General Election 2016 - debate about defence policy of competing parties

Ren2k7 · 13-02-2016 1:39pm

Boreas wrote: »

Wallace and Daly really are fantasists, and both guaranteed to be returned to the Dáil.

I hope that if there is a violent Islamist attack in Ireland and Shannon is used as the excuse she accepts her role in hyping the US use of the airport.

Islamists don't need an excuse to attack Ireland.

Negative_G · 13-02-2016 2:16pm

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] So you had your anti SF rant and then says leave it out about SF

Now head on back to the opening post from the mod and see who brought SF to the thread or give it a rest yourself or do you not like replys to your anti SF thread.Now have a look further on and see who brought up SF and the SCC?

Now lets see you head back to the opening poster and tell him to give it a rest about SF,he was the one who brought them in from the off?

No didnt think so.

My earlier post was when it was in the military forum. It was since moved. If you took the time to look you would see the moderator in question admitted he was in the wrong to bring the SCC topic up.

Also, it isn't my thread, not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Your post contains nothing but drivel and rhetoric about bond holders and criminals. You didn't mention one single thing about defence or policy. Which is what this thread is about.

There are others here making coherent points. Perhaps you should try the same.

tipptom · 14-02-2016 1:34pm

Negative_G wrote: »

My earlier post was when it was in the military forum. It was since moved. If you took the time to look you would see the moderator in question admitted he was in the wrong to bring the SCC topic up.

Also, it isn't my thread, not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Your post contains nothing but drivel and rhetoric about bond holders and criminals. You didn't mention one single thing about defence or policy. Which is what this thread is about.

There are others here making coherent points. Perhaps you should try the same.

Your first post in this thread was an anti SF rant"There is a good reason why SF has not been in power since the foundation of the state and never will be",the third post in was another anti SF rant about Kangeroo courts which you thanked and it went on from there and when someone pointed this out you came and ordered me to give it a rest!!

You then have the cheek to say to me that I was off topic in reply to these posts.

You say that the mod apologised for bringing up the SCC,the whole opening post was about SF.

There is a multitude of anti SF threads on boards,go on them and vent your spleen.

I don't want a reply from you,just pointing out the hypocrisy of you telling me about going off topic.

Negative_G · 14-02-2016 1:39pm

tipptom wrote: »

Your first post in this thread was an anti SF rant"There is a good reason why SF has not been in power since the foundation of the state and never will be",the third post in was another anti SF rant about Kangeroo courts which you thanked and it went on from there and when someone pointed this out you came and ordered me to give it a rest!!

You then have the cheek to say to me that I was off topic in reply to these posts.

You say that the mod apologised for bringing up the SCC,the whole opening post was about SF.

There is a multitude of anti SF threads on boards,go on them and vent your spleen.

I don't want a reply from you,just pointing out the hypocrisy of you telling me about going off topic.

Good man Tipptom, excellent avoidance of what I pointed out to you.

There are plenty of threads on bond holders, abromovich and criminality on boards also. I'm sure your rhetoric will go largely ignored there also.

Any comment on SF defence policy or lack there of, unlike your first drivel ridden post?

Ren2k7 · 14-02-2016 10:09pm

Right, FG's new manifesto has quite a few details in relation to defence......

Equipping the Defence Forces: Fine Gael will provide a significant boost in capital funding for Defence across the 2016-2021 period, with €437m allocated to Defence, under the Capital Plan, within that time frame. The additional funds allocated will allow for
expenditure in equipment and infrastructure across all areas of the Defence Forces:

• Army: The priority is to invest in armoured personnel carriers, armoured logistic vehicles, the modernisation of equipment and refurbishment of barracks.

• Naval Service: The ship replacement program will continue and over the lifetime of the White Paper, Fine Gael will move from an 8- to a 9-ship naval flotilla, to provide for a multi-role vessel. This will allow for continued humanitarian assistance and will enhance Defence capability for maritime security operations.

• Air Corps: Fine Gael will ensure that existing aircraft will be replaced when necessary and invest in Casement Aerodrome Baldonnel.

Army Ranger Wing: FineGael will increase the capacity of the Army Ranger Wing and of special operation forces to assist in meeting emerging challenges in all environments, including land, air, maritime and cyber.

http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

Most of the commitments were already part of the WP but the move to a 9 ship navy is interesting. So vote FF for a bigger army, vote FG for a bigger navy. Interesting choice.

