be used to perform humanitarian functions even in far flung locales. Incidentally, that's another reason why strategic airlift and power projection is useful - it allows us to perform humanitarian missions far more easily than otherwise.

As for the Gurkhas, I do not know enough to feel confident wading into that particular debate; all I will do is note that yes, our relationship is very strong indeed.

And Silas is touching on something I feel strongly - namely, that by possessing nuclear weapons Britain's international status is elevated, and that in turn allows us to be a far more effective champion for the good causes of this world. Unconventional, perhaps, but if it allows Britain (and by extension us) to stand up for what's right then I'm all for it.

Yet, some nations with nukes do not sit here.

I mean. Even by some low standards, North Korea supposedly has nukes of at least what, 11 kilotons force? With a shitty capacity to deploy it, but a nuke nonetheless. Yet their threat is more that of the refugee crisis than true war with them would cost than their nukes.

The strong can pack quite a punch. The stronger need not even lift a finger.

Au contraire, I do nothing but fear the effects of a military presence. Panama, is a rather recent example. Foreign military is simply not welcome in other places. All it does, is build resentment for the sake of ego stroking.

edited 5th Oct '15 3:39:39 PM by Aszur

The peoples of Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor would disagree with you, as would those military doctors helped out in West Africa, and people saved and protected by the US Navy in the aftermath of natural disasters in both East Asia and other regions.

Also, other nations don't have a legal right granted by the non-proliferation treaty to have nukes.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:22:18 PM by Silasw

Panama what nao?