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 manifesto
“We will retain
the continuous-at-sea Trident nuclear deterrent”
p41 of the
88 age Conservative Party manifesto
(https://issuu.com/conservativeparty/docs/ge2017_manifesto_a5_digital/14?ff=true&e=16696947/48955343)
Does each party know of a secret money tree somewhere?
No comments:
Post a Comment