Details are beginning to emerge of how the Labour party’s defence policies will be implemented if, as seems almost certain, they form the government post the July 4th General Election.
I wrote previously that Labour was serious about defence and noted that they are fielding fourteen candidates who have a services background. This I said was a good thing. We desperately need people in Parliament who understand defence matters and know their corporals from their brigadiers.
The party is proposing a number of reforms to address perceived issues within the defence establishment, including a new Military Strategic HQ within the MoD, granting new authority to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), and creating a National Armaments Director post to improve procurement among others.
That last pledge is of utmost importance. For decades now MoD equipment procurement practices and processes have been a byword for sclerotic management and the profligate spaffing of taxpayers’ money. The examples are legion; Nimrod MRA4, the replacement for the Bowman communications system called (without a hint of irony) Morpheus, the Romano-Greek god of sleep, and of course the grand-daddy of them all, Ajax – the long delayed armoured cavalry vehicle beset by a host of problems.
If the Labour party were able to fix the Ajax programme alone it would almost be forgiven everything else, to be honest. It is a slow motion car crash example of hopelessly bad defence procurement, a classic and expensive example of how not to go about things.
The party also aims, optimistically perhaps, to implement these changes within the first 100 days of taking office. It says it will adopt a ‘NATO first’ approach and has already committed in its manifesto to maintaining the nuclear deterrent, much to the dismay of some of the party faithful.
Not so long ago the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership voted against retaining Britain’s nuclear arsenal and Keir Starmer was one of those who toed the party line.
What Labour’s manifesto now says is that it would impose a triple lock on maintaining the nuclear deterrent, committing Starmer’s government to continuing with the continuous-at –sea-deterrent (CASD) policy, guaranteeing the funding of the next generation of nuclear-armed SSBNs, and committing to upgrading the boats and missiles to keep them relevant. That’s a fundamental change.
More interestingly in many ways is that Labour has also signalled its willingness to consider a shift away from maintaining a full spectrum of military capabilities, instead concentrating on areas where the UK can add significant value to collective security efforts with allies. This idea of military specialisation leaving allies to fill the gaps has been discussed for some time now, and it appears that Labour may be minded to embrace it.
That could mean at a stretch, if Labour is serious about it, that we abandon our army’s armoured aspirations altogether and leave it to others better disposed – the Germans possibly – to provide our tank capability and expertise. After all, the UK is currently planning to procure just 148 of the “new” (for new read upgraded) Challenger 3 models, a pathetically small number.
Finally, the party also seems to favour a “maritime first” approach to Britain’s defence, recognising the UK’s strategic geopolitical importance in the North Atlantic to both the UK and NATO. This is probably good news for both the RN and RAF, but may leave the Army still sucking on the hind teat.
The RN is crying out for more frigates and the RAF for more airframes. If defence of the realm is the main priority and given that we are when all’s said and done we are an island nation, perhaps this is the right way to go.
Of course, putting these pledges in a manifesto and actually delivering them are two different things altogether. We shall see what happens.
z
- http://www.DefenceReview.UK
- @peoplemattertv
- @509298
Discover more from PeopleMatter.TV
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.