Liam Fox

[Thedelldays]

Actually, a common view at the time was that a major trigger for the Argentinian invasion was the reduction in British defence forces by Thatcher, and in particular the removal of HMS Endurance from the Islands. The Argentinians took this as a sign that Britain had stoped caring and wouldn't defend the islands. Thatcher's goverment also passed the Nationality Act in 1981 which removed full British citizenship from the Islanders. You may recall that Lord Carrington resigned over these issues, effectively taking the fall for Thatcher.

 

The cuts pre 1981 were put in place by the MOD by who ever was in power before maggie

 

The Falklands happened and the for sale signs were taken down and the forces got a great payrise and the fleet was maintained at a greater level than was expected previously

[dune]

Unfortunately times are changing and counter terrorism is where resources are needed more than having the ability to fight a traditional war between nations. Weaponry is also making the old ways increasingly obsolete.

[Thedelldays]

Unfortunately times are changing and counter terrorism is where resources are needed more than having the ability to fight a traditional war between nations. Weaponry is also making the old ways increasingly obsolete.

what are you on about..?

[Ken Tone]

The cuts pre 1981 were put in place by the MOD by who ever was in power before maggie

The Falklands happened and the for sale signs were taken down and the forces got a great payrise and the fleet was maintained at a greater level than was expected previously

 

Sorry mate, but that bit in bold and underlined is simply wrong. It was the cuts that she had announced in 1981 that were the problem. I know you're in the Navy and the cuts are a sore point for you, and I know too that Mrs Thatcher has taken on an almost saintly image in the Forces since 1982, but actually it was her government that decided to make the cuts just before the Falkands war. It was also on her watch that the retirement of HMS Endurance was confirmed in spite of appeals and warnings that this was a dangerous thing to do, and it was also then that the Argentinan's increasingly martial noises in the UN etc were ignored ... and as I said the Nationality Act was passed, which basically said to Argentinian ears, "we don't really want the Falklands any more".

 

She had been in power for some 3 years before the Argentine invasion remember. Any u-turn on funding for the forces (from the lady who was not for turning) was as a result of the Falklands war, making her change the decisions she had made. Several military commentators have said that only a year later, as the cuts bit, we would not have been able to react to the invasion. Even as it was, it was pretty close run thing.

 

See for example http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/the-john-nott-1981-defence-cuts-revisited/ (my bold type in the extracts below)

 

"In 1982 the Secretary of State for Defence had just implemented a Defence Review the previous year. It was conducted in the context of economic problems, a Thatcher-led desire to slash budgets, and a Soviet build-up during the era of ‘reaganomics’. Nott’s solution was to concentrate almost solely on Britain’s role in NATO. The purchase of Trident was confirmed. The British Army of the Rhine, although the centrepiece of British defence within NATO, was to be limited to 55,000 men. The Royal Navy was to lose one fifth of its 60 Destroyers and Frigates. .... The upshot of the Falklands War was that almost everything that had been offered up as savings was rescued at the eleventh hour."

[moonraker]

The cuts pre 1981 were put in place by the MOD by who ever was in power before maggie

 

The Falklands happened and the for sale signs were taken down and the forces got a great payrise and the fleet was maintained at a greater level than was expected previously

 

John Knott (not the MOD) was repsonsible for the planned cuts to the RN that were stopped because of teh FI invasion. His plans were focused on ASW only, no carriers or amphibious capabilty. If the Agentianians had delayed 18 months we would never have got them back.

 

As one who served throughout the eighties and some of the seventies and nineties you do not need to struggle anymore to find some one who thought the RN was worse under Maggie, and as one who has worked in the defence industry since leaving the RN in 93 (made redunadnt, volunatarialy as I saw the writing on the wall, by the tories, when was the last time a labour governament made a serviceman redundant?) the 13 years of Labour were quite good.

 

A great payrise yes that was staggered in its introduction after Thatcher had made and election promise never to do this.

