Thursday 18 May 2017

Three dishonest manifestos


 

All three main political parties claimed their election Manifesto was “fully costed.” The saintly Institute for Fiscal Studies was subsequently prevailed upon each time a manifesto was published to critically comment on where the sending and tax revenues may not add up.

 

But the IFS made zero comment about the single largest cost commitment by all three parties: the insane decision to back the renewal of Trident nuclear submarine and missile WMD system at a cost of £205 bn, which dwarfs all the other spending commitments added together.

 

Here is what the respective manifestos pledged:

 

"Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent." (http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf)

 

“The Liberal Democrat approach to Britain’s place in the world is patriotic, optimistic and progressive….[We will] 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.

p 84 of 100 page Lib. Dem manifestoMaintain 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.

 


 

“We will retain the continuous-at-sea Trident nuclear deterrent”

p41 of the 88 age Conservative Party manifesto


 

Does each party know of a secret money tree somewhere?

No comments:

Post a Comment