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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12105376/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-no-pacifist-he-wants-to-see-Britain-defeated.html

Bizarre Labour contortions on defence, Trident + security are impossible to fathom but genuinely worrying

Todays story takes a little telling but it is straight from The Thick of It, if it did not have really sinister overtones and a serious attack on a mental health campaigner.

Full details are here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12002970/Ken-Livingstone-is-a-hate-filled-cockroach.-Jeremy-Corbyn-must-sack-him-or-share-his-disgrace.html

First, Maria Eagle, MP, shadow Defence Minister was furious that anti-Trident / anti defence Ken Livingstone had been appointed by Corbyn to co-chair the Labour party’s defence review with her, apparently without her, or her deputy, Kevan Jones MP, having being consulted.

Then, Ken Livingstone spoke to the Mirror about his appointment, and was asked what he thought of Shadow Defence Minister Kevan Jones’s complaint that he shouldn’t be involved in the review given his preconceived views. Livingstone said Jones, who has spoken movingly in the Commons about his struggle with depression, ‘might need some psychiatric help’ and was ‘obviously very depressed and disturbed’. Livingstone repeatedly refused to apologise and retract for such a derogatory and inappropriate comment against a mental health campaigner; when before a number of TV / media outlets and he again refused to say sorry, claiming somewhat bizarrely that he’d spoken the way he did because he was from South London. Eventually he gave a half hearted apology, literally wrung out of the man.

The truth of the Labour Party position is therefore something which is difficult to ascertain at best especially when we consider that at the Scottish Labour Party Conference they specifically voted to adopt a policy of non-renewal of Trident. This was later heavily downplayed by the UK Labour Party with Angela Eagle saying it was no more than a contribution to the debate Trident renewal. Now Corbyn puts Livingstone in charge. You could not make it up.

Amidst all the Budget news an analysis of the 2% defence commitment till 2020

I am delighted that the Chancellor has managed to find the money for defence in this budget. It will mean hard choices elsewhere. But the fact that George Osborne will commit defence spending to make sure that it stays at 2 per cent of GDP until 2020 is good news and allows the armed forces to plan for the future.
I know our armed forces will be pleased that the Chancellor has delivered, because making this commitment has not been easy - I think everyone understands that. The decision has also been welcomed across NATO. But other countries need to do some heavy lifting now as well, as the threats we face are not isolated to a single location and a single issue, but varied and cross border, whether they be Isis, terror attacks, peacekeeping or the wider threat of Putin and others.
General Dannatt's piece in Wednesdays Telegraph is one of the best analysis of the situation:
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11727483/George-Osbornes-2-per-cent-defence-target-sends-a-strong-message-to-our-foes.html

Defence spending debate forgets we still have largest defence budget in the EU / 2nd in NATO

The UK has the second largest defence budget in NATO and the largest in the EU. The Government is currently spending more than 2% of GDP on defence and is committed to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence in 2015/16. There is a debate presently being discussed as to whether we should commit to spending this sum for sure in future years. 

Over the next decade we are committed to spending well in excess of £100 billion on equipment and equipment support to keep Britain safe. That includes new strike fighters; type 26 frigates, more surveillance aircraft, hunter submarines, two aircraft carriers, and the most advanced armoured vehicles.

Decisions on spending after the financial year 2015/16 are determined in the next spending review post election. The Prime Minister has said that he does not want to see our regular armed services reduced below the level that they are now and remains committed to growing the Reserves to 35,000.

In addition the context to this is the desire to get other EU and NATO countries to pull their weight and contribute more to the defence of NATO, following last years agreement at the Newport summit. However, as always I would welcome constituents thoughts. 

Huge Congratulations to Rory Stewart, MP, my friend and neighbour on becoming chair of Defence Select Committee

The MP for Penrith, the Borders, Alston and Brampton has won the support of the House of Commons to lead the Defence Select Committee; this is a job which matters, and has genuine influence.

It's job is to hold the government and the Armed Forces to account. To ensure that we are maximising our resources, which for a long time have been affected by the debt the Labour government left us, is not an easy task. It also needs to advise government on future planning, and criticise where necessary. It needs to be cross party [as all select committees are] and needs to challenge orthodoxy. In that respect the House of Commons have chosen well - in a secret ballot.

Rory is a genuine character, but very bright, well travelled and with a bigger understanding of the world we live in than most ambassadors. He has worked in everywhere from Afghanistan to Iraq. He is also a proper countryman, and one of the most fascinating of the 2010 intake - which is certainly rich in characters. He will do a great job. He certainly has my full support and I am pleased that we have a Northerner representing the role. It will make a difference.