 

DD you really should check your facts instead of realying on old sailors dits.

[Thedelldays]

John Knott (not the MOD) was repsonsible for the planned cuts to the RN that were stopped because of teh FI invasion. His plans were focused on ASW only, no carriers or amphibious capabilty. If the Agentianians had delayed 18 months we would never have got them back.

 

As one who served throughout the eighties and some of the seventies and nineties you do not a struggle anymore to find some one who thought the RN was worse under Maggie, and as one who has worked in the defence industry since leaving the RN in 93 (made redunadnt, volunatarialy as I saw the writing on the wall, by the tories, when was the last time a labour governament made a serviceman redundant? the 13 years of Labour were quite good.

 

A great payrise yes that was staggered in its introduction after Thatcher had made and election pronise never to do this.

 

DD you really should check your facts instead of realying on old sailors dits.

 

tell you what mate, the RN was cut, cut and cut whilst under labour.....it still shrank under labour, even when the nation was on a spending binge

[moonraker]

tell you what mate, the RN was cut, cut and cut whilst under labour.....it still shrank under labour, even when the nation was on a spending binge

 

Dont let facts get in the way then DD Ive been at the Navy game for 40 yeasr and the tories are no freinds of teh RN.

[Thedelldays]

Dont let facts get in the way then DD Ive been at the Navy game for 40 yeasr and the tories are no freinds of teh RN.

 

I know that, cuts have to be made.. but look at the state, the utter state of the RN after 13 years of utter spending..spending as such it has broken the nation...

the RN is probably worse off after a decade of the big spend

[pap]

I count matloes among my friends. I've got a great deal of respect for the RN and the people who serve in it.

 

Can any of you RN types give a clear indication to what the RN's mission is?

 

Not trying to be funny, but with the likes of the US, it's obvious. They're using their fleet to project their power around the world - and they're number one in the ol' projection of power chart. What about us, or indeed, the rest of the world? In light of the US having the whole game sewn up, what is the role of a modern fleet that is in more-or-less permanent alliance with the US fleet?

[LGTL]

Back to the original question, it was a typical case of a "job for the boy". I don't care what his sexuality is, but he should be gone, and Cameron is showing incredible weakness, much like he does with most issues.

[pap]

Back to the original question, it was a typical case of a "job for the boy". I don't care what his sexuality is, but he should be gone, and Cameron is showing incredible weakness, much like he does with most issues.

 

I'd agree with that. Cameron has been useless so far. How long did it take for him to get rid of Coulson? And I don't buy the feigned ignorance about not knowing that he'd been involved. They knew from the start, and just believed they'd get away with it.

 

The Fox case comes down to two possible outcomes. Either he was ignorant of the rules, or knowingly contravening them. His exit is inevitable. I don't have a clue why Cameron keeps these people around when that becomes apparent.

[Window Cleaner]

 

Can any of you RN types give a clear indication to what the RN's mission is?

 

 

Same as always Rum,Bum and Baccy ???

[Thedelldays]

I

Can any of you RN types give a clear indication to what the RN's mission is?

 

here are a few reasons why the RN is still very relevant to us today...

 

lawful passage of the seas is essential for the UK to survive

over 95% of our trade in and out is conducted via the sea

billions upon billions of pounds per day relies on smooth passage of the seas for UK shipping world wide

a single large fuel tanker seized by pirates will have a negative effect on world markets and the price you pay at the pump.

more so if that is a UK ship or a ship bound for the UK

50% of the gas you use every day is delivered via the sea

sea transport (world wide) is the 3rd largest sector in the UK economy

not far off 98% of the WHOLE WORLDS trade travels through 9 choke points on the sea...they need protecting massively

war against terrorism (like it or not it is happening). at camp bastion (without a marine battle group) the RN will make up about 20-25% of the forces

with the marines, that increases

protect oil platforms in the gulf

be an integral part of a complex maritime engine to protect the wests interest and help keep oil prices down

to strike 1000s of miles in land at terrorist targets/training bases

maintain the UK influence around the world and fly the flag

supplying humanitarian aid around the world and react to natural disasters

evacuating brits from devastation world wide and from conflict zones

to provide UK nationals (and others) with fierce anti-piracy policies (recent news shows this again)

protect UK fishing stocks and OUR right to fish where we can

support the coast guard, maritime police and sea rescue

having a huge impact on the flow of drugs into the UK

providing the UK with a nuclear deterrent

 

