Which party will be/has been best for the armed forces?

[Aldo]

I've read a few of the policies and the conservatives seem to have the right ideas (if they mean what they say is another story) but who, histrically has been the best for the armed forces and who do you think will be best in the future.

[Spannerman]

Aldo:

The answer is none of 'em

They all promise the earth and then do a U-turn and cancel loads of contracts after they have spent billions in testing them

[Aldo]

They all promise the earth and then do a U-turn and cancel loads of contracts after they have spent billions in testing them

True but there must be one who will give the forces a better deal than the others. Conservatives have usually been the ones to spend the most on the military, and given the horrible cutbacks labour have put forward it's going to need someone willing to spend the cash to get us out of the hole Blair has put us in.

PS I'm a megastar!! :laola:

Edit - Just been reading the conservative site. They have quite a few ex soldiers in there ranks, looks more trust worthy than bliars lot.

[Pasha]

Hello Aldo,

Ref your:

Conservatives have usually been the ones to spend the most on the military

Three words to remember; OPTIONS FOR CHANGE. I was with the Brigade of Gurkhas during what can only be described as a decimation in the mid 1990's. A travesty of short-sightedness that, I feel it is fair to say, haunts the armed forces to this day.
Best regards

Pasha

[BenChug]

The problem is it takes more than one turn in office to make a major positive difference in the forces, while it takes one term in office to double the damage. Conservatives are usually better on the forces than the lefty's. Unless you go so far left as to be the Soviet Union, but then while you have a large reasonably effective military sucking up 40% of your GDP you don't get the roads to drive it anywhere

[Jon]

The problem is that whatever party heads government, they are always going to divert the money in the worng direction, because spending on the military doesnt win you an election. However, they have thier priorities wrong because defense spending is needed to keep our defenses up to standard.

[Tab]

One could say the Communist Party, if had not been for them the government would have run the forces into the ground years ago.

[Mr Grimsdale]

The problem is that whatever party heads government, they are always going to divert the money in the worng direction, because spending on the military doesnt win you an election. However, they have thier priorities wrong because defense spending is needed to keep our defenses up to standard.

doesn't it all come down to the fact that the end of the british empire signalled the end of the countries military? we've given away so much territory that the incumbent government feels they only need 4 guys in a landrover

unfortunately those 4 guys are now being dispatched to the 4 corners of the globe leaving nothing in reserve

bring back the british empire... or at least some of it

[df2inaus]

Tab,

One could say the Communist Party, if had not been for them the government would have run the forces into the ground years ago

That's the most insightful response I've ever read, and unfortunately, it's true. Are you a journalist? If not, you should be.

In Canada, the party that gave the most support to the military was the Liberal government of Louis St. Laurent, circa 1947-53.

St. Laurent realized how difficult it was to field the personnel and equipment that went to Korea, then expanded the military to 100,000 plus and accepted the reality that all NATO countries would need to contribute to the defence of W. Europe.

Not even Canada could ride on America's coattails and live with itself as a nation, thought this long-forgotten Canadian visionary.

Less than 15 years later it was another French-speaking Liberal PM with communist sympathies who set out to destroy the Canadian military because:

1) it embodied Canada's British heritage

2) it would upset the Americans

3) slashing the defence budget would enable him to buy more Liberal votes by giving lavish government benefits and high-pay, no-work public sector jobs to members of interest groups, mainly French Canadians, women and the perennial scourge of progress in developed countries, tens of thousands of assorted idle Marxist-leaning university grads.

Then in 1970 Trudeau deployed thousands of soldiers (with live rounds) in the streets of Montreal and Ottawa because French separatists represented a threat to the power he became drunk on.

Please note, that patron saint of terrorists' civil liberties, Canada, when confronted with a terrorist threat far smaller than any of IRA, Bader Meinhof, Red Bde, ETA etc., imposed the War Measures Act for a time in 1970, which meant anyone suspected of involvement could be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for an indefinite period of time.

The irony of the military backing him up when he needed it most without question to protect his version of Canada was of course, lost on him, as it is today with PM Blair and the lunatic-left wing of "New" Labour which seems to set the agenda.

Then came the Tory government of Mulroney in 1984 who wanted to expand the military, especially the garrison in Germany (from Bde to Div level), but lacked the will to actually do it, lest other interest groups lose their social spending. They voted Liberal anyway, so why did he care?

Cutting the military down to nothing more than another feeble arm of the govt bureaucracy is the Canadian way.

History shows that the Canadian military is treated equally badly by all political parties.

Canada's only hope from being reduced to 25,000 or less in the next few years is the Conservative Party (not Tories anymore, they're history). Remember, Canada hides behind personnel numbers of all three services given as a onner. Canada says it has 55,000 troops. Canadian land forces in reality are about 18,000 today.

[Tab]

No me ole mate I am not a journalist, but just some one with a twisted sense of humour, and the ability to see things in a slightly different light.

Regards Tab

[Guest]

Well i don`t know about the best party for the forces,But! I think the best Party i had when in the Corps was the one in Halsa, Norway. The last night of the NATO exercise we had a party in a house next door to where the LAD (Logs) were Laid up. We had bought a ford escort for 2 bottles of whiskey, (£7:00) earlier in the exercise and were looked after by the family. After the 3rd week of fresh smoked salmon, we were getting a little pissed off with it. Well, cut a long story short, (that`ll be a first) we arranged a Party at the Norgies house, everyone to bring 2 bottles, one for the night, and1 to leave for them. We invited transport squadron (Logs) to the Party, and it was a cracker, Les Brookes and mself staying over yet again. well we almost missed the boat back, but what a party

[Sisyphus]

The answer is none of 'em

Here, here [or should that be 'hear, hear'] Spanners

Until, of course, there's a major war when the country might be invaded, then it's all 'Your Country needs YOU'.

Mind you, the squaddies got cr***ped on even then.

[friendlyfireaintfriendly]

The british independence party seem best. They want to stick with NATO and invest in american projects instead of getting dragged into projects that leave us with outdated expensive equipment such as Eurofighter

[may18]

Didnt labour cause massive damage when they got to power in
64/65 by cancelling the TSR.2, supersonic jump jet, indigineous
transport, large aircraft carrier and buying american instead ..all in one fell swoop?.

Not sure if anyone post war has managed to beat that ?

[goreD.]

I think that history will show that the NAZI party gave the shot in the arm that the German military so badly needed.

Gore.