What did Mitchell mean?
Peter Hoskin 4:56pm
Andrew Mitchell is doing the media rounds to discuss the Tories' new policy paper on international development, and he seemed to let slip with a major claim on defence spending to the BBC earlier. Here's how the indispensable PoliticsHome reports it:
So does Tory high command share Mitchell's view on defence spending? Does this count as a new, official commitment to sit alongside the ring-fenced international development and health budgets? Erm, no. The Tory get-out line is that Mitchell was speculating solely about "helicopters and equipment" in Afghanistan, rather than the overall defence budget, and that they're still operating under the assumption of cuts in overall defence spending. Hm. He sure could have made that clearer."Mr Mitchell said that it was not a question of choosing between the budgets for defence and international development, adding that the two departments would work much more closely under a Conservative government.'I don't think that defence will face cuts, but it's not a question of either or, you have to do both," he said.
'The development effort in Afghanistan which hasn't always gone well and so to upgrade we need to have much closer coordination than we've had in the past,' he added."
Either way, I imagine Dave 'n' George will be far from amused. Whatever you may think about the level of defence spending, the state of the public finances means that no politician should be confident about future spending levels, let alone making casual remarks which suggest one department or another will be shielded from cuts. You just hope that the loose-lipped rhetoric doesn't mean politicians are still in denial about the scale of Brown's debt crisis.
Previous
Hysteria
July 13th, 2009 5:19pm Report this comment"You just hope that the loose-lipped rhetoric doesn't mean politicians are still in denial about the scale of Brown's debt crisis" - but they probably are though eh?
Pete Hoskin
July 13th, 2009 5:22pm Report this commentHysteria: hope and expectation are two very different things!
Andy
July 13th, 2009 5:54pm Report this commentHe's right inasmuch as there needs to be a plan to make lives better for the Afghans alongside the military effort and this needs close co-operation between aid and defence.
Verity
July 13th, 2009 5:58pm Report this comment"Mr Mitchell said that it was not a question of choosing between the budgets for defence and international development..."
Quite. There should be no slot in the budget for "international development". "International development" as a concept should have been binned 20 years ago.
I will not vote for any party that promises to proceed with this obscene wastage of money earned by taxpayers.
Nigel Bradshaw
July 13th, 2009 6:11pm Report this commentI read this as follows. The defence and development budget will be essentially merged to the benefit of the former. Perfect solution!
Lady Amelia Haggisbasher Mcsporran
July 13th, 2009 6:18pm Report this commentActually verity its not a wastage of money earned by taxpayers, its a wastage of money borrowed at commercial rates on the world market - all the taxpayers' money has already gone on unemployment benefit...
TrevorsDen
July 13th, 2009 6:31pm Report this commentPeople do make casual remarks and Lab Lib or Tory we should be cautious about making big things about it.
The MoD in fact waste billions. So we could afford cuts - but the big issue is what do our troops need and we should provide it as economically as is prudent.
Lets face it we could save a fortune and buy off the shelf from America. F14s and F15s and various other lesser types would suit our needs rather than vast involvements in major new projects. We could be more flexible as well.
Browns announcement of 90 more Typhoons was jobs based nothing to do with defence needs. Likewise with the Navy.
Hysteria
July 13th, 2009 6:41pm Report this commentbut Verity - don't we need an integrated approach to defence? - and in SOME cases this could well mean aid programs -
Now I agree that providing aid to China or India is a nonsense - but I can see in some areas a pretty close tie-up between aid and defence.
After all - if you are to win a counter-insurgency war using "hearts and minds" which budget pays for this ? The military ? Or the FO ??
Michael Booth
July 13th, 2009 6:47pm Report this commentTotally agree with Verity - absolutely. For once. Or twice.
David Ossitt
July 13th, 2009 7:09pm Report this comment"International development" as a concept should have been binned 20 years ago"
Absolutely right; if a full and precise list of all of those to whom we give aid and the full amouny to each was published there would be public outrage.
We are not allowed to give with any form of preconditions, utter madness.
Never mind all of the money wasted on Africa; why oh why do we give to India and China?
TGF UKIP
July 13th, 2009 7:20pm Report this commentThe policy of cutting defence expenditure in favour of ringfencing "International Development" is another Hilton policy step to demonstrate that the Cameron Tories are not Tories at all but something quite different.
If Dave and the Mekon and their clique don't want to be thought of as Tories, fine, but let them call themselves something else.
As it is they've merely stolen the brand name Conservative/Tory to stick onto an entirely different and much inferior product. "Passing off" is what the lawyers call it.
Meanwhile, Pete, I suggest you stop dignifying quite alien policies with the name Tory or Conservative.
