Stephen Morris,

In case you hadn’t noticed, the rhetoric in the West Pacific has been ramping up over recent weeks, leading to concerns that the regional actors may be descend into full scale military conflict.

It should be noted, although it may not be reported too loudly that this rise in tensions is accompanied by the annual US-South Korean war games whose objective is to prepare for a joint defence against North Korean military adventures. These war games have been held every year since 1976 so the situation shouldn’t unduly alarm any of us. But this year’s exercise has managed to rile even the Russians because there is a sense that North Korea’s reaction is more aggressive than it has been in recent years. The most likely reason for this is that Kim Jon-Un is experiencing these games for the first time as Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and as such he wants the US to know that he and his military are ready and willing to respond to any threat. It should also be noted that US Secretary of Defense (sic) Chuck Hagel is also new to these war games. It could all end horribly, but that is highly unlikely. The two Koreas are proxies for China and the US and an escalation to conflict could lead to a superpower war that would be vastly expensive on several levels for both nations. I predict that we have nothing to worry about.

It is against the background of a potential Pacific War that The Backbencher commissioned a survey to see which of the men who are most likely to Occupy Number 10 in 2015 held the confidence of the British people to steer the Nation through such a Crisis. The results weren’t particularly favourable for any of them.

“Which party leader do you trust most to lead the Nation through a Military crisis?”

When the idea for the survey was first floated my initial thoughts were “isn’t any crisis that Britain becomes directly involved with more likely to arise in the Falklands or Europe?” I do appreciate that a war between the Pacific powers has the possibility of drawing Britain in, but I don’t think the war is probable and if it were to happen I can only imagine that Britain’s role would be limited to that of diplomatic gopher, perhaps representing the US interests at the UN or in Europe. But again I stress that the entire scenario seems too far-fetched.

My next thoughts were of the Falklands. Control having been seized by a stand-in from the cast of the Wizard of Oz, I imagined our leader being given the opportunity to rescue 3000 lonely sheep-herds from the iron grip of a malignant regime, and I was taken back to my living room in 1982 watching the News as an Elizabethan Thatcher waved Our Boys away from Portsmouth Dock. I don’t know if this ever happened, but I’m sure it should have.

President Kirchner recently attended a meeting of the UN’s Decolonisation Committee where she once again asked for negotiations on Falkland Islands sovereignty, claiming that although the previous Argentinian invasion was unpopular domestically, she had the support of ‘most Argentine political parties’. The rhetoric is rising here too and with the United States failure to support even the most basic of democratic principles, the prospect of Britain facing a second invasion from the Argentinians is increasing. But fairly quickly it becomes apparent that the Falklands are not an immediate concern for Britain. The islands may be an emotive subject for some but we needn’t worry, not really. In 1982 the Falkland’s defences were limited to a small detachment of Royal Marines. Now they are defended by a roving Destroyer and a squadron of Typhoon fighter bombers on top of support troops and Air-Defence batteries. For Argentina to succeed in its claim to sovereignty, it would have to be done through diplomatic and political channels, and that is not going to happen.

With the threat of the Wicked Witch of the West pushed from my mind, I was left to ponder a much greater and a far older enemy. Having dispatched the North Korean and Argentine threats as nothing more than public diplomatic disputes, it should be safe to claim that I am not an alarmist. I’m sure, and I hope, there are valid reasons why I am wrong, but recent events in Cyprus show clearly that in the unenviable and tiny minds of the Glorious Secretariat, the Union of Europe will proceed at all costs and will prevail at any price, as much has been said by them. It is often given to conspiracy theorists to promote the idea of a plot to unite the world as a single polity, but we have ample evidence that that is exactly what is happening in Europe. Not only is it the stated objective of the current political elite but it is the founding rationale behind the entire project. The EU-Elite is playing a dangerous game. The birth of the Single Currency gave the EU unlimited political power over Europe’s people and they are using it to achieve their political dreams in spite of the economic and political oppression being suffered by millions. I think the potential for conflict in Europe is as great today as it has ever been and if that should happen, Britain will once again be at the forefront of defending the principles of Liberty, I hope.

If you have a different view of the global Geo-Political situation, please feel free to comment below, especially if you answered the survey with a different view.

After a frantic 10 minutes of voting on Friday evening, the results of the survey to see ‘Which party leader do you trust most to lead the Nation through a Military crisis?’ proved inconclusive. We’re not going to pretend that this survey represents the epitome of scientific analysis, but attempts were made to ensure a balance of political views existed among respondents.

But I digress; here are the results of the survey:

Those of you capable of basic arithmetic have noticed that the majority of respondents chose not to endorse the capabilities of any of the four men in the list, opting instead for our fifth option who was only added to the survey after receiving some complaints concerning a lack of viable candidates.

@storris yes, 3 of the four politicians you named are tied to the same policy platform and the last one is the comedy sideshow.

NB: The first 10% of respondents only had access to the 4 men named above as their answer.

53% of those surveyed do not trust any of the main four British party leaders in a military crisis.

One interesting aspect of the these results is that although David Cameron (21%) has had a militarily successful period as PM, with deployments to Libya and Mali, the drawing down of troops in Afghanistan and a period of absorbing the growing pressure on the Falklands, he is not in a clear second place. Nigel Farage (18%) is well within the margin of error and comfortably holds an equal if lowly claim on the public’s confidence. Ukip is widely touted as a protest vote that may split the Right-of-Centre vote at the next election, but if Labour progress as expected (see below), it’s not outside the realm of possibility to see a minority Conservative government with a Ukip opposition, not likely perhaps, but not impossible.

Another, although largely irrelevant, point of interest is the lack of support for Nick Clegg (1%). I have just realised that there is a distinct lack of support for and presence of the Liberal Democrats on social media. I admit to not having actively searched for them, but nor have I been searching for Communists and they are in plentiful supply on my various feeds!

Nick’s problem may be his obvious lack of principle: For 30 years the Liberal Democrats have stuck firmly to their guns on issues such as Education, Law & Order and Militarism, but Nick Clegg in his welcome bid to raise the tax-threshold to £10,000 has surrendered to the Tories on Secret Courts, he’s given in to Labour on a Free Press, to Ukip on Immigration and to Europe on National Democracy. It is little wonder that no-one trusts him to steer us through a military crisis, although I suspect that few respondents gave him much thought at all.

What about Ed Miliband (7%)? Well exactly, what about him? After his brother left the party for Tracy Island earlier in the week, it is a forgone conclusion that Labour will experience a massive shift to the left. This is not a natural position for the majority of British people but while a left-ascendency may be political suicide for the party, it is a good thing for British Politics. We may finally get a divergence of platforms as parties begin to move away from the centre and try to re-establish themselves on their natural ground. With any luck, Labour will reinstate Clause 4 and give the radical socialist activists something to cheer. We may end up with a real alternative the Expedient-Politicism that has plagued the establishment since Major.

So, no clear winner and a majority of respondents prefer None of the above, to one of the above. Whether or not this represents a positive shift in favour of the Liberty Movement is open to debate but what it does tell us is that the current crop of politicians have nothing to boast about. They aren’t trusted on social reform, the economy or their expenses and they can’t be trusted to ensure criminal investigations are pursued to their natural ends. On top of all this, we now know they aren’t trusted to deal with their single most important duty and the fundamental reason for their existence of defending the integrity of the Nation’s territorial boundaries.

Let’s just hope they’re not put to the test . . .