Latest from Coffee House

Things have come to a pretty pass when the two party spokespeople who experience the worst drubbing in a debate are the current Defence Secretary and the Green party representative. In today’s Daily Politics defence debate Rebecca Johnson ended up, after some considerable flapping and obfuscation, disowning a section of the Green party’s website which said membership of a jihadi organisation shouldn’t be illegal. And Michael Fallon repeatedly refused to say that the Tories would support Labour in a vote on Trident renewal, then struggled under tough questions about the Tory failure to commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Vernon Coaker also dodged questions on Labour’s

What do the next generation of MPs think with regards to public services, government spending and taxes? Coffee House has got its hands on new research by Ipsos MORI on the opinions of prospective parliamentary candidates from the main parties. The pollsters interviewed almost one hundred PPCs – 26 Conservative, 29 Labour, 20 Liberal Democrat and 11 SNP – who are all standing in marginal or safe seats, and therefore stand a good chance of making it to the green benches after the general election. Here are the points that stand out: 1: Defence cuts on the front line Defence cuts lead the way for both Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates who

You might be forgiven for expecting that a Defence Secretary giving a speech on defence during an election campaign would involve an announcement about his party’s defence policy. And Michael Fallon did ‘announce’ something today, which is that the Tories would commit to four nuclear submarines, updated missiles and warheads in a renewal of the Trident continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. This was an announcement in the sense that the Defence Secretary said it in a speech with a party-branded board behind him, but it wasn’t a surprise. What was a surprise was that Fallon, usually one of the cannier political operators out there, managed to give a speech attacking another

It is sometimes easy to forget that Boris is more than just a personality, that he has policy views too. In interviews with The Mail and The Times this morning, Boris sets out his own philosophy. It is, as you would expect from someone who voted for Ken Clarke in the 2001 leadership contest, a broadly one nation platform. Johnson argues that the Tories should not ‘simply shrug their shoulders’ about inequality and backs Iain Duncan Smith’s plan to extend the right to buy to housing association properties. He also talks about immigration far more positively than Cameron does, saying that ‘Politicians need to point out that immigration is a

MPs this afternoon backed the motion calling for the government to set defence spending at 2 per cent of GDP – though not in huge numbers. There were 37 votes in favour to 3 votes against, which is hardly a furious uprising. This vote is a backbench vote, and so it is not binding on the government. Nevertheless, there are many good reasons why ministers should obey the demands of those MPs who did turn up – and listen to the concerns of many who did not. James sets out those reasons, as well as ministers’ reluctance to address them, in this week’s magazine. Ministers might think they can ignore

There are many quite understandable reasons for not promising to protect the defence budget. Some are pragmatic: there’s not much room in Whitehall for more budgets to be protected once you take into account those that already are. Some are theoretical, including the argument Clare Short advanced on Newsnight yesterday, which is that if your economy grows, you have to spend more on defence in order to keep meeting the target of 2 per cent of GDP set by NATO, and that has nothing to do with whether you need to increase spending but with statistical releases from the ONS. But whatever the good arguments, they aren’t being made nearly

One of the really striking claims that Ed Balls made in his speech today was that the Tories would end up cutting more from the defence budget than Labour. This is not the sort of thing that you’d expect to hear: Labour saying it would end up spending more on defence than the traditional party of the armed forces. The Shadow Chancellor said: ‘First of all, our cuts, in any part of public spending, are not going to go nowhere near the huge scale of defence cuts you are going to see under the Conservatives on the basis of these plans.’ Balls also said that it was ‘absolutely impossible on

Two politicians put in very assured and impressive performances on Marr this morning – if you can include nimbly dodging questions that you don’t want to answer ‘impressive’. of course, within the parameters of the way politicians are expected to behave, Caroline Flint and Philip Hammond did very well because they didn’t give anything away that they didn’t want to, and they’d clearly practised rather a lot in order to stop themselves giving away that information. Flint was asked to rule out a pact between Labour and the SNP. She didn’t, but she also survived the questions rather well: ‘We are focused on winning a Labour majority government and let

For a while the Tories had hoped they could get away with dodging questions on defence spending until after the election. Even as the pressure within their own party for a commitment to the 2 per cent of GDP set by Nato, ministers were either saying they didn’t want to ‘pre-judge’ the Strategic Defence and Security Review, or trying to turn the question round and ask whether Labour was going to match the current level of spending by this government. Neither was a satisfactory answer, but ministers rather have the impression that with just weeks until Parliament dissolves, they needn’t worry too much. Of course, they reckoned without someone picking

