The uninspiring and complacent election campaign run by Theresa May and the Conservative party delivered something of a shock result. Universally expected to increase their number of seats, the Tories lost their Parliamentary majority and are now forced to rely on the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to remain in power.
As expected, defence issues got little attention in the election. Even in the wake of the London Bridge and Manchester terrorist attacks, internal security issues seemed to create little public and media discussion. The main public debate on defence, prior to the election was held at RUSI on 22nd May and was not even attended by Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. It was obvious that most of the audience and journalists attending the debate were far better informed on the issues than the floundering politicians on the panel.
Brexit and political uncertainty ahead
The election result leaves a Prime Minister with her authority badly undermined. Only the risk of letting Corbyn into power is preventing the Tories holding a leadership contest at this juncture. After interminable election speeches about “strong and stable government” we have the exact opposite, a situation that impedes prompt decision making and firm action, something that is urgently needed at the MoD. The pressures of Brexit, Tory leadership problems, conflict with the DUP coalition or inadequate working majority could all result in a government collapse. A very unpopular new general election in the coming months could be the result, or a Labour/SNP minority coalition government could be waiting in the wings which would, of course, be very bad news for the RN.
Theresa May seems about to abandon the policies of austerity and debt reduction and put more money into public services. Defence will likely be at the back of the queue should any new money be forthcoming. Assuming the Tories are able to remain in power, we can look forward to them mostly saying the right things, while continuing to underfund and defence with more of the inevitable hollowing-out of capability that results.
It is interesting to note that in the constituencies where the RN has its English bases, the incumbent MP was replaced. Tory Oliver Colville lost to Labour’s Luke Pollard in Plymouth Sutton. Tory Flick Drummond lost to Labour’s Stephen Morgan in Portsmouth South. The SNP’s spokesman on defence, Brendan O Hara, who is MP for the Faslane area had his majority slashed from 8,473 to just 1,328. SNP influence at Westminster was significantly curtailed as Scottish votes moved to the Tories. The Scottish public has grown heartily sick of the SNP’s relentless push for a second independence referendum while failing to address issues they already have responsibility for. This threat to the Union, damage to UK defence and the RN particular, seems to have been averted for now.
Despite Labour losing its third election in a row and having 56 seats less that the Tories, Corbyn’s surprise improvement has even seen hard left elements claiming he should be Prime Minister. There is undoubtedly a renewed vigour within so-called progressive or left-wing politics in the UK and the Conservatives will need to offer a much more positive vision if they are to win the next election. Many moderate elements of the Labour party are supportive of the navy’s case and assure us they remain committed to Trident. After Corbyn finished promising free stuff to his adoring fans at the Glastonbury Festival (on Armed Forces Day), he reportedly said he “expects to be Prime Minister in six months” and would “scrap Trident as soon as he could”. It is difficult to predict how damaging a Corbyn government could be. The cabinet might consist of an anti-forces, anti-Trident, anti-NATO Marxist clique but the majority of moderate Labour MPs would probably obstruct the more extreme measures. The influence of the trade unions would also be a factor in ensuring naval construction programmes are kept on track.
The DUP – strong on defence
The social policies of the DUP and their links with Ulster Unionist militant groups will keep the party at the centre of controversy. They will be particularly loathed by the hard left and Corbyn with his IRA sympathies. Conversely, the DUP is likely to make every effort to keep Tories in power and Corbyn out. Those concerned about defence may have cause to be grateful the DUP has significant influence in government. Of all the party manifestos, theirs offered the best vision and assessment the situation.
“The DUP does not believe that present defence arrangements are adequate enough to cope with the emerging threats in the 21st Century.”
The DUP are firmly behind Trident and NATO, are publicly willing to identify the threat from Russia and understand we can no longer rely so heavily on the United States for our security. They believe another defence review should be conducted which would be “honest about the nature of the threats we face and the consequences of failing to deal with them. Only then can we make the difficult choices about capability and affordability”. It would seem that if there is a “party of defence”, then it is the DUP, and the whole of the UK could benefit if they are able to stiffen Tory resolve on this issue.
Getting the frigate programme underway
The Navy board can enjoy a brief moment of satisfaction that HMS Queen Elizabeth successfully put to sea and is beginning the long journey to restoring UK carrier capability. Looking ahead, getting the frigate programme on track must be an immediate concern. Harriet Baldwin, the defence procurement Minister, has indicated the order for first three Type 26 Frigates will be placed before Parliament closes for summer recess on July 20th. The announcement that steel for the first ship has been cut at BAE Systems on the Clyde is expected any day now. The Tory manifesto actually committed the government to a National Shipbuilding Strategy, which is critical to the future Type 31 frigate programme. An announcement on whether the government will fully implement the recommendations of Sir John Parker’s report is eagerly awaited.
