Tag Archives: defence

Tony Paterson

Let Lib Dems, not Farage, “Reform UK”

By Tony Paterson | Wed 19th March 2025 - 11:55 am

At this time of crisis, the Lib Dems must seize back the `Reform UK’ initiative from Nigel Farage and his ramshackle party. Freedom is at stake.

Voting intentions (polling data from 10 March) are 15% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Reform UK (from 11% and 25% last December). Here’s how to build on this poll hike.

Farage’s stated belief in electoral reform contains an inherent contradiction: while he ostensibly champions PR, his dream of being PM in 2029 hinges on First Past The Post being maintained.      

To be recognised as the real party of reform, the Lib Dems must recapture the initiative. First, use PR as a protest vehicle for appealing to voters disenchanted with a system which gave 2/3 of seats to a party with only 1/3 of the votes. 

Secondly, keep flagging up Farage’s championing of Putin during the 2024 GE campaign, when, pointing to NATO’s and the EU’s eastward expansion, he claimed that ‘we provoked this war’. Already in 2014, in an interview with GQ magazine, Farage had named Putin as the world leader he most admired. And let’s not forget his many appearances on Russia Today, at least three of them after Putin invaded Crimea in 2014.

But more recently, Farage has been presenting himself as the voice of moderation within his party. We must highlight Farage’s volatility, contrasted with our consistent liberalism.

Ed Davey, who is stalwartly supporting Ukraine, has proposed large increases in our defence spending as a percentage of GDP and, over the past few weeks, has used many of his PMQs to back Ukraine, is best placed to challenge Reform UK over UK military reform. Farage’s well publicised association with Trump makes it hard for him to follow suit. Polling data shows how deeply split Reform voters are over whether their party would do better with or without Farage.

World War III, using modern means of warfare to undermine Western freedom and democracy, has already begun. (See Economist `Want to stop a third world war?’, 30.5.24). Warfare today is hybrid: insidious, dangerous, but not always obvious. It includes ‘grey zone’ warfare: ‘salami-slicing’ (as Putin did to Crimea in 2014, severing it from Ukraine while causing little Western reaction), cyber warfare, sabotaging crucial infrastructure, etc. 

Ideologically, the strategy involves harnessing populism to build up far-right parties across Europe, including in the UK. How can we jolt the country as a whole into recognising that we, on the other hand, stand for freedom and democracy?  

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 4 Comments
David McKenzie

The SNP’s Defence delusions: A fantasy that puts Scotland at risk

By David McKenzie | Wed 12th March 2025 - 5:08 pm

The Scottish National Party has long promoted an unrealistic vision of Scotland’s defence in the event of independence. Their incoherent and reckless approach, outlined in the deeply flawed 2014 White Paper, demonstrates an alarming lack of seriousness in dealing with modern security threats. With a resurgent Russia invading Ukraine and probing NATO’s defences, the world becoming increasingly unstable and Donald Trump back in the White House openly questioning America’s commitment to NATO, the SNP’s defence policies are not just inadequate, they are dangerous.

The 2014 White Paper proposed a budget of just £2.5 billion for Scotland’s armed forces barely enough to maintain a credible defence structure. It assumed Scotland would inherit assets from the UK Armed Forces, despite no legal mechanism ensuring this. It envisioned a ‘Scottish Defence Force’ with a handful of frigates, a small army, and a limited air force, all while rejecting the very defence arrangements that currently protect Scotland. The reality of setting up a military from scratch was entirely ignored. Where would personnel be trained? How would equipment be procured? What alliances would Scotland rely on, given that SNP membership remains broadly opposed to NATO? These are fundamental questions that remain unanswered.

The SNP has no serious plan for dealing with the threats Scotland faces. Russian military aircraft routinely test the UK’s air defences, often requiring RAF jets to intercept them as they approach Scottish-UK airspace. Currently these intrusions are swiftly dealt with by highly trained personnel operating from Lossiemouth. An independent Scotland, with a small air force and no serious defence infrastructure, would struggle to respond adequately. If the SNP still intends to pursue another independence referendum in the next Scottish Parliament, they must be forced to explain how they would protect Scotland from these threats. The UK’s integrated defence network, intelligence-sharing agreements, and military alliances provide Scotland with essential security. An independent Scotland would be left exposed.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 7 Comments
Duncan Brack

A distinctive defence niche for the Lib Dems to seize

By Duncan Brack | Mon 10th March 2025 - 10:35 am

In the last couple of weeks, policy on defence has suddenly moved centre-stage – to the point where even Lib Dem Voice has an article about it! The support given to Ukraine by our parliamentary party is no less than one would expect, but perhaps we should look a little deeper, as there’s an idea for making defence spending more effective which the Liberal Democrats are ideally placed to champion.

Much political and media attention is focused on the need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. Starmer realised the significance of this and the need to act urgently ahead of his visit to the White House. He shifted from his 2024 manifesto position of 2.5 per cent ‘when resources allow’ to 2.5 per cent from 2027, with funding coming from reductions in international development assistance. 