JONNY
July 13th, 2009 7:29pm Report this commentBut Verity I thought it was generally accepted by most serious observers that winning hearts is likely to be more helpful to our interests abroad than hitting people over the head.
Thus Sayeth the Cynic Machiavel.
logdon
July 13th, 2009 7:46pm Report this commentI'm with Verity.
Some time ago the BBC, in one of it's rare moments of honesty aired a programme showing what happens to medical aid sent to (I think) Kenya.
Appropriated by corrupt government officials in vast warehouses, then sold off to shops and street traders.
Although the cartons and containers had, not to be sold, clearly printed on them, that was quite blatantly ignored on all levels.
An amazing African doctor took a crew around, showing exactly how this is occurring. And the lines of limos and huge jeeps outside the gov hq.
His reaction was stop sending it. Are you in the west so hostage to conscience that you'd even see the millions squandered and pillaged by corruption than take stock?
As our political friends in Africa and the ME are so fond of telling us, we do not have an empire any more. We have no imperial clout.
OK, fine, in that case we have no imperial obligations either.
How about that?
drakes drum
July 13th, 2009 8:08pm Report this commentJonny..the hearts to be won are here at home.
Charity begins at home. If and when our economic improves to such an extent that we can help poorer countries then we can decide on who we could help. But I would want a referendum on this!
This is what really annoys me about Cameron. He just is unable to make a decision. Everything is so wobbly. He is like a jelly.
This Country needs a REAL housebuilding programme.Not the Brown Dream Scheme! MacMillan's 1950's massive council housing programme should be dusted down and used as the blueprint. Using wooden kit houses, produced in this country, would make the houses economic in both cost and running them.
Ensure proper regulations that would give these new homes to those that have contributed to our taxation for at least ten years.
We need to build up our Navy again. We are an Island Race. Our airforce and army need building up to ensure safety at home and an ability to strike at those that wish us harm.
Do away with the three services, fighting each other, and have The United Services of Great Britain.
Make the Police a FORCE again, Throw out the labour loving, Common Purpose trained police chiefs who know nothing about policing and let the police catch criminals again! Local Police Chiefs elected by the people- following the American system.
Scrap devolution. OR just end the Barnett formula.
Resign from the EU and take back our fishing waters.
Ban all faith schools.
If the Conservatives win by a landslide, perhaps they can outlaw Socialism?
Hope these moderate views are supported.
Stephen
July 13th, 2009 8:10pm Report this commentThe great Lord Bauer said that international aid transferred money from poor people in rich countires to rich people in poor countries. How right he was. DfID or whatever it is called should be abolished and the FO given a small pot to help with emergencies. A very small pot. Nothing else. We cannot afford it.
paul Howgate
July 13th, 2009 8:22pm Report this commentThe Tories need to be reaslistic about Defence Spending. Not only does it need to be ring fenced but substantially increased, as Australia has done, and start to reverse the damage Brown has done since `97..if this means other Depts have to suffer so be it. Remember if we dont have proper defence of these islands, all other spending is rather pointless is it not??
of course the useless cameron is only interested in garnering votes, not what is best for this country
Tanuki
July 13th, 2009 8:50pm Report this commentThe "international development" budget must be slashed. Hard. Truth be told, it's been a stupid and misguided way - for quite a few decades - to channel money from poor people in rich western countries to rich people in poor eastern and african countries.
I want the 'international development' budget be swiftly re-purposed to channeling some novel and seriously-deadly munitions into the lives of the assorted terroristi who want to undermine the western liberal democratic ethos.
Jim
July 13th, 2009 9:02pm Report this commentAndrew Mitchell says a lot of words, all of which should be taken with a pinch of salt.
davidke
July 14th, 2009 6:50am Report this commentLet the Chinese sort Africa out. They are building the roads, providing electricity, and pumping water. We are sending Gender Equality lecturers. And giving bundles of cash (literally, in envelopes) to corrupt officials to attend them. I see it every day.
Verity
July 14th, 2009 3:16pm Report this commentTanuki - Quite.
DavidKe - A man after my own heart.
It's misleading to say, as an argument against continued development aid, "We're only funding African dictators and buying shoes for their wives" because frankly, that doesn't sound too bad. A few clothes and trips to Paris for a few dictators. We don't like it, but we shrug.
But what should be more properly addressed is the entire stratum of society in Africa built on the aid industry. It's not "a few dictators and their wives". It's hundreds of thousand of people engaged in a totally non-productive sector funded on the British (and American and Canadian and Australian and all those European countries, whatever their names are) taxpayer tit.
The Chinese will indeed sort Africa out, and more power to their elbow. Not terribly sentimental, the Chinese. Pragmatic.
Back to top