Ren2k7 · 14-02-2016 10:09pm

Right, FG's new manifesto has quite a few details in relation to defence......

Equipping the Defence Forces: Fine Gael will provide a significant boost in capital funding for Defence across the 2016-2021 period, with €437m allocated to Defence, under the Capital Plan, within that time frame. The additional funds allocated will allow for
expenditure in equipment and infrastructure across all areas of the Defence Forces:

• Army: The priority is to invest in armoured personnel carriers, armoured logistic vehicles, the modernisation of equipment and refurbishment of barracks.

• Naval Service: The ship replacement program will continue and over the lifetime of the White Paper, Fine Gael will move from an 8- to a 9-ship naval flotilla, to provide for a multi-role vessel. This will allow for continued humanitarian assistance and will enhance Defence capability for maritime security operations.

• Air Corps: Fine Gael will ensure that existing aircraft will be replaced when necessary and invest in Casement Aerodrome Baldonnel.

• Army Ranger Wing: Fine Gael will increase the capacity of the Army Ranger Wing and of special operation forces to assist in meeting emerging challenges in all environments, including land, air, maritime and cyber.

http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

Most of the commitments were already part of the WP but the move to a 9 ship navy is interesting. So vote FF for a bigger army, vote FG for a bigger navy. Interesting choice.

sparky42 · 14-02-2016 10:37pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Right, FG's new manifesto has quite a few details in relation to defence......

http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

Most of the commitments were already part of the WP but the move to a 9 ship navy is interesting. So vote FF for a bigger army, vote FG for a bigger navy. Interesting choice.

Honestly I'd go with increase the navy, a 9 ship force particularly if we move to having the EPV/MPV deployed out of EEZ waters. And frankly I'd like to see the investment in equipment for the Army even if the Army wasn't increased in size. god knows many of the insurgent forces don't care about a UN paint job.

sparky42 · 15-02-2016 8:56pm

So as mentioned in the P60 thread, Coveny has produced more details about the proposal:

The promise is contained in the party’s manifesto, which will be launched in Dublin tomorrow. Defence Minister Simon Coveney has confirmed the detail of the report, seen by this newspaper, which would represent a major boost for Cork.

The manifesto commits to delivering the extra ship within the timeframe of the most recent Defence White Paper which is 10 years, but, Mr Coveney said he expects it to be delivered much sooner than that, most likely in the lifetime of the new government.

The need for the increase in the fleet size is driven by the success of the Irish Navy’s work in the Mediterranean since last year in the rescuing and transportation of refugees.

According to the manifesto, the Government will move “from an eight to a nine-ship flotilla” at an estimated cost of €90m.

As part of a €437m capital investment up until 2021, the party is committing to replacing Defence aircraft as well as a new control tower at Baldonnel aerodrome.

Speaking to this newspaper, Mr Coveney said that the commitment to the Defence Forces is clear in the plan and is a significant investment.

“The additional ship will have implications for Cork harbour and Haulbowline, where the naval service is headquartered,” said Mr Coveney. “Not only will it mean extra personnel but it also means extra engineers. So this is significant.”

There is also mounting speculation that Fine Gael intends restoring defence as a full cabinet ministry after the election, should they be re-elected.

Fine Gael is also promising to develop a new Institute for Peace Support and Leadership Training in the Curragh, starting in 2016. The Peace and Leadership Institute will leverage Ireland’s unique international reputation and relationship with the UN.

It will develop new national and international partnerships with universities and other reputable interested parties and institutions.

Fine Gael will increase the level of female participation in the Defence Forces, with the goal of doubling the rate of participation from the current 6% to 12% in the next five years.

So it does seem to be fallout from the Med deployment last year, looking at it 90 million is most likely personnel increase in the Navy and the hull, so I figure with the timeframe as well, a follow on P60 would be the most likely option.

Ren2k7 · 15-02-2016 10:54pm

Labour's proposal's for the Defence Forces in today's manifesto release:

Labour recognises the incredible work done by our armed servicemen and women in maintaining our excellent humanitarian reputation abroad.

We will continue to support the Irish Defence Forces in the Mediterranean and beyond.

We will also support them at home by allowing their representative association to affiliate to ICTU and take an active role in national pay bargaining. Affiliation to ICTU will be subject to both the representative association and ICTU recognising the unique character of our security services and that their members voluntarily forswear the right to strike or to engage in other industrial action.