But we need to be clear on what the money will buy. What capabilities does the UK need? Also, how do we ensure value for money – maximising the benefit from each pound, both in terms of defence capability but also as a contribution to UK jobs and economic growth, rather than US imports?

Currently the UK’s defence, intelligence and security arrangements are effectively joined at the hip with the US. Our nuclear deterrent is supplied by the US. Our intelligence comes largely from the US through the Five Eyes network, led by the US. Much of our kit is purchased from the US and our command and control is dependent on US technology. 

So a pressing question is whether we now need to establish our own defence capability independent of the US. In the short term, this may be difficult – hence the need to maintain a relationship with President Trump. But in the medium term, and particularly in how the UK uses its increased defence budget, there is an urgent need to move away from US dependence, as the last few weeks have underlined.

We could attempt to do this on a UK-only basis. Or we could attempt it through much greater cooperation and integration across Europe. While grateful for European support, the Ukrainians have experienced at first hand the difficulties of fighting a war using what they have described as a ‘military zoo’. The EU has 12 types of battle tank, while the US has one.

This, then, is the opportunity. At a time when the UK and its European partners need to step up expenditure on defence when resources are limited, it is vital that the extra money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Crucially, if the UK is to realise economies of scale and interoperability and have the ability to act without relying on the US, then Europe’s military capabilities must be integrated much more closely. We need to create a single European defence industry capable of supplying our needs, ensuring European control of the technology, and ensuring that the economic benefits, including jobs, are shared fairly with our partners on this side of the Atlantic.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 14 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Buy American, Save Ukraine.

By Tom Arms | Sat 8th March 2025 - 9:11 am

There is an outside, long shot chance of saving Ukraine and the Western Alliance—Buy American.

I don’t mean American cars or cereal. I mean something which really costs—American weaponry, American satellite links and American intelligence.

The money is there, $300-plus billion in frozen Russian assets that was being held back for Ukrainian reconstruction. There is not much point in saving it for reconstruction purposes if there is no country to reconstruct.

On top of that the normally frugal Germans are about to remove the EU debt brake and leap into a defense spending spree. And across Europe taxes are set to rise and welfare budgets cut to pay for what is now a defense emergency.

The purpose of the rapid rise in defense spending is to fill the huge hole left by the withdrawal of the United States from Ukraine and probably Europe as a whole. The problem is that no matter how big the budget it will take at least five—probably more—years to rebuild military forces and defense industries, and Putin is banging on Europe’s door today.

That is why British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky pressed Donald Trump for security guarantees as part of any ceasefire agreement.

The problem is that Trump does not see any advantage for him—or America—in providing such guarantees. It involves expensive aid until a ceasefire agreement is reached; commits US forces to a clash with Russia if Putin—as expected—breaks the ceasefire and potentially interferes with his plans to buddy up with fellow autocrat and would block access to Russian natural resources.

So give him a cash incentive with a bit of ego boosting thrown in for good measure. This is the kind of enticement Trump easily understands.

To start with the US gets the mineral rights deal he is demanding for past aid. Next,Trump is the recognised point man in negotiations with Vladimir Putin, but he has to consult and keep informed  European leaders and Zelensky.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 13 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Ed Davey: Britain must lead on defence AND aid

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 26th February 2025 - 9:25 am

In an email to Party members, Ed Davey set out his support for the Prime Minister’s plans to raise defence spending – though he urged him to go faster and to get all-party talks going to work out how. However, he criticised the fact that it was being funded from the international aid budget.  The Liberal Democrats have long championed international aid and it was our Michael Moore who successfully enshrined the previous 0.7% target in law back in 2015.

Watch Ed’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday:

Ed said in his email:

Today, the Prime Minister did what we’ve been urging him to do for years: commit to increasing Britain’s defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.

That is essential. With Vladimir Putin waging war on our continent, and Donald Trump in the White House cosying up to him, this is the most perilous moment for Europe in my lifetime.

Trump is threatening not only to betray the brave Ukrainian people, who have heroically resisted Putin’s war machine for the past three years, but also to undermine peace and security across Europe – including here in the UK.

In the face of that threat, the UK must step up and lead in Europe – and that has to include a big boost to defence spending. Today I urged the Prime Minister to go even further and bring all parties together to get to 3% of GDP as soon as possible.

But while we agree with the Government on the urgent need to spend more on defence, we have a clear difference of opinion on how to fund it. We have set out a clear plan to raise that money by increasing the Digital Services Tax on the profits of social media firms and other tech giants.

But Labour – along with the Conservatives and Reform – say it should instead be paid for by cutting international development spending. That is a big mistake.

The Conservatives already cut back on international aid when they were in power, and that did enormous damage to the UK’s soft power around the world. Deeper cuts now – at the same time as Donald Trump and Elon Musk are gutting America’s aid programmes – will only leave a vacuum for Russia and China to fill, strengthening the hand of authoritarian regimes and further undermining our security.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 3 Comments

The price of peace: Budgeting for a secure future

By Paul Wheeldon | Sun 23rd February 2025 - 12:55 pm

History offers a sobering lesson. Winston Churchill warned of the perils of underinvestment in defence long before the threat of Nazi aggression materialized. His insistence on prioritising military strength, though initially disregarded, ultimately underscored a simple truth: a nation must be prepared to protect itself if it is to safeguard its values and its future. Today, we stand at a similar crossroads.

