It might be 'excellent' if any of POGS post was based on fact.
Here is an extract from the Labour Manifesto on Defence, which she obviously hasn't read, preferring instead on what she thinks is in it.
"We will ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped and resourced to respond to wide-ranging security challenges. Labour will commit to peacekeeping, including support for a UN Emergency Peace Service.
As the security threats and challenges we face are not bound by geographic borders, it is vital that as Britain leaves the EU, we maintain our close relationship with our European partners. Alongside our commitment to NATO, we will continue to work with the EU on a range of operational missions to promote and support global and regional security.
The last Labour government consistently spent above the NATO benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP. Conservative spending cuts have put Britain’s security at risk, shrinking the army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. The scrapping of Nimrod, HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jump-jets have weakened our defences and cost British taxpayers millions.
Labour’s commitment to spending at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence will guarantee that our Armed Forces have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the range of obligations, and ensure our conventional forces are versatile and able to deploy in a range of roles.
Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear-free world."
Somewhat different from an 'excellent analysis' I'd suggest POGS ??