For now, it appears it will be business as usual at the MoD. Michael Fallon remains in post and the previously announced procurement programme is officially unchanged. Unfortunately, financial reality is going to catch up with these promises soon. The £10 billion shortfall in MoD funding identified by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee before the election is actually worse than it appears. The MoD’s Senior Civil Servant, Stephen Lovegrove speaking on 27th June talked of £20 Billion of “efficiency savings” the department must find over the next 10 years. The MoD claim this alarming figure is nothing new, but part of their previously agreed framework. Some of the measures to find this money are already in hand, such as the rationalisation of the defence estate which will see the closure of HMS Sultan and RM Stonehouse. Only if Theresa May’s election promise that “defence spending will rise 0.5% every year until 2022” is honoured, will there be any hope of mitigating the devastating effects of this shortfall. The extent of economic turbulence in the wake of Brexit is also a considerable unknown and the outlook for investment in the RN for the medium to long-term is uncertain. What we can be assured of, is that Britain will need its navy more than ever as it cements its new position in an unstable world.
Related articles
- Can defence issues impact the election debate? (Save the Royal Navy)
- RUSI Pre-election defence debate (RUSI)
- Standing for a strong Northern Ireland – DUP Manifesto (DUP)
- Jeremy Corbyn wants to scrap Trident nuclear plan (The Guardian)
I think is good analysis. The best hope for me is that the Govt finally begin to believe in an investment led approach to getting out of our stasis ironically with Trump & DUP kicking ass. Aid budget up again this year so happy days.
It would have been nice if the author of this piece had left their own political opinions out of the matter and stuck to the facts, or at least gave equal criticism to Teresa May instead of regurgitating phrases like ‘magic money tree’ and ‘IRA sympathies’ when they have little-nothing to do with the state of the British Armed Forces.
It would be foolish to pretend that Jeremy Corbyn is an ardent or passionate supporter of the military and defence issues, but he doesn’t represent the wider attitudes of the party and it would for example be extremely unlikely that a Corbyn government would get sufficient cross bench support for scrapping Trident. During the election campaign he also repeatedly said the Royal Navy needs more ships which stands contrary to the idea of an across the board policy of slash and burn should he ever become PM.
The problem that so many people have (myself included) is that whilst the party might understand and believe in the power of deterrence, the instructions to captains are written by the PM, not the party or the cabinet. However much I might wish it, I no more believe that he would write those letters or invest in defence than Leicester City will win the league again. I also believe that talk of the frigates was deflection to make people believe he really was OK. My own opinion was reinforced with Corbyn’s comments from Glastonbury. There are many good people in Labour who understand strong defence does not make one a war whore or that the issue of defence can’t be seen through the singular prism of Iraq. Nae Bevan would have been one such person. He wanted nuclear weapons with a British flag on top and thus he would be unlikely to be welcome in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Cabinet. When Labour is trusted to keep the country safe and the economy strong it will be a contender for power again but not until.
“When labour Is trusted to keep the country safe and the economy strong it will be a contender for power again but not until”
Hahahahah
Honest question do you watch the daily news, keep up to date with politics from the MSM, New media and social media?
I think the answer must be no, because if there was an election tomorrow Ian labour would win a landslide, the media are saying it, labour are saying it, even tories are admitting it on TV.
Does labour central send out a list of sites for you corbynbots to troll?
…In what way is he “trolling” everything he’s said is perfectly reasonable, Corbyn wouldn’t be able to scrap trident, the article does regurgitate Tory statements, and polls do suggest that Labour would win an election if we had one tomorrow.
It’s also worth noting that Scottish voters moved towards Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the general election. With the Labour Party picking up 27.1% of the popular vote verses 28.6% for the Conservatives.
The Royal Navy is short of 4 Destroyers and 7 Frigates at least, critical mass was lost when the Labour government scrapped the Type 22 bach 3 Frigates as well as selling 2 type 23,s, then reducing the order of the Type 45. The Royal Navy would need to depend on NATO to help defend HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister. The carrier’s have no Missiles of there own, and a type 45 only carries 48. When upgrading Russian submarines will carry as many as 80 anti ship Missile each. Just a thought.
Agree with thrust of this although some of the new SAMs will be quad packed and there’s also the Frigates. QE having no stand alone missile CIWS is the art of madness for a £10bn loaded asset, never mind the loss of capability and crew.
Gee I never realised Cameron was Labour (Type 22 Batch 3 Decommissioned 2011 and reduced number of Darings) You learn something new every day!
Oh my god please , can you cut out the name calling, Corbyns lot are not marxists, I will grant you that they are far-left socialists, but that is in no way the same thing. (Also, the DUP isn’t just loathed by the hard left, they’re loathed by the centre left as well, and the centre for that matter.)
It’s what John McDonnell calls himself – just saying
Its not though, he said there was a lot to be learnt from reading Das Kapital, just because you think theres something to be learnt from a text doesn’t automatically mean you 100% agree with everything in it.