Recent polling from YouGov reveals something both encouraging and challenging for us as Liberal Democrats. Our supporters show a striking commitment to the cause: 42% strongly agree that we should continue providing military assistance to Ukraine—the highest among all political parties. Seventy percent back the idea of British peacemakers being deployed to Ukraine, and 57% believe that our defence spending should be nudged upward from 2.3% to 3%. These figures are a clear nod to our belief that supporting Ukraine is not just a moral duty but a strategic imperative. It is a vote of confidence in the values that have guided us through turbulent times.

Yet, even as these numbers celebrate our commitment to international security, a contradiction emerges. A significant 44% of respondents, the highest of any political party, insist that maintaining public services should take precedence—even if that means defence spending cannot be increased. This division is not just a statistic—it is a reminder that peace, however desirable, comes at a price.

This poll lays bare a tension that is as old as democracy itself: balancing the immediate needs of our citizens with the long-term necessities of national security. History teaches us that neglecting defence can leave a nation vulnerable. Churchill’s era was a stark lesson; ignoring the call for robust defence spending had dire consequences. Today, the price of peace must be weighed with the same seriousness. While we cherish our public services, we cannot ignore the imperative to safeguard our nation and its allies.

Some might argue that there’s no room for increased expenditure without impacting vital public services. Yet, the very strength of our public institutions depends on a secure and stable environment. Our current political debate—even within our own ranks—echoes a familiar refrain: the challenge of raising funds without stifling growth. Recent criticisms of the Labour government’s stance, which leaves little fiscal flexibility by refusing to adjust major taxes, further underscore this conundrum.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 3 Comments
Tony Paterson

Love is not enough

By Tony Paterson | Mon 23rd December 2024 - 9:28 am

`Love is Enough’ is a wonderful song. Well done to Ed Davey and the Bath Philharmonia Young Carers Choir on having targeted the target Christmas  Number 1 spot. As a sentiment, though, it only reflects one side of the essential components that make us who we are as a political movement and segment of British society.  

At Party Conference in Bournemouth in 2023, I helped found a new Affiliated Organisation called Liberal Democrat Friends of Ukraine, focusing primarily on the bellicose military objective of helping Ukraine to defend itself against Putin’s aggression. Humanitarian support and reconstruction aid are our other priorities. It was the right thing to do – for Ukraine but also for Britain.

That Conference in September 2023 passed a belligerent motion urging the Government, `in defence of liberal values’, to:-

Do all it realistically can, in view of Putin’s brazen actions, to help arm Ukraine, including with longer-range precision weapons,…. to defeat Russia. Continue to strengthen the supply of British arms and ammunition to Ukraine… 

Fantastic. Lib Dem Friends of Uraine works closely with sister AOs like the Armed Forces and Hong Kong. We are about values. Membership of Lib Dem Friends of Ukraine alone has surged to about 350, much of it since Brighton 2024. So many Party members care about this.

Standing back from the `Peace Dividend’ mindset that has catastrophically got us, since 1989, to where, militarily, we are now, we can see how Utopian the daydream was.

Liberal, advanced democracies, including ours, have slid into a vicious circle of 1939 ostrich groupthink.

All parties seem to think that voters would question whoever was honest enough to spell out the substantially higher share of GDP that would be needed to re-arm, and adequately defend Ukraine and ourselves.

Responding to this, they collectively encouraged voters to believe that there was no danger – leaving the UK insufficiently capable, apart from our excellent at sea nuclear deterrent.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 6 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Defense Cooperation – Back Door to Europe

By Tom Arms | Sat 24th August 2024 - 11:42 am

If Britain’s Labour government is looking for it, there is a gaping door back into a new relationship with Europe – defense cooperation.

And this door has the added advantage that increased defense cooperation between Britain and its European NATO allies is becoming essential to counter growing American disillusionment with Europe.

Whether it is a MAGA-fied isolationism or a pivot to Asia, it is clear that foreign policymakers in both the Democratic and Republican parties are questioning America’s commitment to Europe.

For those on both sides of the English Channel this creates an opportunity to start to repair the damage of eight years of Conservative Party Brexiteering. It could also strengthen European defences and, ironically, help to retain the American nuclear umbrella.

Europe faced the problem of American isolationism and problems with Asia before—in the run-up to the creation NATO and within a year of its founding. When the idea of linking America to the defense of post-war Europe was first mooted, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, leader of the Republican-controlled Senate, insisted on proof that the Europeans were jointly committed to their own defense.

This was proven by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin with a 50-year Anglo-French Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance in 1947 and then a year later with an extension of the mutual defense pact to include Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Vandenberg and the Republicans were impressed, and on April 4, 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty was signed.

