Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

Defence Cuts

It is impossible to organise a defence policy independent of a foreign policy. Therefore, although the Treasury holds the purse strings, the Foreign Office has the plan. Next week we can expect to hear from William Hague a difinitive explanation of what the plan is. If it involves the global projection of military power, rather than creating an impregnable defence of our homeland and its vital lines of communication and supply, it is the wrong plan and we cannot afford it.

There is also the fact the the Ministry of Defence itself  is dysfunctional and financially out of control. A good example of this is these ridiculous aircraft carriers. We cannot afford to equip them to their potential and we cannot even afford to build them properly. Such vast capital ships have to be able to roam the seas for months or years without refuelling or carrying explosive oil. There must be, and all others in the world are, nuclear powered. But no. Not these two. The have steam turbines because it is cheaper. This means that each has to refuel at sea and carry nearly 8000  tons of oil. They would be dependent on their fuel supply and very easy to sink.

They will be useless in modern war. Like the much feted HMS Hood, regarded throughout the period between the world wars as the most powerful warship in the world, it was sunk within minutes by the Bismark on its first engagement in battle. This was beacuse it had not been thought necessary to equip it with worthwhile armour on its decks.

There can be plenty of cutting at the Ministry of Defence, but first it is necessary to work out with what objective for the outcome.

Iraq War

Ed Milliband was right to declare the Iraq war wrong. Politicians are deaf to the universal clamour against this adventure, which will be made even shriller when Chilcot is published. It will not be possible for any political leader to win an election in the future without first repudiating this ill fated, ill starred and to most, illegal war.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. Had it not been for continuing to line up behind, what was after all, Tony Blair’s war, Labour might have won enough seats to be the party to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. Moreover, had David followed a more independent foreign policy and come out against the war, as the effect of the disaster became clear and the truth began to unravel, he would have been Labour Leader probably before the general election in May, but certainly now. 

Ed now joins Nick as  two main party leaders against the war. As Chilcot emerges Cameron will notice his isolation. It will shift the political ground. If Labour under Ed becomes negative about cuts, woolly about its own proposals and supportive of pointless strikes, the Conservatives will have nothing to fear. But if Ed has a good plan which is accepted by independent commentators as a runner, the Lib Dem benches in the Commons could become restive. That will make the coalition’s majority unstable. Things may not be set in quite so clear cut a mould for the next five years, as last week we supposed.