 

so IMO, watching the RN get dismantled is a crying shame, as we are indeed an island nation

[pap]

here are a few reasons why the RN is still very relevant to us today...

 

lawful passage of the seas is essential for the UK to survive

over 95% of our trade in and out is conducted via the sea

billions upon billions of pounds per day relies on smooth passage of the seas for UK shipping world wide

a single large fuel tanker seized by pirates will have a negative effect on world markets and the price you pay at the pump.

more so if that is a UK ship or a ship bound for the UK

50% of the gas you use every day is delivered via the sea

sea transport (world wide) is the 3rd largest sector in the UK economy

not far off 98% of the WHOLE WORLDS trade travels through 9 choke points on the sea...they need protecting massively

war against terrorism (like it or not it is happening). at camp bastion (without a marine battle group) the RN will make up about 20-25% of the forces

with the marines, that increases

protect oil platforms in the gulf

be an integral part of a complex maritime engine to protect the wests interest and help keep oil prices down

to strike 1000s of miles in land at terrorist targets/training bases

maintain the UK influence around the world and fly the flag

supplying humanitarian aid around the world and react to natural disasters

evacuating brits from devastation world wide and from conflict zones

to provide UK nationals (and others) with fierce anti-piracy policies (recent news shows this again)

protect UK fishing stocks and OUR right to fish where we can

support the coast guard, maritime police and sea rescue

having a huge impact on the flow of drugs into the UK

providing the UK with a nuclear deterrent

 

 

so IMO, watching the RN get dismantled is a crying shame, as we are indeed an island nation

 

Thanks for the list and some rather candid answers.

 

As I said before, I have a lot of respect for the RN and a lot of sympathy with your view of being an island nation. If anyone should be able to do a proper navy, it should be us.

[Saintandy666]

So how did Cameron not know about Werrity?!

 

So Fox is shadow Health Secretary and Werrity sets up a Health Business with him. Fox is then Defence Secretary and they set up a defence business. Abuse of position to get contracts?

[saintwarwick]

Sorry mate, but that bit in bold and underlined is simply wrong. It was the cuts that she had announced in 1981 that were the problem. I know you're in the Navy and the cuts are a sore point for you, and I know too that Mrs Thatcher has taken on an almost saintly image in the Forces since 1982, but actually it was her government that decided to make the cuts just before the Falkands war. It was also on her watch that the retirement of HMS Endurance was confirmed in spite of appeals and warnings that this was a dangerous thing to do, and it was also then that the Argentinan's increasingly martial noises in the UN etc were ignored ... and as I said the Nationality Act was passed, which basically said to Argentinian ears, "we don't really want the Falklands any more".

 

She had been in power for some 3 years before the Argentine invasion remember. Any u-turn on funding for the forces (from the lady who was not for turning) was as a result of the Falklands war, making her change the decisions she had made. Several military commentators have said that only a year later, as the cuts bit, we would not have been able to react to the invasion. Even as it was, it was pretty close run thing.

 

See for example http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/the-john-nott-1981-defence-cuts-revisited/ (my bold type in the extracts below)

 

"In 1982 the Secretary of State for Defence had just implemented a Defence Review the previous year. It was conducted in the context of economic problems, a Thatcher-led desire to slash budgets, and a Soviet build-up during the era of ‘reaganomics’. Nott’s solution was to concentrate almost solely on Britain’s role in NATO. The purchase of Trident was confirmed. The British Army of the Rhine, although the centrepiece of British defence within NATO, was to be limited to 55,000 men. The Royal Navy was to lose one fifth of its 60 Destroyers and Frigates. .... The upshot of the Falklands War was that almost everything that had been offered up as savings was rescued at the eleventh hour."