We will also work with veterans to create a National Veterans Policy that clearly and respectfully establishes the State’s obligations to those who have served in our armed forces.

https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_manifesto_2016.pdf - Page 121

So allow DF personnel to unionise. Good Christ! :rolleyes:

sparky42 · 15-02-2016 11:02pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Labour's proposal's for the Defence Forces in today's manifesto release:

https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_manifesto_2016.pdf - Page 121

So allow DF personnel to unionise. Good Christ! :rolleyes:

So, so far FG and FF each have put proposals for some increases of some nature, Labour hasn't really suggested anything and I wouldn't rate SF's plans as being anything positive towards the Defence Forces.

Ren2k7 · 15-02-2016 11:29pm

sparky42 wrote: »

So, so far FG and FF each have put proposals for some increases of some nature, Labour hasn't really suggested anything and I wouldn't rate SF's plans as being anything positive towards the Defence Forces.

To sum up:

FF: Bigger army, increased emphasis on neutrality
FG: Bigger NS, more Rangers, stick to the WP on the rest
Lab: Unionise the military
SF: Neutrality, neutrality, neutrality

I personally favour FG's plans here, they make the most sense though SF's plans don't necessarily mean a weakened DF, just more of the same, an underfunded Defence Forces.

But Ireland is no different than any other country when it comes to the attitude by the left and right towards the miltary. In the US the centre left Dems want to cut back on military spending, the Republicans want to increase military spending. In Britain Labour wants to ditch Trident and cut spending while the Tories want to do the opposite. It's not exactly surprising that in Ireland the argument between FG, FF (right) and Lab, SF (left) follows on similar lines.

Negative_G · 16-02-2016 12:22am

Its interesting to see that both FG and Labour both specifically make reference to veterans.

Is this just a lame attempt to try and grab a few votes?

sparky42 · 16-02-2016 12:30am

Negative_G wrote: »

Its interesting to see that both FG and Labour both specifically make reference to veterans.

Is this just a lame attempt to try and grab a fee votes?

I'd say yes to be honest.

Negative_G · 16-02-2016 12:41am

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd say yes to be honest.

I don't get the whole veteran thing. I understsnd some of these guys can serve for 30 years + and spend time away from their families in unfriendly environments overseas. But in reality they get remunerated for it, generous leave and additional holidays as well as the generous overseas allowances and arguably get better paid than their counterparts in the British army. Why do some think the government still owe them something after all that time?

I fully expect a 'you never served, what would you know' response from someone but the whole thing smacks of entitlement to me.

sparky42 · 16-02-2016 12:44am

Negative_G wrote: »

I don't get the whole veteran thing. I understsnd some of these guys can serve for 30 years + and spend time away from their families in unfriendly environments overseas. But in reality they get remunerated for it, generous leave and additional holidays as well as the generous overseas allowances and arguably get better paid than their counterparts in the British army. Why do some think the government still owe them something after all that time?

I fully expect a 'you never served, what would you know' response from someone but the whole thing smacks of entitlement to me.

One issue I wonder about is mental health issues that they may or may not be suffering from post service? I mean I remember talking to someone from the Navy post the Air India crash who said some of those on recovery suffered mental issues afterwards and weren't treated? I mean we've had troops that have been shelled on UN missions, hit IED's etc, do they get all the mental health treatments post deployments (considering Ireland's mental health system isn't exactly "good" in the first place)?

Negative_G · 16-02-2016 1:21am

sparky42 wrote: »

One issue I wonder about is mental health issues that they may or may not be suffering from post service? I mean I remember talking to someone from the Navy post the Air India crash who said some of those on recovery suffered mental issues afterwards and weren't treated? I mean we've had troops that have been shelled on UN missions, hit IED's etc, do they get all the mental health treatments post deployments (considering Ireland's mental health system isn't exactly "good" in the first place)?

Certainly those type of support mechanisms should be in place for genuine cases and I omitted it from my previous post as I hadn't thought about it. Absolutely there would be a small minority who would've witnessed things that would take its toll on the mind. I know there are services in place and people to speak to, its how affective these services are that is the question.

I'd argue that paramedics and fire man are liable to see just as much on a day to day basis so the corporate knowledge is there on how to deal with it I suppose, within the public sector.

I can't help but feel FG promise of a medal is another attempt to win a few cheap votes. A medal for doing nothing means SFA in my eyes, regardless of any centenary.

General Election 2016 - debate about defence policy of competing parties

Comments