You may want to take those rose coloured spectacles off. As I say to my kids ‘I’ll take your apology in writing’ 😉
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-video-labour-marxist-economic-crash-jeremy-corbyn-a7309651.html
Peace x
Fair enough, however, ignoring the fact that he said he was joking (mostly because I’m not sure that I believe him) 1 person does not make a “clique.” To be honest my problem isn’t really with that specific part of the article, but with the general anti-labour mood of many of these pieces on what is a supposedly an apolitical site, I’m fine with unbiased analysis suggesting that a party may not be good for the navy, but recently this site is making it sound like Corbyns about to lead an army of Irish communists to take the country by force.
(Although I do wonder, why are those interested in defence typically more right wing than those that aren’t?)
The clique is real enough, so are their defence views & that’s why it’s being reported. If you support a side then genuine criticism is seen as taking sides. It’s called holding politicians to account. You will see just as much ire directed at Tories for defence cuts.
“Labour/SNP minority coalition government could be waiting in the wings which would, of course, be very bad news for the RN”
Could you elaborate on that please? it’s quite a statement with no evidence chucked in.
Hi Kierran,
There are some great Labour MP’s but Labour top front bench simply do not believe in the armed forces; Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot & Thornberry.
So Nia (who I like), some of the great new Labour MPs and the Manifesto can say what they want, people who don’t have party political spectacles on simply don’t believe they will be able to influence that cabal – me included
I am sorry Ian but I just don’t buy it, you’re swallowing up the MSM narrative of Corbyn being bad for defence because of his views on nuclear weapons. And your first sentence is a bare face lie with no evidence, if anything it’s an opinion and a poor one at that.
What people are failing to take into account is that the Royal Navy are not just ships to wage war with, just like the RAF is not just used to drop bombs.
Humanitarian aid, disaster relief, anti piracy, drug smuggling, that’s the things they do most! Then why arnt people putting 2 and 2 together and thinking “oh hang on a minute, that’s sounds like stuff Jeremy Corbyn would be massively in favour of doing”
http://www.forces.net/news/corbyn-military-needs-more-ships-aircraft-funding-personnel
That’s a link for Jeremy Corbyn saying he would invest in our armed forces.
Case closed.
My point is political but not party political Kieran I think Tories are scam artists talking like they care but denying our military vital resources so I’m not sticking up for them either.
However, I am a little older than you. Old enough to not blindly follow anyone or anything be they cults or c***s. I don’t give a **** what the MSM say. I know Mr Corbyn of old.
This clip below from the Messiah himself is but one tiny sliver of evidence from a shed full of it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heres-what-jeremy-corbyn-really-6438877
Now, I actually really respect that he wants a peaceful world with no army, it is admirable. But I want a peaceful world too. It’s just that we have fundamentally different views on what makes that happen. Not having an imbalance of power stops war, not makes it.
So, from my perspective the case is far from closed, whatever straight jacket some of his colleagues have put him in to try and sound credible on defence.
The country desperately needs a credible opposition on defence and I’m hopeful that some of the excellent new intake of MPs who actually know about this stuff will figure a way to make the party serious in the minds of many voters again.
Are you for real, not only do you make absolute no sense in what you say, but you have the cheek to patronise me about my age.
I’m 30 with a wife and two daughters, I know exactly who I follow and what I believe in, I don’t blindly follow anyone you fool.
In one paragraph you say you hate the tories, or respect Corbyn, then you patronise him by calling him messiah, or he’s in straight jacket. You’re making a fool of yourself trying to be impartial but failing miserably.
“I know the Corbyn of old”
Yeah you sent a video from 2012, and the article is actually explaining that if you take into account the context in what he was saying, he never said he wants to “scrap the army” which was the Daily Mail headline.
So your fundamental disagreement is this, you think if between 2 countries, one has a more powerful army than the other, that is more safer than if neither of the counties had an army at all.
Deary me.
Those ‘who believe’ think everyone who has legitimate criticism or concern must be on the other side.
It’s perfectly possible to be on neither and think both are selling snake oil.
There isn’t anything to say a Labour government would be any worse for the RN than a Tory one. After all, it’s the Tories who want to cut everything into oblivion. Ian, I do not think you political stand point had a place in this article. I feel like I’ve just had a look at the Daily Mirror. Please keep to the subject in hand in future, because apparently, people don’t like it when journalism gets bitchy.
“It is difficult to predict how damaging a Corbyn government could be”
Is that because it might actually not be damaging at all?
For an organisation that claims to be unaligned to any political party, comments such as “a Labour/SNP minority coalition government could be waiting in the wings which would, of course, be very bad news for the RN” seem somewhat out of place. Why would SNP influence be negative when they are a voice in the wilderness when it comes to getting more fishery protection and patrol vessels in the water?