A year later Europe panicked when North Korea invaded South Korea. What if the Soviet Union took advantage of Korea to attack Europe? Could America afford to fight on two fronts? Which was the more important to Washington—Europe or Asia? The result was the Pleven Plan (named after French Prime Minister Renee Pleven). It proposed strengthening the European arm of NATO with a European Army headed up by a European defense minister.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 8 Comments
Nick Baird

The Conservatives have just announced a big increase in defence spending – how should the Lib Dems respond?

By Nick Baird | Wed 24th April 2024 - 12:45 pm

Yesterday Rishi Sunak announced a plan to substantially increase UK defence spending, up to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. This announcement moves the Tory position from an aspiration to achieve this “when economic circumstances allow” to a firm plan with actual budget cash numbers from this year through to 2030.

The timing is interesting – it is less than two months since the Government passed its Spring Budget without any attempt to fund this aspiration, but since then two things have happened. One is that Keir Starmer moved Labour’s policy position to match the unfunded “aspiration”, and (perhaps more importantly) the Daily Mail ran a sustained campaign demanding a defence spending increase.

Beyond the spin and hyperbole of the speech and press release, the Government has also issued a supporting document with more detail, available here and the simultaneous release of this slick and glossy document indicates the Government has been working on this for a while.

In many respects, this is a sensible plan which actually aligns quite closely with the Lib Dem policy “Liberal Values in a Dangerous World” adopted at this year’s Spring Conference, including investing in people to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis within the Armed Forces and civilian MOD, providing a long term procurement pipeline to give industry confidence to invest in capacity and R&D, and reiterating the importance of alliances.

There are a couple of important things currently missing from the Government’s plans however. One is that the Government’s announcements so far do not commit to reverse the current cuts to the Armed Forces, for example in the size of the Army or the Typhoon fighter fleet. These are crucial issues, as the only way the UK could have more capacity available to fight a big war in the next 2-3 years is to reverse planned cuts now.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 29 Comments
Mo Waqas

Defending Britain: A call for preparedness, inclusion and investment

By Mo Waqas | Fri 26th January 2024 - 3:53 pm

As I reflect on the current geopolitical landscape and the looming possibility of conflict, I can’t help but feel a sense of urgency for Britain to be ready to defend itself. Recently, General Sir Patrick Sanders, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff, issued a stark warning about the potential for war with Russia, sparking a crucial conversation about our nation’s preparedness and the necessary investments to safeguard our future.

The need for preparedness echoes loudly in today’s uncertain times.

The consensus is clear – we must be ready to repel any potential misadventure from Russia. History has taught us that readiness is not a luxury but a strategic necessity. From military leaders to concerned citizens, the call for preparedness emphasizes the need for a robust defence apparatus.

However, preparedness alone is not enough. General Sir Patrick Sanders, a vocal critic of troop cuts and military spending reductions, urges substantial investments in our armed forces. He emphasizes the urgency of expanding the size of the army and highlights the importance of well-trained, well-equipped soldiers who are adequately compensated for their service. Our strength doesn’t just lie in numbers but in capabilities and resilience.

Amid discussions of military strength, we must also recognize the unique power embedded in Britain’s diversity and inclusion. Our nation’s strength extends beyond military might to the unity forged by individuals from diverse backgrounds who call Britain their home. To harness this strength, it is imperative that all citizens, regardless of their origins, feel included and valued in matters of national defence. Inclusion is not only a moral imperative but a strategic advantage.

True national strength is not solely measured in the might of our armed forces but in the collective will and resilience of our people.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 26 Comments
Charlie Murphy

Mothballing the UK’s amphibious assault ships would be short-sighted and foolish

By Charlie Murphy | Wed 17th January 2024 - 10:44 am

Image available with for reuse under the OGL (Open Government License).

At a time when the world is at its least stable, possibly since the end of the Cold War more than 30 years ago, the mothballing of two of the Royal Navy’s most critical assets is under open consideration by the Tories.

The Government are once again considering mothballing – ie. indefinitely laying up – both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, two amphibious assault, command and supply ships operated by the Royal Navy. These are the only two ships of this type which are still in operation in the fleet, capable of operating with hundreds of Royal Marines onboard and carrying a well-equipped landing force. Both of the ships would otherwise have service lives well into the 2030s.

These ships are critical for the kind of security environment we are approaching. The effects of climate change will be profound across the globe, and these effects are already springing new threats and conflicts, including in both Syria and Nigeria. Some significant states are critically exposed to security threats around climate change, and some are already perilously close to state collapse. If there has ever been a moment we have needed the kind of ships that allow us to operate in theatres outside of our immediate neighbourhood, it is now.

However, not content with short-termist policymaking applying to the NHS, planning, housing, local government, and virtually every other area of the public realm, something as fundamental as defence and security is now in the crosshairs.

