How important is the Ministry of Defence? Not, according to Fraser, important enough to this government to appoint a Secretary of State who has any great interest in Defence issues. This is fairly remarkable. You might have thought – and the MoD’s particular problems might have persuaded you – that defence would be an issue demanding a specialist but that reckons without the managerial habits of modern politics.
This is not a criticism of Philip Hammond. He will doubtless be, as they say, a “safe pair of hands” at the MoD. Nevertheless, while procurement issues and budget-management are a large part of the MoD’s future they are not the only vital aspects of the defence brief and it is curious to discover that the wider strategic aspects of the job appear to be of so little import that a politician, capable and smart though he is, with no past record of interest in military affairs can be made Secretary of State for Defence.
Is it a surprise that two of the cabinet ministers doing best (or that seem to be doing best) are two that have immersed themselves in their brief for years and who are, whether you agree with the policies or not, plainly passionate about their subjects? Barring disgrace, neither Michael Gove nor Iain Duncan Smith will be shifted in this parliament. That’s as it should be. Education and welfare reforms are a two parliament job.
True, Cameron did not want to replace Liam Fox at Defence. But Hammond is the seventh Secretary of Defence since 2001 and it is surely plain that the MoD needs some proper degree of continuity. That gives Hammond time to learn the brief but one still can’t help but wonder why Defence remains so unimportant to this government.
The obvious answer, as Aaron Ellis suggests, is that David Cameron is not very interested by defence issues either. So be it but it’s a rum business and you’d have thought there’d be some merit in appointing a Defence Secretary who is actually interested in defence issues. One consequence of not doing so is that the firewall protecting the Prime Minister from future defence cock-ups is thinner than it need or perhaps should be.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Bruce Anderson makes the case for Philip Hammond at the MoD.
Comments