Labour's 1997 historic majority led to Afghanistan and Iraq, but a war in Europe is a different cup of tea

 

Tony Blair / Prime Minister

Labour's historic majority in 1997 led straight to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Years later, we face the prospect of yet another war - although much more catastrophic if it ever happens.

In one of his initial appearances, Keir Starmer told the country and the world that he will allow the use of British weapons to attack the Russian Federation.

No interpretation needed. It is all too clear in which direction the wind is blowing.

And this is the same Labour Leader that opposed National Service. When conscription letters arrive telling young untrained men and women that they have to fight a war, I wonder what the public response will be.

Be assured that Keir Starmer will have no hesitation in terms of sending untrained British citizens to war, because reality tells that the British Armed Forces have been severely weaknened and do not have the manpower nor the equipment for any long term war.

It is not secret that Britain as well as other NATO countries expect that the USA will send young Americans to the slaughter house to defend European countries that have been entirely negligent when it comes to compliance of NATO Article 3 that demands that each member has to be able to defend itself.

Britain has done very little to beef up its Armed Forces. In fact, the now former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps could hardly explain why what he called an increase in defense expenditure was what actually a reduction in real terms. He couldn't because it was a reduction.

British morale is at an all time low affecting recruitment. Reports about more than 64% of those serving members of the Armed Forces living in substandard accommodation do not help. Let's see what Keir Starmer has to say about beefing up the Armed Forces because if he does not pay attention to the Armed Forces then we will know that all the rhetoric is based on thin air. 

Keir Starmer: Labour has changed. No rise of Income Tax or National Insurance?

 

There was a candidate in times past standing for election in Latin America. He said that he was going to build roads that could allow motorists to save money. The brilliant idea, he said, was to build one side of the roads going upwards and the other side of the roads going downwards.

Massive investment in salaries in the public sector and in Welfare without spending a penny? Somebody will have to pay for it.

'Read my lips', was the catch phrase of President George Bush Sr.

Monies for salaries and welfare will have come from somewhere - either from borrowing or from higher taxes or from both borrowing and higher taxes. There is no way out. Father Christmas promises will not do. Public budgets will have to be financed with sound economics or we will end up having Britain as the new Slough or the new Birmingham. What was the emergency measure approved for Bimingham? A rise of Council Tax to try to shore up a bankrupt authority that, in spite of tax rises, was forced to stop offering vital services.

We are at a crosswords. Grant Shapps made promises about defense that cannot be delivered - not even by cutting down other vital sectors of the administration. The fact remains that Britain is unfit for war because Britain does no longer have the industries that supported strong military capabilities. But things are a lot worse than that. In a country with more than 60 million people, the numbers of those serving in the Armed Forces are below 70,000 and those capable and fit enough for combat are far below than that. So the Conservative proposal in terms of bringing in National Service are not just a realistic solution, but the only solution available. Keir Starmer should be asked about how you can fight a war without Armed Forces.

 

Rachel Reeves: Do you increase salaries across the public sector without raising taxes?

 

Just hours ago the Labour Party launched an attack against Conservative policies regarding National Service and possibly concription because of the cost of such policies. But after that, Labour Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves stated that a Labour government would increase salaries across the public sector. Well, how much will it cost to increase salaries across the public sector. I reckon that it would be a lot more than National Service or Conscription.

Right before an election the mountain of contradictions rises on a daily basis. Just before Rachel Reeves spoke about salary increases in the public sector, Keir Starmer said that he would not get rid of the two children cap when it comes to Children Benefits in spite of the fact that he would want to do so. I guess the Labor Leader was thinking about cost of getting rid of the two children cap.

Services are necessary, but services cost monies that need to be paid with higher taxes at a time when interest paid on public borrowing is extraordinarily high. Labour says that it will not implement austerity, but you cannot promise to pay high interest on public borrowing and raise salaries without increasing taxes. And if you start increasing taxes, you can guarantee that companies that pay higher taxes are going to turn those higher tax payments into higher prices to balance the books. There is also the danger that higher taxes will lower consumption thus affecting the monies that the state can collect as taxes. Higher rates and lower amount of monies coming to the Treasury. And what about companies that are struggling to make ends meet? Less customers coming through the doors and higher taxes pushing up prices are not a recipe for success.

This is the way it works. If you collect 100 Pound as taxes and suddenly prices go up, then you will collect 100 Pound as taxes but only nominally. You are going to be able to buy less with your 100 Pound. State employees will be getting salaries that are worth less money in spite of nominal increases.

If you are paying 2500 for rent and suddenly the cost of renting goes up to 3500 then your salary has actually been devalued. Nominal increases will make things a lot worse.

Myth and Reality: You cannot have a strong position without strong Armed Forces

The Romans said 'Vis Pacem para Bellum'. Politicians like to walk arond making impressive speeches to sound powerful and decisive when in reality they don't have the power to back up what they are saying. 

The now former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP as a military man knew full well that having barely 75,000 military personnel capable of engaging in a military conflict was not the foundation for a globalised military conflict. 

Another reality that has become increasingly apparent is that Britain 'multiculturalism and diversity' does not guarantee a nationwide responde in case of war. Amongst certain ethnic groups, allegiance to Britain is falling.

An entire segment of British political agents has been undermining Britain in the worst way possible. No sooner than a Conservative Politician mentioned the possible return of National Service, the said politicians went on the attack criticizing the idea of bringing back National Service.

Imagine the scenario of Britain being engaged directly in a military conflict in Europe. Imagine the case of national conscription to be engaged directly in a military conflict. What percentage of the national population will actually be willing to join in the war effort by sending their young to the battlefield?

Multiculturalists and Diversity promoters are underming Britain as a country. What Britain needs is a unifyfing force that those on the left of the political world totally reject.

One could argue that having such a military conflict would strengthen Britain by helping Britain to get rid of Multiculturalism and Diversity. With loyalties tested, it will become apparent who is and who is not on Britain's side.

If any of those coming to Britain to settle down in Britain were to be told that they would be required to join the war effort, would they be willing to settle down in Britain?