Even if we park the point about security for a second, these ships are mainstays of our international capacity. As a party we firmly believe in our responsibility to offer humanitarian assistance and international aid, which must in turn commit us to resisting the apparent fate of these ships. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark have been essential for British humanitarian efforts across the globe, with deployments around the world, including to the Mediterranean during the climate-induced civil war in Syria.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 17 Comments
Noel Hadjimichael

Securing a liberal Britain in hard times

By Noel Hadjimichael | Fri 3rd March 2023 - 9:49 am

Getting elected locally, becoming a citizen and living in freedom or security should be tackled in the right order. I just did the opposite. Arriving from Australia as an immigrant in 2016 (pre Brexit), getting elected a Councillor last May and becoming an UK citizen last month was a journey that made me think: how do I as a LibDem contribute to the safety, security and sustainability of our country? There are no easy answers but some clear pointers to what we might need: progressive, practical and patriotic steps to make Britain its liberal best.

I wrote back in March 2022 on LibDem Voice (Defence and Security: at the heart of liberal societies) about a growing think tank based at the National Liberal Club that reaches hundreds across the UK and the world by hybrid talks and expert discussions. I am also an Armed Forces Champion of my Council (shared with a colleague) with responsibility to the whole community. Veterans, serving members, cadets and their families expect all local governments to keep the covenant between community and those who serve.

But that is the smaller arena and the local or narrow pathway.

We as LibDems are at the heart of many national debates on matters of significance: the war in Ukraine, the risk of further Russian aggression, the role of China as a strategic competitor to our internationalist and liberal values for starters. Times have never been harder since the 1980s.

We also remain the voice of many who are deeply disgusted by this shabby Conservative government and are unconvinced by the rising Labour Opposition. Data and polling may suggest that our voters and supporters are well informed, educated and engaged on the big issues – the environment, education, cost of living crisis economics and social justice. But we are also the proud custodians of traditions of liberalism, social democracy and dissenting progressive values that reflect on the defence of the realm, the international order and our broader obligations to allies, partners and neighbours.

The emergence of an associated organisation “LibDem Friends of the Armed Forces” is no surprise. The upcoming debate at York Conference in less than three weeks on an enhanced/evolved defence policy fit for purpose and electorally sound for the times we face is another natural step.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 5 Comments
Nick Baird

What are the UK’s Armed Forces for?

By Nick Baird | Sun 20th February 2022 - 10:30 am

It may seem an obvious question, but I have never heard a frank and honest public discussion that fully defines the purpose of our Armed Forces. The current crisis in Ukraine has highlighted the stark contrast between our elected politicians wanting to talk tough and appear as a big player on the world stage versus the reality of what we have equipped and resourced our Armed Forces to actually do.

It would be easy to find a broad consensus that they should defend the UK, and it’s Overseas Territories and Dependencies. Most would agree that we have treaty obligations under NATO that we are obliged to meet, and few would argue against using their equipment and expertise to support disaster relief and respond to emergencies.

Beyond that however, should the UK maintain an expeditionary capability, able to conduct operations far away and intervene in conflicts that don’t directly affect UK territory or NATO allies?

It’s an important question in many ways, not least because the Armed Forces needed to do that look quite different to what is needed just to conduct defensive operations close to home. As a nation, we need to collectively decide what is our place in the world, then we have a duty and obligation to resource and equip our Forces accordingly. I suggest that we are currently failing.  Numbers of troops, tanks, warships and combat aircraft are at historic lows, having been cut again recently by the Conservative Government (while boasting of increased defence spending).

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 26 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Underwater Problems

By Tom Arms | Sat 18th September 2021 - 8:30 am

The Anglo-American decision to sell nuclear submarines to Australia has launched a new round of geopolitical musical chairs with long-lasting repercussions.

The Americans, Australians and British are very happy with their new seats and the new nuclear sub deal and the creation of a new alliance called AUKUS.

The French are furious with the three allies. They have been left standing on the outside. It completely scuppers their $50 billion deal to sell the Australians electric submarines. It also weakens the Franco-British defence agreement that had become one of the pillars of the Western Alliance. “It is a stab in the back,” exclaimed the furious French foreign minister Jean-Yves le Drian.

The Chinese are, of course, livid.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 11 Comments
Paul Fisher

Reformation – without a security and defence policy the Lib Dems are toast

By Paul Fisher | Thu 3rd September 2020 - 12:30 pm

Embed from Getty Images

Uncomfortable as it is for people of a liberal and democratic disposition to face the harsh realities of a rough and tumble world, the government must deal with the bully who disregards the norms of international rule-based peaceful co-existence. The same applies within the nation-state; it is the government which polices the law of the land and in both cases is there to provide the secure infrastructure which supports the well-being of the citizen and society.

In a globalised world, how on earth (literally) as liberals can we perpetuate the emotive implication of them and us? Citizens everywhere belong to the global village, and we need to contribute to the policing of the village rules for co-existence. As a nation-state, we should focus on our contribution outside, or external to, our part of our village.

From an international standpoint, and we are internationalist, aren’t we? The first sacred cow which has to be scrapped is the concept of foreign policy with its implicit narrative of “foreigners”. The second sacred cow for slaughter is to replace the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a Ministry of External Affairs. Oh dear, I see the massacre turning into a blood bath!

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 9 Comments
Stuart Crawford

A Critique of Liberal Democrat Defence policy, Part 3

By Stuart Crawford | Sat 27th June 2020 - 7:00 pm

This is the third of a series of three posts. The first part can be read here and the second part can be read here.