A few weeks ago, Boris Johnson posed a question in his residents’ survey for the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency. ‘Which issues are most important for the country as a whole?’ Fifteen subjects were offered for consideration. Not one mentioned defence or security, despite the threatening global scene. There is an election in May. The major parties are competing in the great NHS give-away whilst showing every sign of wishing to bury defence until well after the election, using the expected Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR-15) as the convenient touchstone for evasion. Yet it is highly likely that this review will either be pushed into 2016, or again prove unfit

So Britain’s long-term fight against Isis isn’t, at the moment, going to involve this country doing any fighting. The Prime Minister this morning insisted that there would be no ‘boots on the ground’ and Philip Hammond has just told journalists that there are ‘no plans at the moment to engage in air strikes’. That latter assertion does of course mean that air strikes aren’t being ruled out, while boots on the ground are ruled out daily. Hammond said: ‘The priority is the humanitarian situation, there are huge numbers of displaced persons, there are persistent stories of atrocities being committed against people who are fleeing from the violence going on, so

Nato is 65 years old this year; but there’s little cause for celebration. The Defence Select Committee’s latest report suggests that the populations of western Europe and North America are lukewarm about Nato’s collective defence guarantee – the principle that an attack on one Nato member is an attack on all. Paragraph 70 quotes research conducted in the aftermath of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008; it found that less than 50 per cent of the populations of major Nato powers would support the defence of the Baltic States if they were attacked. The report explains that the substantial Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, under the influence of

Last summer, parliament was recalled after President Assad’s forces used chemical weapons in Syria. David Cameron wanted the Commons to support air strikes against the Syrian regime in response. But the Commons refused, defeating the government motion. Whatever you thought of the decision, it was a bold move by MPs. They had demonstrated that even on matters of war and peace, the traditional preserves of the executive, they were prepared to stand athwart the Prime Minister. The decision changed Western foreign policy, but not perceptions of parliament. Almost a year on, the public are still cynical about the institution and MPs remain deeply unsure of the worth of what they

Rory Stewart, the colourful and interesting Tory MP, has been elected as chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Stewart is a formidable appointment. He is knowledgeable on defence and foreign policy matters: having served as a diplomat in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written widely of his experience and insights, and has taught related subjects at Harvard University. He is well-regarded by serving soldiers, many of whom speak highly of his views on counter-insurgency and the work of his charity Turquoise Mountain Foundation. He has, however, taken his head ‘out of the mountains’ of Afghanistan – and sees that security threats have taken new forms, such as cyber security, human

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir George Zambellas has said, in the Telegraph, that the sum of the Royal Navy’s parts is not greater than its whole. Scottish independence, he says, would weaken the naval power of the nations of the British Isles. Sir George also appeals to our shared naval history – nearly a third of Nelson’s men at Trafalgar were Scottish, the Grand Fleet was stationed at Scapa Flow and the Soviet menace was monitored from bases in Scotland. The positive, emotive arguments done, Sir George issues a warning to Scottish voters. In the event of independence, Sir George says that the rump UK’s navy would be able to

Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, has a battle on his hands. 20 or so Tory MPs have signed John Baron’s amendment to the Defence Reform Bill. The bill aims to increase the strength of the Army Reserve (what you and I know affectionately as the Territorial Army) from 19,000 to 30,000 by 2018 in order to make up for personnel cuts to the regular army, the strength of which is to fall to 82,000. The Tory rebels worry that missed recruitment targets and rising costs prove that the plan is in trouble. As one of them puts it to Coffee House, ‘Recruiting is in chaos. CAPITA has failed in the out-sourcing

listen to ‘Hammond: ‘A Conservative government will never send our forces in to battle without the right kit’’ on Audioboo Philip Hammond’s speech to the Conservative conference was accompanied by the set of circumstances that most ministers have bad dreams about after eating too much cheese. First he was interrupted by two men in military clothing, shouting about defence cuts and fusiliers. ‘I’ll come and talk to you later, let me finish my speech,’ the Defence Secretary said, hopefully. The man didn’t stop, and was escorted from the floor, followed by a cloud of journalists scribbling away and enthusiastic photographers. Then the giant screens behind Hammond that were beaming two

When Ed Miliband dropped his support for the government’s motion on military intervention in Syria, it was seen as a convenient way of the Labour leader avoiding the thorny question of what his party really thinks about the principle of intervention. He and his team were astonished when David Cameron said ‘I get that’ and took the option off the table entirely, but privately they admitted that it wasn’t the most inconvenient thing that could happen. But today, Miliband’s Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy delivered another one of his measured, impressive speeches on the party’s defence policy in which he reminded party activists that in spite of the ghosts of