Defence
Do we really need 6 nuclear submarines? Do we need two new aircraft carriers? The answer to both must surely be no.
The point about having the subs is that they are a deterrent. A deterrent against what exactly? The likelihood of war in Europe is zilch. Ok people would argue that since Putin came to power Russia as been flexing its muscles. They may be true but their armed forces are a shambles and could not possibly sustain a long military campaign. There nuclear power has receded dramatically. At the moment their main claim to power is the fact that they control much of the worlds resources. Gas and oil in particular. Many people believe that Russia can use these natural resources to dictate policy to the Europeans and other nationalities.
The fact of the matter is that Russia needs Europe as much as the Europe needs Russia. At the moment Russia has slightly the upper hand, however as the new technologies come on board then the dependency of the Europe on Russias gas and oil will diminish dramatically. We will then see Russia as being much more amenable towards Europe.
Which brings us back to our defence policy? We should only have enough armed forces to defend our country. The subs are not necessary and would be scrapped immediately by the NDP. The two new aircraft carriers, delayed again, would be scrapped. We need coastal defence ships not two of the largest ships in the world. The number of troops, (army, navy and air force), would be reduced by half and concentrate solely on the defence of the UK. It would also mean that the bloated MOD would be much reduced in size.
These policies would save billions of pounds every year, money that could be spent on all manner of social issues. Now, there is a downside to these policies; many thousands of people would eventually loose their jobs. However by using the skills acquired by these workers the NDP believes that by investing in the businesses that make and maintain our defence infrastructure we could once again lead the world in production of aircraft, ships and other hi-tech equipment. In the past we have led the world in the use of so much new technology that with a little bit of thought and investment we believe we can re-capture a leading position again. This would mean that the jobs wouldnt be lost they would simply be moved.
The policies of Bush and New Labour, Blair and Brown, have made it ever more likely that the UK will face more terrorist attacks. It is understood that a number of terrorist attempts have been foiled. Until this problem is solved and that is unlikely while we still have the conflict in the Middle East, then the one area the NDP would increase our expenditure is on our secret services.
Some say that MI5 and MI6 didnt pick up the 7/7 bombers and there have been other criticisms however the NDP believes that the only way the combat terrorist cells in the UK and abroad is to invest more heavily in MI5 and MI6.
It is possible that the failure to pick up the 7/7 group and others was because too many organisations are involved. It must be much better to have one organisation is charge of anti-terrorism. The NDP believes that task should be left in the hands of a merged MI5 and MI6.
We have never quite understood why we have two secret services, when one would seem to be more efficient. Perhaps someone can enlighten us.
What is clear is that the members of the secret service, particularly the senior members should not be public figures. If the head of these services are to be answerable to parliament then the committee responsible for maintaining supervision should only meet in camera and the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition should be involved. The heads of these operations should be forbidden from making any sort of public statement. This policy should apply even when they retire.
Because we subscribe, correctly, to the Geneva Convention, we cant fight terrorism using the same tactics the terrorists use. We are bound by our law. However there is no reason why the state offices should not use all parts of the law available to them to combat these mindless idiots.
There is a paradox here; the NDP is arguing for less state intervention in our lives, less form-filling, the cancellation of the ludicrously expensive identity card scheme etc and yet we believe that the secret services should be able, in instances where they believe that terrorist acts are about to happen, to tap phones; intercept emails and other communications. Before embarking on any of these practices they would have to present the case to a high court judge for approval to proceed.
The secret service will need to work closely with the police service and if the NDPs suggestion of a national police force is formed then the lines of communication should improve dramatically.
Post a Comment
Please Login or Register to post a comment.
|