The following is a critique of the defence policy outlined in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto published for the 2019 General Election and presumably still extant at time of writing (June 2020).  Manifesto commitments are reproduced verbatim followed by my commentary.

Page 91: A Secure Defence in the 21st Century (continued)

  • Support the Armed Forces Covenant and ongoing work to support veterans’ mental health.

Comment.  The Armed Forces Covenant is advisory only and unenforceable.  We should commit to embedding it in law.

  • Improve the quality of service housing by bringing the MoD into line with other landlords, giving tenants the same legal rights to repair and maintenance as private tenants.

Comment.  Agreed, most important.

This defence policy manifesto extract seems to have been written in a void outside the context of current defence developments by somebody/ies who has/ve no idea of defence and security matters.

The problems with the UK’s armed services are clear to see. A huge hole in defence spending, ageing, obsolescent, and lack of equipment across all three services, a real problem with recruiting and retention (retention particularly) and an unrealistic over commitment of scarce resources. This toxic combination can result in low morale were it not for the high standard of training and leadership that the armed forces continue to enjoy.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 8 Comments
Stuart Crawford

A Critique of Liberal Democrat Defence policy, Part 2

By Stuart Crawford | Fri 26th June 2020 - 7:00 pm

This is the second of a series of three posts. The first part can be read here.

The following is a critique of the defence policy outlined in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto published for the 2019 General Election and presumably still extant at time of writing (June 2020).  Manifesto commitments are reproduced verbatim followed by my commentary.

Page 91: A Secure Defence in the 21st Century (continued)

  • Maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent. We propose continuing with the Dreadnought programme, the submarine-based replacement for Vanguard, but procuring three boats instead of four, and moving to a medium-readiness responsive posture. This would mean replacing continuous at-sea deterrence – instead maintaining the deterrent through measures such as unpredictable and irregular patrolling patterns.

Comment. I suspect this is an attempt at compromise to show that the party is essentially anti nuclear weapons philosophically but also serious about defence. This policy is neither fish nor fowl and needs radical revision.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 11 Comments
Stuart Crawford

A critique of Liberal Democrat Defence policy, Part 1

By Stuart Crawford | Thu 25th June 2020 - 6:59 pm

The following is a critique of the defence policy outlined in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto published for the 2019 General Election and presumably still extant at time of writing (June 2020).  Manifesto commitments are reproduced verbatim followed by my commentary.

Page 91: A Secure Defence in the 21st Century

The Armed Forces play a vital role in the defence of the nation: government should have a deep sense of duty to properly support service personnel and veterans. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour have shown a commitment to this: the Conservative government in particular has spread chronic low morale, misspent money on vanity projects and failed to recruit and retain people with the skills needed for 21st century warfare. Liberal Democrats are the only party who understand the new challenges faced by the Armed Forces and who are committed to properly supporting them.

Comment. This is bland, anodyne and says nothing of any consequence on what the party thinks the armed forces are for and what they ought to do.  It talks vaguely about “new challenges” and the need to support the forces without saying what either of those might be. Do we actually know?

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 8 Comments
Caron Lindsay

The truth about Layla Moran’s trip to Estonia

By Caron Lindsay | Sat 19th January 2019 - 11:00 am

I saw on Facebook over the holidays that Layla was off to Estonia and just assumed that she was off on a jolly.

Not so much, as her website reveals.

She was actually in the Baltic state to take part training exercises with British troops.

Layla, a former teacher, was part of a cross-party group of 7 MPs that spent several days with armed forces personnel as they carried out training exercises and duties in Estonia.

More than 800 British personnel are currently stationed in the Baltic state as part of NATO’s ‘enhanced forward presence’ along with Danish, Canadian and Estonian forces. The scheme is designed to deter Russian aggression.

The visit was part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme which sees MPs undergo military training and go on exercises alongside armed forces personnel to help inform better decision-making on defence issues in Parliament.

Layla Moran said:

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged and | 3 Comments
Mark Valladares

5 November 2018 – today’s press releases

By Mark Valladares | Mon 5th November 2018 - 11:59 pm

I’ve allowed myself to be distracted today, and almost forgot to get these up…

Government must end EU citizens rights uncertainty

Today the Liberal Democrats spokespeople for Home Affairs and Brexit, Ed Davey and Tom Brake will stand alongside representatives from the3million, advocating for EU citizens in the UK who fear for their rights in the event of a No Deal Brexit.

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson Ed Davey said:

The Conservative Government’s chaotic approach to the Brexit negotiations is making ‘no deal’ more likely by the day. The millions of EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living

…

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , and | Leave a comment
The Voice

Campbell: Every time Trump opens his mouth, the world becomes a less safe place

By The Voice | Fri 13th October 2017 - 6:58 pm

Back in the day when he was leader, he was referred to as Ming. Now he’s in the Lords and newly appointed Defence Spokesperson, he’s back to being Menzies.

Anyway, our new Defence spokesperson had this to say about Donald Trump’s latest destabilising shenanigans over Iran:

This is yet another example of Trump’s boneheaded belligerence.

