Defence

Fox to the rescue

The best form of defence is attack. Liam Fox distracted conference from the various rows that have afflcited it by castigating Labour’s abysmal record on defence. He was helped enormously by the terrorist outrage in Sanaa, the Yemen – a cowardly atrocity that reinforces his observation that ‘the country’s finances are wrecked and the world is more dangerous than at any other time in recent memory.’ He recited the refrain that cuts are regrettable but necessary, before adding that, thanks to Labour, Britain has to fight on with less. Serving the interest on Labour’s debt costs the same as an extra four aircraft carriers, 10 destroyers, 50 C17 cargo planes

Cameron says “yes” to the Trident upgrade – but questions remain

Courtesy of Ben Brogan, one of the most noteworthy passages from David Cameron’s appearance on Today this morning: ‘Jim Naughtie: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable? David Cameron: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent… JN: Is that a yes? DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.’ It is certainly the most assertive that Cameron has been on the subject since the advent of the coalition, but a couple of questions remain that prevent it from being utterly unequivocal. First, what timeframe is the

What to do with Balls?

Ed Balls is adept at opposition – making a case throughout the recent leadership hustings for immigration controls that he knows are unworkable in practice. Mike Smithson reports than a senior Lib Dem thinks Ed Balls would be an ideal opponent for Liam Fox, the man to exploit the coalition’s most obvious weakness. It’s a salivating prospect for the independent observer – confrontation between two skilled and principled communicators – and if anyone can damage a Conservative-led government on defence it is Balls. But there’s the rub. In their ideal worlds, Balls and Fox don’t differ on the broad principles of defence policy. Balls’ call for the independent nuclear deterrent’s renewal and

Fraser Nelson

Double deficit

What’s at the heart of the row over defence funding? George Osborne hinted at it today when he told the Telegraph that “frankly, of all the budgets I have seen, the defence budget was the one that was the most chaotic, the most disorganised, the most overcommitted”. The problem is that during the Labour years, various accounting scams were deployed to shunt costs further into the future – but this was not matched by resources. So they would, for example, delay an order by two years. There would be a price to pay for this delay, but it would be a cost that came after the election so Labour didn’t mind. (One

Fox, Osborne and Cameron engaged in Whitehall’s oldest battle

Tory on Tory is a brutal cock-fight when defence is concerned. After the leaking of Liam Fox’s now infamous letter and David Cameron’s measured retaliation, George Osborne has broken his silence. Making unspoken reference to the £38bn black hole in the MoD’s budget, Osborne tells this morning’s Telegraph that he was ‘not thrilled’ to learn of Fox’s ‘do we really want to cut defence this much letter’ and says that Labour left the MoD in ‘chaos’, signing Britain up to ‘expensive and pointless projects’. The press will run this as a conference Tory splits story. There are clear differences between ministers, but they actually reflect entrenched positions within the MoD:

Cameron road tests his anti-Ed message

After Fern Britton’s triumph over Gordon Brown a couple of years ago, we should know that This Morning interviews can have a certain bite to them. But if you needed more convincing, then how about David Cameron’s appearance on the show this morning? Lurking behind all the talk of baby Florence and the Obamas, was a sprightly discussion of both defence cuts and the new Labour leader. Cameron was combative on both. Most noteworthy were Cameron’s attacks on Ed Miliband. I imagine they will set the template for how the anti-Ed operation is conducted in future. The main aim, it seemed, was to defuse Miliband’s talk of an optimistic New

Forget the culprit, the MoD leak suggests that Fox doesn’t have Cameron’s confidence

Liam Fox is sombre rather than sombrero. A man to reckon with, you’d have thought – determined to fight dangerous cuts to Britain’s over-extended defence budget and an apostle of the Tory right. Which makes yesterday’s leak all the more extraordinary. The question is not who leaked this incendiary letter, but why Fox wrote it. The night before an important National Security Council meeting, and Fox has an important point to convey. Why not ring the Prime Minister? Go round to No.10 for chat? He is the Secretary of State, but he has to communicate matters of confidence and competence between himself and the PM with such formality, and in

Miliband’s dilemma

The day after the leader’s speech is always a slightly flat time at a party conference. But Manchester today feels particularly flat. Everyone knows that the two big political stories are happening down in London: David Miliband’s expected announcement that he is not standing for the shadow Cabinet and the Fox flap. One of the challenges for Ed Miliband is going to be asserting his authority with his parliamentary colleagues, most of whom didn’t vote for him. Added to this is the fact that many of them remember him as a young bag-carrier. Members of the shadow Cabinet were openly mocking his ‘new generation’ line last night. All this is

Fraser Nelson

Plugging the leak

So did Liam Fox leak the letter? Only if he is suicidal. He’s been around long enough (having been a frontbencher from the Major years onwards) to know how the game works. Briefing journalists is one thing, leaking a private letter is utterly counterproductive. It will make it harder for him to get the settlement he wants, and it will damage him by making him look as if he were responsible for it. I gather that the MoD is in a state of terror right now, with phone records and emails being trawled to find the guilty party. And whoever did this has such a crude understanding of media spin

