I recently got door stopped by a couple of members of the Daventry District Conservative Party, one was Wayne Howard, the Hill Ward District Councillor.
The Tories wanted to know if they could count on my vote in the upcoming elections. Now unlike religious salespeople (they get short shrift), I am prepared to engage with politicians and I spent about ten minutes chatting to these guys.
One of the subjects I put them on the spot about was their views on Trident replacement – hardly a local political issue I accept, but if I vote for Howard, it is also a vote for Heaton-Harris (MP) and a vote for Cameron too.
Having made a point of raising defence, it bothered me therefore to read this article on the BBC…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32435850
…that suggests that defence is way down the political agenda.
The BBC piece is worth a read because there is some content that one should be aware of, have an opinion on and, arguably, be making sure is on one’s radar when deciding who to vote for in the local or the general elections.
In our world of increasing tensions – the Russians being provocative, IS rampaging in the middle-east, the Argentinians agitating over the Falklands and global terrorism on the up – it worries me a lot to read that our regular army could fit into Wembley Stadium with seats to spare and that our aircraft carriers have empty parking bays for fighters.
But it would appear that the Tories, UKIP and the LibDems (to a degree) are still willing to spend £20 billion on replacing Trident (though CND reports that the investment value equates to about £100 billion - http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident).
I feel the need to get on my campaign perch and preach to everyone prepared to listen because surely our politicians have their priorities wrong. I can’t be alone in thinking that better things could be done with tax payers’ money to make a greater, positive difference to the defence of the realm and contribute more to the economy.
In my opinion, Trident is a waste of money – what is the point of investing billions in armaments that we will never use? Some use the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to justify the possession of nukes but think about it this way - if another nation fires nuclear missiles at the UK, Joe Public will be screwed. How much difference would it make to the average citizen to know that some of our ordnance had been fired back at our aggressors? We are f--ked but it is okay because they are f--ked too – it’s stupid isn’t it?
The only nutters that would be mad enough to actually think nuclear weapons could be used are the type of people that run IS.
Conversely, IS won’t be defeated by weapons of mass destruction – to eradicate that enemy, soldiers on the ground would make the most difference - but in the UK’s case we haven’t got many of those.
I appreciate that my personal “scrap trident” perspective will meet with disapproval from many, but there is a middle ground. Our government could/should consider halving our Trident submarine fleet. Right now, the UK has four subs, two of which are docked in Scotland at any given point, whilst the other two are operational. The LibDems propose a fleet of three.
The concept is simple, if subs are laid up in dock, we don’t need them.
Reducing the fleet saves money immediately but still keeps the people at Faslane and the surrounding areas in employment.
The money saved could be used to fund people and equipment for the armed forces that we might actually derive some value from. Employing more soldiers would create wealth for the nation because the government derives tax revenue from their earnings and soldiers will spend their salaries on goods and services.
Improved employment prospects for UK citizens; recruits having the opportunity to learn trades whilst in the military; a greater ability for the armed forces to respond to national or international incidents - feels like a good investment to me.
Aside from those bearing arms, new equipment ordered could help keep some of our factories (and those of our allies) in full production and that’s beneficial for the European economy.
Without some new thinking, what will happen is that the government will invest in Trident without consulting voters. It will continue to erode non-nuclear military spending in order to protect the budgets for health and education (which have been ring fenced).
And one day we’ll end up needing soldiers and have to resort to conscription!
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
The Tories wanted to know if they could count on my vote in the upcoming elections. Now unlike religious salespeople (they get short shrift), I am prepared to engage with politicians and I spent about ten minutes chatting to these guys.
One of the subjects I put them on the spot about was their views on Trident replacement – hardly a local political issue I accept, but if I vote for Howard, it is also a vote for Heaton-Harris (MP) and a vote for Cameron too.
Having made a point of raising defence, it bothered me therefore to read this article on the BBC…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32435850
…that suggests that defence is way down the political agenda.
The BBC piece is worth a read because there is some content that one should be aware of, have an opinion on and, arguably, be making sure is on one’s radar when deciding who to vote for in the local or the general elections.
In our world of increasing tensions – the Russians being provocative, IS rampaging in the middle-east, the Argentinians agitating over the Falklands and global terrorism on the up – it worries me a lot to read that our regular army could fit into Wembley Stadium with seats to spare and that our aircraft carriers have empty parking bays for fighters.
But it would appear that the Tories, UKIP and the LibDems (to a degree) are still willing to spend £20 billion on replacing Trident (though CND reports that the investment value equates to about £100 billion - http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident).
I feel the need to get on my campaign perch and preach to everyone prepared to listen because surely our politicians have their priorities wrong. I can’t be alone in thinking that better things could be done with tax payers’ money to make a greater, positive difference to the defence of the realm and contribute more to the economy.
In my opinion, Trident is a waste of money – what is the point of investing billions in armaments that we will never use? Some use the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to justify the possession of nukes but think about it this way - if another nation fires nuclear missiles at the UK, Joe Public will be screwed. How much difference would it make to the average citizen to know that some of our ordnance had been fired back at our aggressors? We are f--ked but it is okay because they are f--ked too – it’s stupid isn’t it?
The only nutters that would be mad enough to actually think nuclear weapons could be used are the type of people that run IS.
Conversely, IS won’t be defeated by weapons of mass destruction – to eradicate that enemy, soldiers on the ground would make the most difference - but in the UK’s case we haven’t got many of those.
I appreciate that my personal “scrap trident” perspective will meet with disapproval from many, but there is a middle ground. Our government could/should consider halving our Trident submarine fleet. Right now, the UK has four subs, two of which are docked in Scotland at any given point, whilst the other two are operational. The LibDems propose a fleet of three.
The concept is simple, if subs are laid up in dock, we don’t need them.
Reducing the fleet saves money immediately but still keeps the people at Faslane and the surrounding areas in employment.
The money saved could be used to fund people and equipment for the armed forces that we might actually derive some value from. Employing more soldiers would create wealth for the nation because the government derives tax revenue from their earnings and soldiers will spend their salaries on goods and services.
Improved employment prospects for UK citizens; recruits having the opportunity to learn trades whilst in the military; a greater ability for the armed forces to respond to national or international incidents - feels like a good investment to me.
Aside from those bearing arms, new equipment ordered could help keep some of our factories (and those of our allies) in full production and that’s beneficial for the European economy.
Without some new thinking, what will happen is that the government will invest in Trident without consulting voters. It will continue to erode non-nuclear military spending in order to protect the budgets for health and education (which have been ring fenced).
And one day we’ll end up needing soldiers and have to resort to conscription!
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
RSS Feed