Not content with senseless responses to every provocation of Kim Jong Un, he is determinedly undermining a treaty which has proved to be an important influence on nuclear non-proliferation.

Every time Trump opens his mouth, the world becomes a less safe place.

Surely, by implication, every time he reaches for …

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged and | Leave a comment
NewsHound

LibLink: Paddy Ashdown: Tories’ Royal Marine cut plays fast and loose with UK defence

By NewsHound | Sat 27th May 2017 - 12:55 pm

It makes sense that Paddy should write for the Plymouth Herald on defence given the city’s strategic importance.

He took the Government to task for cutting the Marines – about which he knows more than most people:

For more than three centuries – from Gibraltar and Trafalgar to Normandy and Afghanistan – the Royal Marines have epitomised those qualities. They have fought in more theatres and won more battles than any other British unit. In our nation’s hours of danger, they have been, as Lord St Vincent predicted in 1802, “the country’s sheet anchor”.

So the news that the Government is cutting 200 Royal Marine posts – at such a volatile time in world affairs – should concern us all. They are committing this folly in response to a crisis of their own making.

The cost of Conservative foolishness doesn’t end with the Royal Marines. They’ve cut personnel numbers, breaking their manifesto promise not to reduce the Army below 82,000. Troops on the frontline are deprived of basic equipment and combat training has been slashed, putting soldiers’ lives in greater peril. Warships sit idle at quaysides. No wonder top generals have accused the Government of “deception” over defence.

The Tories are very practised at talking tough on defence in elections. But look at the history: it’s always Tories who cut most on defence in government. It’s now clear that Mrs May will get back in because of the hopelessness of the Labour Party. But it would be very dangerous to give her a big enough majority to ignore us again.

Continue reading »
Posted in LibLink | Also tagged , , and | 2 Comments
Paul Walter

Paddy: Royal Marines paying the price of two floating white elephants

By Paul Walter | Wed 12th April 2017 - 11:10 am

In a typically passionate and knowledgeable intervention, ex-Royal Marine Paddy Ashdown has attacked cuts of 200 posts in his former fighting unit:

In an unpredictable age, we need forces that are fast, flexible and mobile. That’s what the Royal Marines do at a world-class level.

To cut their numbers to fill a Naval manpower black hole is not just poor reward for their service over the last years, but a folly which plays fast and loose with the nation’s defences.

The Royal Marines have carried the greatest burden in the defence of our country over the last decade – they have fought in more theatres and won more battles than any other British unit. They are also the crucial manpower pool from which we draw many of our Special Forces.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 10 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an ex pat: Brexit goes nuclear, chapter 2

By Tom Arms | Fri 31st March 2017 - 8:55 am

She’s done it. Mrs May has gone and linked Britain’s nuclear deterrent to Brexit trade negotiations.

I can honestly stick out my chest, jut out my chin and proclaim: “I told you so. And I told you exclusively.”

Alright, Mrs. May didn’t actually use the n-word in her letter to the European Commission which triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the start of Brexit negotiations. But in just one document she explicitly linked economic concessions with security issues nine times.

It requires only the smallest leap of imagination to realise that the British Prime Minister was talking about more than exchanges of DNA databases with continental police.

But be warned, the consequences of this link will be dire. Messing with the balance of strategic weapons capable of incinerating the world several times over is a dangerous policy.

Mrs May knows that, but the problem is that nuclear missiles are just about the only weapon the British have in their negotiating armoury. Their backs are against the wall.

There is, of course, a question mark, over whether or not the UK will be allowed to play the security card. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it crystal clear that she opposes negotiations on any future relationship until the terms of the divorce are settled. That means Britain has to cough up $60 billion, allow EU citizens to remain in Britain and accept that it will no longer be part of the European Single Market. All this before any talks on a future relationship which may or may not involve security. This is a direct contradiction of Mrs May’s tandem approach.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged and | 14 Comments
Zachary Barker

Getting serious about defence

By Zachary Barker | Mon 27th March 2017 - 12:32 pm

 

Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader much of the Liberal Democrat’s rhetoric has been aimed at portraying him as an extremist.  Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron claimed that Labour had “left the field” in a party conference speech.  The implication of this claim is that Labour have left the centre ground to embark on a far leftist fellow-traveller path, seemingly ignoring the electoral success it gained from the dominating the centre ground in the New Labour years.  In this way the Liberal Democrat comeback seemingly relies on a message that it is the new party of the centre ground.  However doing this mean more than just gesture politics, it means not being afraid to tackle issues which are not commonly associated with liberalism, most notably defence.

Liberal Democrat manifestos in recent years have treated defence matters like an afterthought, an embarrassment almost, especially when it comes to questions of hard power.  When it comes to asking questions about our hard power capability our manifesto prefers to move toward the murky soft power where it seems we are more ideologically comfortable.  The 2016 manifesto talked about emphasising “a Single Security Budget, including not just conventional defence spending but the work of our security agencies, cyber defences and soft power interventions”.  This policy in itself provides opportunities and dangers.  While it is important to emphasise that multiple security threats require multiple solutions to tackle them, there can be no substitute for hard power.  Put simply; while it is arguable that the main security threat we face is from terrorism we can’t leave ourselves unprepared for future inter-state conflict.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 24 Comments
Edwin Moriarty

Are we spending enough on our military?

