Tuesday, 19 January 2016

Labour position on defence now equates to "have guns but no bullets" - another bizarre announcement criticised

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party staggers from worse to worse on matters military / armed forces.
On Sunday he was interviewed on Marr on BBC1. His approach was then expanded upon in defence questions yesterday.
Calling for a Vanguard submarine without warheads by Labour is as dumb as calling for soldiers to be marched into battle with rifles but no ammunition. It ensures the troops become targets but gives them no ability to defend themselves.
Worse still, by announcing it on national media any enemy will know that, if they can be found, they can be forced to surrender or killed.
Even labour MPs criticised Corbyn's approach: this from Kevan Jones, labour MP yesterday-
‘Would the minister agree that it’s not just about the number of jobs involved in the successor programme, but the high-skilled nature of those jobs? Despite ill-informed comments from my own party at the weekend with regard to those jobs, would he not also agree with me that simply you cannot turn them on and off like a tap when you need them.’
There were then interventions backing the nuclear deterrent from a number of other MPs, including Angela Smith, Madeleine Moon and John Woodcock. 
Corbyn's Labour approach is an extraordinary plan. Both disarmament and expensive, ineffective job creation. Worst of all, it is dangerous. By giving the semblance of credibility to those who have consistently sought to destroy our defences, this job scheme not only robs the taxpayer, it deceives them. It encourages our enemies to think us weak, encouraging them to act and makes war more, not less, likely. In pretending the money spent is the effect sought, it is in keeping with his philosophy elsewhere, but it is a lie.
The money spent on defence has a purpose – to defend our people, not just employ them.
The former Army officer Tom Tugendhat MP has written of why the Labour approach is so wrong.