 

The cuts started long before the tories came into power, yes they enhanced the cuts but the labour party started the large scale cuts as far back as the 60's http://frn.beedall.com/history.htm

[alpine_saint]

Unfortunately times are changing and counter terrorism is where resources are needed more than having the ability to fight a traditional war between nations. Weaponry is also making the old ways increasingly obsolete.

 

I know what you mean, and it is an argument used often by the government, but its still b*ll*cks.

 

Britain is an ISLAND. Twice in the last 100 years we nearly starved to death and nearly lost the capability to fight back because of blockading by submarines. Are we really going to rely on co-operation with the French (who will say no simply because we said yes), the Americans (never go to war unless there is a profit, and boy did they win out of WW2...) or the Germans (a schizophrenic country that sh*ts itself about contributing to security forces manadated by the UN, but boy do they go to the other extreme as a people when they feel provoked..) ?

 

We've stood alone before, and with the way the world economy and the Eurozone is going, who's to say we wont need to again.

 

The Royal Navy is all that stands between us and barbarism (forget all the jingoism about the RAF, the Battle of Britain and Operation Sealion, several respected historical analyses of the last 10 years have concluded the RN would have dealt with a Nazi invasion force, albeit with horrific losses due to air attack).

 

And when the chips are down you can only rely on yourselves...

 

We need a navy, irrespective of if the empire has gone or not. It amazes me that successive Governments forget the lessons of history.

[Saintandy666]

I know what you mean, and it is an argument used often by the government, but its still b*ll*cks.

 

Britain is an ISLAND. Twice in the last 100 years we nearly starved to death and nearly lost the capability to fight back because of blockading by submarines. Are we really going to rely on co-operation with the French (who will say no simply because we said yes), the Americans (never go to war unless there is a profit, and boy did they win out of WW2...) or the Germans (a schizophrenic country that sh*ts itself about contributing to security forces manadated by the UN, but boy do they go to the other extreme as a people when they feel provoked..) ?

 

We've stood alone before, and with the way the world economy and the Eurozone is going, who's to say we wont need to again.

 

The Royal Navy is all that stands between us and barbarism (forget all the jingoism about the RAF, the Battle of Britain and Operation Sealion, several respected historical analyses of the last 10 years have concluded the RN would have dealt with a Nazi invasion force, albeit with horrific losses due to air attack).

 

And when the chips are down you can only rely on yourselves...

 

We need a navy, irrespective of if the empire has gone or not. It amazes me that successive Governments forget the lessons of history.

 

Not that I am in any way an expert on the Royal Navy, but do you not think that the way in which wars will be fought in the future is fundamentally different to how they have been fought over the past 100 years... what with the advent of bigger and nastier weapons like the nuclear bomb and unmanned craft...

[um pahars]

So how did Cameron not know about Werrity?!

 

So Fox is shadow Health Secretary and Werrity sets up a Health Business with him. Fox is then Defence Secretary and they set up a defence business. Abuse of position to get contracts?

 

Surely alarm bells should have been ringing somewhere in Whitehall/Downing Street!!!!!

 

If he had dipped his feet in to the lobbying/consultancy world with Defence and traded off Fox's name then that would have been bad enough, but to have already established a Health "Consultancy" mirroring Fox a few years earlier, well it just beggars belief. If Fox had moved on to to transport, education, energy then guess what Werrity would be doing next.

 

(also just read in The Independent that the Israeli's though Werrity was Fox's Senior Advisor when the two of them were at a conference discussing sanctions and the stance against Iran).

[Viking Warrior]

The callaghan government made severe cuts to the armed forces but hey its easy to forget them . also the wilson government made cuts in the armed forces so its both political parties.

