Iain Dale in the telegraph has been musing on the failure of the web to define the 2010 UK election, we’re only eight days away and he has yet to witness that poll-shaking expose whose origin can be traced back to teh mighty interwebs, why is this?
The truth is that it has been, but not in a way that is recognisable to partially web-literate journalists who don’t understand how fast the use of the interwebs is evolving, it’s not sufficient to view the web merely as a new medium for producers to reach consumers.
So, the Liberal Democrats, how do they see the world, how do they want to present Britain to the world, and what part do they want Britain to play in the world? This blog shall attempt to divine answers to these questions from their manifesto literature.
Think Defence have provided an excellent review of the Lib-Dems commitment to renewing the military covenant, this article however will look at their Foreign Policy vision in general, and what they will ask of Britain’s Armed Forces in particular, as stated in their “your world” portion of the manifesto.
The 2010 United Kingdom general election debates consist of a series of three leaders’ debates conducted on live television between the leaders of the three main parties contesting the 2010 United Kingdom general election. The second debate was notionally on Foreign Policy and Defence though notably light on both given its nearly two hour slot.
So, what of significance was said, did it have any merit, and who came out ahead?
Pundits have been predicting the death of PC gaming in the face of the relentless console onslaught for at least the last decade, and many people have pointed out Digital Distribution and Massively Multiplayer Online games as reasons why this argument is rubbish, here is one more; AMD Eyefinity.
This is a new multi-display technology dubbed ATI Eyefinity Technology, supporting up to 6 simultaneous display being connected to one graphics cards, and supports grouping of multiple monitors into a single large surface (SLS), treated by the OS as a single monitor with very high resolutions, as an inexpensive alternative for ultra-high resolution display solution. It is also a perfect example of the innovation that can happen on the PC platform, something nigh on impossible to foster in the walled-garden of console gaming.
The previous articles in this series have looked at Britain’s Great Power potential through the prism of its key strategic abilities. The prism itself is the RUSI FDR policy papers that particularized the doctrines; Global Guardian, Strategic Raiding, and Contributory, which alongside the Strategic Deterrent neatly encapsulate the core ambitions of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. This series of articles has also accepted the précis of the third RUSI paper which outlined the coming cuts that will need to be made if Defence is to live comfortably within its current budget. The thrust of this article is to ask the question; should we not expect more if that is what Britain’s strategic interests demand?
This perhaps is the greatest flaw in the the RUSI and IPPR FDR policy papers; that they run scared of post-recession austerity under the presumption that politicians won’t have any interest in properly funding Defence at a time when the electorate is howling at them to reduce deficits and lower taxes.
Here is an exercise for you the reader of this blog; with all this talk of Britain’s future strategic direction are we not getting ahead of ourselves in failing to realise that the arrival of the 21st century has brought new aspirants to Great Power status, the consequence of which is that in relative measure our own status has been greatly reduced? What justifies a country’s place at the top table of international affairs, and are we guilty of arrogance to believe this small and much diminished island still commands the respect necessary for such a role?
What follows is an attempt to clarify those criteria which permit a nation a chair at the top table…………. should that nation desire to occupy such a position.