2: “To keep defence costs down by smarter defence procurement, and with more involvement of British industry wherever possible.”
These aims are mutually exclusive – British industry is no longer capable of competing in terms of equipment cost and capability. Frequently contracts are palmed off to BAe Systems because they are “British” despite the fact that what we get out the other end tends to be expensive and not very good – the Nimrod report being a recent example. You can buy better equipment for less by looking abroad, and if you’re interested in delivering value for money and equipment that works to the forces you shouldn’t adopt a protectionist stance.
6. “To restore many traditional regiments”
This is posturing – it will cost money (where money has since been saved) and not create any real capability increase. Cash should be spent on something more useful than reprinting stationery and making new cap badges.
7. “restoration of Crown immunity” and “an offence of treason for those UK citizens who seriously attack serving personnel”
Firstly, Crown immunity was never a good thing because it gave people the right to operate outside the law with impunity. Being a serving member of the armed forces is not an excuse to ignore the law. The offence of treason sounds ill-thought out: Firstly treason should, by definition, amount to something that seriously risks the existence of the state such as blowing up the Commons. Harming one officer doesn’t really have the same effect. Secondly, in cases of murder or serious assault, why do we need a new criminal law to prosecute someone depending on what the victim’s job was? The offender may not have even been aware of the victim’s job at the time.
8. “To withdraw our forces from Iraq, in good order, at an early date.”
Erm, already done
10. “To retain and increase Army and Territorial Army personnel by pay, free medical and dental care”
This would certainly have a positive impact but there are wider issues behind people’s decision to leave the armed forces or not join in the first place. Giving staff the opportunity to spend more time with their families and fewer relocations would do more to keep people in the military than a pay rise of a few hundred/thousand pounds a year. This is where increasing the the total strength becomes an advantage as per their point #3.
All in all, these policies will prove to be extremely expensive and will have to come at the expense of other government programmes. This could be more justified if it were 1937, but at present it seems like a huge scaling-up of forces to counter an uncertain threat. What is the strategy and point to this huge increase in spending? Why 30 DD/FFG class ships and only 12 submarines – why not change the balance towards submarines? What was right for 2001 may not be the right thing for the future and this policy seems to lack any kind of forward looking to what we may need in the future. “Bring back 2001” is a fairly short-sighted approach to fleet/force planning.