Blair and brown were about to make scathing cuts on the armed forces but 9/11 and iraq put paid to that,

[CB Saint]

here are a few reasons why the RN is still very relevant to us today...

 

lawful passage of the seas is essential for the UK to survive

over 95% of our trade in and out is conducted via the sea

billions upon billions of pounds per day relies on smooth passage of the seas for UK shipping world wide

a single large fuel tanker seized by pirates will have a negative effect on world markets and the price you pay at the pump.

more so if that is a UK ship or a ship bound for the UK

50% of the gas you use every day is delivered via the sea

sea transport (world wide) is the 3rd largest sector in the UK economy

not far off 98% of the WHOLE WORLDS trade travels through 9 choke points on the sea...they need protecting massively

war against terrorism (like it or not it is happening). at camp bastion (without a marine battle group) the RN will make up about 20-25% of the forces

with the marines, that increases

protect oil platforms in the gulf

be an integral part of a complex maritime engine to protect the wests interest and help keep oil prices down

to strike 1000s of miles in land at terrorist targets/training bases

maintain the UK influence around the world and fly the flag

supplying humanitarian aid around the world and react to natural disasters

evacuating brits from devastation world wide and from conflict zones

to provide UK nationals (and others) with fierce anti-piracy policies (recent news shows this again)

protect UK fishing stocks and OUR right to fish where we can

support the coast guard, maritime police and sea rescue

having a huge impact on the flow of drugs into the UK

providing the UK with a nuclear deterrent

 

 

so IMO, watching the RN get dismantled is a crying shame, as we are indeed an island nation

 

So what you are saying is that we are in much the same boat as Ireland. How bigger a navy do they have / need? Playing devils advocate.

[Thedelldays]

So what you are saying is that we are in much the same boat as Ireland. How bigger a navy do they have / need? Playing devils advocate.

 

Are Ireland one of the worlds biggest global exporters/importers.

 

Do billions of euros per day pass through their docks..

 

May as well compare us to the isle of Mann if we are at it

[bridge too far]

What a shame we've moved away from the original context of this thread.

[alpine_saint]

What a shame we've moved away from the original context of this thread.

 

Why have we ? Fox is about to become political history and we are discussing his "greatest" legacy - the loss of the the Royal Navy, a cornerstone of our security, society and our world standing for centuries.

[Saint in Paradise]

Strong leaders have to make unpleasant decisions for the good of the majority sometimes this means dropping friends.

Weak leaders try not to upset their friends. Cameron has now proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is in fact a very

weak "leader" and IMHO has been shown to be unfit for the job of P.M.

 

 

 

.

[um pahars]

Are Ireland one of the worlds biggest global exporters/importers.

 

Do billions of euros per day pass through their docks..

 

May as well compare us to the isle of Mann if we are at it

 

Reminds me of a time when our commercial team spent hours wooing a new client (I think South East Tourist Board or equivalent) and when we put the final pitch to them, up came a lovely mock up advert professing the beauty of the Isle of White!!!

 

No one said anything, but needless to say we had wasted quite a bit of time and money!!!

[CB Saint]

Lots of people are bemoaning the reduction of the Royal Navy. Considering we are now not the greatest trading nation on earth, not the foremost military power by some distance, not fighting a cold war, have limited meaningful global influence, military technological advances, how big a navy do we actually need?

[alpine_saint]

Lots of people are bemoaning the reduction of the Royal Navy. Considering we are now not the greatest trading nation on earth, not the foremost military power by some distance, not fighting a cold war, have limited meaningful global influence, military technological advances, how big a navy do we actually need?

 

We are stil an island.....

[saintwarwick]

Lots of people are bemoaning the reduction of the Royal Navy. Considering we are now not the greatest trading nation on earth, not the foremost military power by some distance, not fighting a cold war, have limited meaningful global influence, military technological advances, how big a navy do we actually need?