By Edwin Moriarty | Thu 9th March 2017 - 10:25 am

I recently attended a seminar led by a specialist in international relations, and one of those attending asked “How likely do you think it is that the UK will fight a conventional war in the next ten years?”. Without any hesitation the reply came: “Almost certain.”

It’s hard to avoid noticing the changing political environment we find ourselves, both at home and abroad. For the first time in decades, the prospect of large-scale non-nuclear war seems plausible (though President Trump seems keen on removing “non-nuclear” from that equation). Russia’s aggressive actions can’t be written off as isolated incidents, and the situation in the Middle East is even worse than it was a decade ago.

It’s very likely that, due to aggression against us or our allies we will be at war again in the not too distant future. As someone who has always fancied themselves a pacifist, this is all a bit depressing, but it would be naive to think that my wishes have any impact on reality. It seems important, therefore, that we continue to meet our spending commitments to NATO, however many reservations we have about the use of military force.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | 11 Comments
Paul Walter

There’s more than one reason why defence chiefs shouldn’t criticise politicians

By Paul Walter | Thu 12th November 2015 - 5:55 pm
Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 44 Comments
Toby MacDonnell

Entente Nucleaire?

By Toby MacDonnell | Wed 30th September 2015 - 4:40 pm

We have had a lot of articles about Trident in the build up to conference. Now the motion has now passed with amendments, conference has commissioned a working group on what to do without Trident. The group has been asked to assess strategic threats; how best to promote non-proliferation and disarmament; the implications for Britain’s defence commitments to both NATO and our European alliances; and the scope and implications of other kinds of nuclear deterrent. Here is a proposal to consider.

In his article, George Cunningham argues that the international situation has changed enough that we should retain our nuclear capability after a broader re-evaluation of defence policy.

And George Potter writes that our stockpile is overshadowed as a deterrent by America’s NATO-wide umbrella, but enough of a threat to hostile nuclear powers to single the UK out as a target.

My sympathies are with the unilateralists. The reports and rumours I have read about outdated protocols, lax discipline, and the resulting almost-accidents are enough to make the blood run cold. The presence of nuclear weapons and their destructive force is a permanent risk to all of our lives. In an ideal world, we would use the scrap to plough our furrows. (In an ideal world, the radiation would make the crops super-big.)

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged and | 12 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Conference controversy guaranteed – Renewal of Trident to be debated

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 12th July 2015 - 10:30 am

Full details of the agenda for Autumn Conference will be released in due course, but reports on social media say that a motion calling for Trident not to be renewed at all will be debated.

If passed, this would mean an end to a succession of fudges on the issue in recent, and not so recent, years.

Continue reading »
Posted in Conference and News | Also tagged , , and | 42 Comments
Nick Harvey

Nick Harvey writes…Trident: The real gamble with the nation’s security is making a currently purpose-less weapon a financial priority

By Nick Harvey | Fri 10th April 2015 - 3:32 pm

TridentFor some, there is no greater symbol of the United Kingdom’s enduring role on the world stage and continued military relevance than the Trident nuclear weapons system. For others, Trident is the last unreformed bastion of Cold War thinking. It is a symbol of a bygone era of fear, instability and sky-high defence spending to hedge against an unpredictable Soviet threat.

Despite the Cold War ending; Russia and the UK de-targeting one another; multiple treaties the UK has signed up to committing to a reduction in nuclear weapon stockpiles; and a £100bn price tag which will in time account for 10% of the MoD’s budget while our Armed Forces are in desperate need of updated kit; the Tories and Labour both refuse even to entertain the notion that the status quo might reasonably be questioned.

As evidenced by yesterday’s news, they instead choose to scaremonger and point-score over what might be traded in a future coalition. Top military chiefs have also expressed their disdain at the recent headlines. The two parties are prioritising the impressive feat of kicking around the country’s most expensive political football, rather than participating in a rational conversation about whether the assumptions upon which like-for-like replacement rests are logical or relevant to the threats Britain faces today.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 26 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Chambers
    @theakes > Nothing has really changed. The Soviet Union fell. NATO has expanded. The Nordics are seriously engaged. The Baltic is a NATO lake. There m...
  • Simon R
    @Catherine: The problem we have is that whatever we do leads to results that would seem unacceptable. Of course, it's unacceptable for anyone - even a single p...
  • expats
    Nick Baird 19th Jun '25 - 5:03pm.. Having watched a loved one go from a vibrant human being to a 'barely living' skeleton longing for release, I agree with you....
  • expats
    It seems, in the 'new' war, hospitals are 'out of bounds'.....
  • Nonconformistradical
    @Catherine Crosland "lives would clearly be saved if this bill is defeated – the lives of people who would be coerced into assisted dying, or opt for assis...