Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

The Royal Navy

There is a big case for re-establishing the Royal Navy as our key armed force as well as our deterrent. We have never really been a military power. Our Empire was built on Naval power and this remains the best instrument of defending the United Kingdom’s interests as well as its security. The new Defence Review would be well to consider this.

Recently there have been the first of two classes of outstanding new warships, world leaders.  One is the the Daring class of destroyers and the other is the Astute class of nuclear submarines. These are the most powerful ships of their type ever sailed by the Royal Navy and more technologically advanced than any similar in the world. On order, but way behind schedule are the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

These two vast ships, second in size only to the giant Nimitz class U.S carriers and bigger by far than France’s nuclear powered Charles de Gaulle, are, like the new submarines and destroyers, a quantum leap in capability and more than world class. Or so I thought.

I discover to total incredulity that these vast ships are to be powered by gas turbines because to fit nuclear reactors is too expensive. This is as preposterous and proposing tanks be drawn by horses because we cannot afford the engines. Unless these two carriers can cruise anywhere in the world without refuelling they are a complete waste of money. The very nature of the weapon is that it is independent of refuelling ships and without the hazard of thousands of tons of on board inflammable fuel. It is integral to the very concept that such ships should, like the top submarines, be nuclear powered.

If we cannot afford proper propulsion systems we cannot afford these ships, any more than you can afford to built a house if there is no money for the roof.  If this is the case we should scrap the project and build something useful to budget, perhaps some more Daring or Astute class vessels. If the need really is there it must be properly met and we must cough up for the cost of the reactors. Building giant aircraft carriers with cruise ship propulsion systems is a ridiculous as sending troops into battle in Land Rovers. We made the one mistake. Let us not multiply it on a vast multi £billion scale with these aircraft carriers.

Russia

As revelations of the curious deep cover spy ring trickle out, there are plenty of agitated commentators willing to have a go at the Russians, seeing them as up to their old tricks, still a potential enemy. This is arrant nonsense. Russia is not, nor ever has been, our enemy.

Russia as been the ally of Great Britain in every major European war (Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler) and if we would not have lost the last one without her, we would certainly have ended up making some sort of peace with the Nazis. The Americans are always credited with coming to our rescue, but the Russian impact on Germany was far greater.

The Cold War was not a stand off between States so much as a clash of ideologies. When communism imploded it was over. Just as the ending of enmity between Protestants and Catholics enabled us to normalise relations with Spain and France, so the end of communism was an opportunity to bring Russia in from the cold much more than we have. It is understandable for suspicion to linger; it took time with Spain and France to let bygones be bygones (even after the mutual sacrifices of WWI there were still those in the War Office and Foreign Office who argued that France, not Germany, was the potential future enemy) and trouble with Argentina over the Falklands can be said to have links back to that country’s majority Spanish heritage.

It is a fact that Russia is a country unlike ours in almost every way whose vision of democracy is quite different to our own, yet we have much in common and admire much in each other. More important our common strategic and economic interests greatly outweigh our differences, upon some of which we will always beg to differ. This is why our foreign policy should be much bolder towards Russia than it is. It is impossible to assure Europe’s security from wild emerging powers without Russia in the fold. As history has already taught us, Russia is more important to Europe, when the chips are down, than the United States.

It is time Britain moved from the  edgy American diplomatic model and offered a more inclusive approach. Suspicions about NATO expansion (Russia has eventually to become a member) and worries over what it calls its ‘near abroad’ would be greatly ease. So would the need for deep cover spy rings.

Referendum

This Blog is opposed to the referendum on AV and or fewer MPs for a very good reason. It is completely unesessary under our contitution. There has never been any sort of referendum over voting arrangements or franchise details for the House of Commons. These arrangements are initiated by Parliamentary majority and approved by the Monarch. All that is required is a Bill setting out the AV voting system and for that to be passed by a simple majority. It should be carried because Labour and the Lib Dems would mostly vote for it as would some Tories and the various Nationalists, who already have a fair voting system in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

By confecting a variation of the constituton (which desparately needs overhaul properly) this political move is either unconstitutional or proves that we do not have one. The argument is that if Parliament approves it then it is constitutional, so if Parliament decides on a referendum it is okay. True, but the only reason it may do this is because the Tories, who are the largest party and senior in the coaltion, believe the referndum will be lost. All this is because the Lib Dems were not tough enough in the negotiations.

It was obvious that the Tories would have been in hopeless trouble with a minority government introducing draconian cuts and would be at great electoral disadvantage if Cameron went to the country early on. Clegg should have made it clear that the price for backing the VAT rise was a bill for AV with the Tories whipped to support it.

Now we have a whole lot of political uncertainty, just when the coalition was doing so well and establishing worldwide credibility. All that is now at risk. What happens if Cameron campaigns for No and loses? Do not become confused with Wilson’s referendum to confirm Britain’s membership of the common Market in the seventies. Wilson and Heath both campaigned for a Yes, but Wilson allowed his loony left to go for No and Heath likewise with his nationalist right. When they won both extremes were the losers. This time round one part of the coalition government will lose. If it is Clegg, Cameron may be tempted to go to the country with Labour only just getting used to a new and not very exciting leader and the Lib Dems badly damaged. If Cameron loses, then an emboldened Labour and strengthened Lib Dems may lay plans which do not include him.

So this blog considers this whole episode a disgraceful waste of public money driven by a nasty streak of political cynicism. Nevertheless I shall vote Yes. Getting all MPs with over 50% of the votes in each constituency is the first step in the right direction. We just do not need another popular vote to achieve it and by doing it this way the credibility of the coalition is already damaged. Let us hope not beyond repair.