 

The highlighted parts shows your lack of understanding, we are still one of the best and recognised forces in the world, not one of the biggest but one of the best. We still command a lot of influence around the globe and we have some of the most advanced tecnologies in the world if not a little expensive. As has been said we are an island and need to defend our shores which requires more than one or two boats.

[badgerx16]

"May as well compare us to the isle of Mann if we are at it"

 

Sorry to be pedantic Um P, it's either 'Mann', or the 'Isle of Man'.

[um pahars]

"May as well compare us to the isle of Mann if we are at it"

 

Sorry to be pedantic Um P, it's either 'Mann', or the 'Isle of Man'.

 

That's what I was pointing out, it's not Isle of Mann (hence my analogy to the Isle of White [sic])

[CB Saint]

Firstly I am not suggesting one or two boats - but not to expect a reduction in fleet size from the 70's level is naive. So help me with my "lack of understanding" and tell me how many vessels do we need to defend our shores?

 

With regard to our global influence, unless we have the backing of the EU, US or UN our effectiveness to change or influence another nation agenda is indeed limited.

 

Yes we have one of the most well trained and effective fighting forces man for man in the world, but unless it is backed up by the might of the the US or UN forces, we are restricted to what operations we can "go it alone" on.

 

Perhaps my question is more about what role should we partake on a global stage. Should we try to be a big player or should we accept that the world has changed and reduce our fighting capability to that of a defensive organisation.

[alpine_saint]

Firstly I am not suggesting one or two boats - but not to expect a reduction in fleet size from the 70's level is naive. So help me with my "lack of understanding" and tell me how many vessels do we need to defend our shores?

 

With regard to our global influence, unless we have the backing of the EU, US or UN our effectiveness to change or influence another nation agenda is indeed limited.

 

Yes we have one of the most well trained and effective fighting forces man for man in the world, but unless it is backed up by the might of the the US or UN forces, we are restricted to what operations we can "go it alone" on.

 

Perhaps my question is more about what role should we partake on a global stage. Should we try to be a big player or should we accept that the world has changed and reduce our fighting capability to that of a defensive organisation.

 

Our role should be to the defend the UK, the Overseas Dependencies that we still have and the citizens of both. And thats it.

 

The world-wide policeman act should be dropped. And I am utterly against international collaboration

 

As such we need a strong Navy and RAF, and a limited Army capability.

 

But nooo, Fox and Co have gone in the opposite direction.

[badgerx16]

That's what I was pointing out, it's not Isle of Mann (hence my analogy to the Isle of White [sic])

Apologies for the poor quality of my reading and analytical skills today.

[badgerx16]

As such we need a strong Navy and RAF, and a limited Army capability.

 

But nooo, Fox and Co have gone in the opposite direction.

 

Have they ? I thought all 3 services were being cut. We have had a view from the RN, are there any squaddies or airman on here who could give their view of Dr Fox's restructuring of our defence capability ?

[lumuah]

So what you are saying is that we are in much the same boat as Ireland. How bigger a navy do they have / need? Playing devils advocate.

 

Ireland don't need a big military for one big reason. Any potential agressor towards them would have to go through Britain first.

And if they've done that, there is probably not much point in trying to fight them.

[alpine_saint]

Have they ? I thought all 3 services were being cut. We have had a view from the RN, are there any squaddies or airman on here who could give their view of Dr Fox's restructuring of our defence capability ?

 

The Army has got off lightly on the basis that our lads are out in Afghanistan and it is immoral to make swingeing cuts when they have such a heavy long-term commitmment.

 

I am not saying that no redundancies at all are being made.

[moonraker]

The Army has got off lightly on the basis that our lads are out in Afghanistan and it is immoral to make swingeing cuts when they have such a heavy long-term commitmment.

 

I am not saying that no redundancies at all are being made.

 

Here in lies an RN problem at any one time between 25 and 50 % of all UK servicemen in Afgahnisatn are RN, the Army take all the 'good PR' and get the public and political support. Tee RN Medical, FAA, Supply, marines, etc. are esential to opertaion Herrick.

[CB Saint]

Ireland don't need a big military for one big reason. Any potential agressor towards them would have to go through Britain first.

And if they've done that, there is probably not much point in trying to fight them.

 

In that case perhaps they should pony up for the upkeep of a couple of destroyers.

[moonraker]

They are neutral country with no military alliances they have liitle or no strategic value, politically, militarily or economically. Their only contribution to any interantional military opertaiosn is UN peace keeping and a small commitment to the EU battlegroup requirment (neaver deployed).

 

In respect of the UK flagged commercial ships v Eire the RN have 9,566,275 tons deadweight of shipping opertaing globally to protect whilst Eire has no more than 500,000 tons most of which operates within European and North atlantic waters.

[Thedelldays]

Have they ? I thought all 3 services were being cut. We have had a view from the RN, are there any squaddies or airman on here who could give their view of Dr Fox's restructuring of our defence capability ?

all 3 services are being cut...with the RN taking (and have always taken in recent years) the biggest %

[Thedelldays]

Here in lies an RN problem at any one time between 25 and 50 % of all UK servicemen in Afgahnisatn are RN, the Army take all the 'good PR' and get the public and political support. Tee RN Medical, FAA, Supply, marines, etc. are esential to opertaion Herrick.

so so true...the smallest force with a large % of camp bastion....yet all the time on the news its "soldier this, squaddie that" when infact, much of the work is done by the RN.........hence why there have been loads of warship/submarine programmes on lately

[CB Saint]

They are neutral country with no military alliances they have liitle or no strategic value, politically, militarily or economically. Their only contribution to any interantional military opertaiosn is UN peace keeping and a small commitment to the EU battlegroup requirment (neaver deployed).

 

In respect of the UK flagged commercial ships v Eire the RN have 9,566,275 tons deadweight of shipping opertaing globally to protect whilst Eire has no more than 500,000 tons most of which operates within European and North atlantic waters.

 

If you extroplate the assertion that tonnage under flag should have a bearing on naval strength, then the navies of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands would be huge.

[Thedelldays]

If you extroplate the assertion that tonnage under flag should have a bearing on naval strength, then the navies of Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands would be huge.

what..?

[CB Saint]

what..?

 

If the size of the UK merchant fleet under uk flag was a determining factor in the size of the navy required to protect it, then the three countries I have mentioned would require huge navies as their flags account for 40% of the worlds fleet

[Thedelldays]

If the size of the UK merchant fleet under uk flag was a determining factor in the size of the navy required to protect it, then the three countries I have mentioned would require huge navies as their flags account for 40% of the worlds fleet

is it really that simplistic...there are countless reasons why a very competent good size navy is essential for the UK

[CB Saint]

is it really that simplistic...there are countless reasons why a very competent good size navy is essential for the UK

 

No, but i was just picking up on a point made by moonraker.

 

What we need is a very competent right size navy. The right size then depends on what we as a nation are trying to be.

[moonraker]

If the size of the UK merchant fleet under uk flag was a determining factor in the size of the navy required to protect it, then the three countries I have mentioned would require huge navies as their flags account for 40% of the worlds fleet

 

CB I take your point. There are other factors but in relation to mercantile tonnage the countries you name are flags of conveininece and owners choose them not becuase the Flag brings protection or high standards of regulation but because they can avoid regulations and hence cost associated with ship maintenace and crewing. One of the reasosn shipping companies chosse the UK flag is becuase the RN provides a better level of protection than many other flag states. It could therefore be argued that a reduction in the RN may lead to a reduction in the mercantile fleet and a loss of revenue to UK, another case of shooting yourself in the foot, politicians are good at that.

[badgerx16]

He has resigned according to the BEEB

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15300751

[ecuk268]

Apparently, he resigned last week but gave the letter to Oliver Letwin to pass on to Cameron.....