Liam Fox does a David Miliband

At least the political fates have a sense of humour. No sooner had David Miliband’s frustration screamed into view last night, than the Tories were hit by a story that was similar in several regards: the leaked Liam Fox letter, expressing his anger over spending cuts. Here are a handful of those similarities: 1) Leakage. David Miliband’s words for Harriet Harman were meant to be for their ears only, but the TV cameras picked them up. Similarly, Fox’s letter was meant to be between him and the PM – but now it’s splashed across the front page of the Telegraph. The only difference is that the Fox letter has been

Alex Massie

Liam Fox Declares War on George Osborne

Liam Fox may well be correct to argue that the Ministry of Defence ought not to be subject to the same level of cuts as other government departments. It is odd to ring-fence NHS and International Development budgets but not the MoD even though there’s supposed to be a war on and all the rest of it. But let’s not pretend that a 10% cut in the MoD budget will necessarily, as the good doctor warns, “destroy” the “reputation and capital” the Tories have accumulated on defence issues for the very good reason that I’m not sure how much that capital has really been earned. Eighteen months ago Fox’s defence

David Miliband torpedos his brother’s big speech

Make no mistake: David Miliband has handled himself with a fair amount of dignity over the past few days. But now some of his frustration has simmered to the surface. ITV news cameras were trained on him earlier, and caught him leaning towards Harriet Harman as she applauded his brother’s claim that the Iraq War was “wrong” (see from two minutes into this video). According to the lipreaders, he says to her: “Why are clapping? You voted for it.” To which she replies, “I’m clapping because he’s leader and I’m supporting him.” The elder Miliband does not look impressed. To be honest – and although I didn’t support the Iraq

The eagle has landed

Shades of Jack Higgins in Whitehall this morning: the Prime Minister is convening the furtive sounding National Security Council, which will be presented with initial drafts of strategic defence review. As Richard Norton-Taylor puts it, the government has the opportunity to be radical and make this a ‘horse versus tank moment’, which is ironic given that the tank is poised to pass into obsolescence. In truth, the drama is some way off; the government has delayed decisions rather than take them. The nuclear deterrent is not part of the review – the politics and economics of Trident’s replacement proving too contentious for the precious coalition. Personnel cuts are being resisted

Politicking with the defence of the realm: advantage Labour

Is Trident’s renewal (either a like-for-like replacement or an alternative) within the scope of the Strategic Defence Review or not? The Lib Dem conference voted to include an alternative in the SDR. But, apparently, the cash-strapped coalition seeks to defer any decision (which will take renewal out of the review entirely). Earlier today, Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey intimated that he preferred deferral. As the video below suggests, Harvey’s objective is overwhelmingly political and couched in the language of opposition, not government: I don’t see this as a ‘hot potato’ for Labour. Cast in opportunism’s obvious garb, the Liberal Democrats are playing politics with national security and the Conservatives

What you need to know ahead of the Spending Review: making the right defence cuts

This is the latest in our series of posts on the Spending Review with Reform. A list of previous posts can be found here. The debate on the defence budget has become one of the most fiercely contested in recent days.  Over the weekend, editorials in both The Times and The Daily Telegraph agreed that defence was different because it wasn’t just a matter of cuts in the short term, it was also a matter of the UK’s strategic defence needs for years ahead.  Building on a report by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, they raised concerns that the Government is forcing through the Strategic Defence and Security

Andrew Mitchell recasts DfiD’s role

Andrew Mitchell’s speech today at the Royal College of Defence Studies confirms me in my view that Mitchell is one of the most impressive members of the current government. Mitchell, a former soldier, is moving the Department for International Development away from being the government wing of Oxfam and into a department that plays its part in delivering Britain’s foreign policy objectives. The main theme of his speech today was that DfID and the Ministry of Defence have to work more closely together in post-conflict environments. For instance, Mitchell has cut aid to middle income countries to redirect it to Afghanistan, where it can play a role in trying to

Deferring deterrent

We’ve been here before: Hacker’s ‘Grand Design’, a scheme to save money by cancelling Trident. The BBC reports that the coalition plots a similar ruse – the renewal of Trident is understood to have been deferred until after the next election. This is the best of bad a situation. Britain has an independent nuclear deterrent, albeit nearing obsolescence. Trident’s renewal Is a point of contention for the coalition – with the Tories for and the Lib Dems against. Better to delay than squabble. It makes financial and strategic sense too: the upfront renewal cost is £20bn, deferring is understood to cost somewhere in the region of £750m; the suicide bombing

A Whitehall cabal has Fox by the short and curlies

The Defence Select Committee delivers a familiar litany this morning. The Strategic Defence Review (a structural reform of Britain’s defence establishment) is being driven by savings not threat, consultation has been insufficient and cuts will be implemented at terrifying speed. The committee’s report concludes that the review will be to the detriment of Britain’s defence capabilities. Liam Fox’s summer battle with Downing Street has been overshadowed by IDS’ belligerence. In truth Fox has already lost. The National Security Council, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have put him in a strait-jacket and hijacked his review. The opportunity to reform procurement and phase out obsolete heavy merchandise and training, both of

Richard Dannatt’s Convenient Excuses

Let us concede that the MoD has been under-funded and over-stretched in recent years. Let us also concede that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair should have been aware of this and done something about it. But let’s also remember that the armed forces’ thirst for funds is essentially unquenchable. There is always something more, something newer, something bigger, something more expensive that they will say they need (that is, want) to do their job more effectively. That’s human nature but I suspect we could increase defence spending by 50% and still be treated to headlines complaining that the MoD needs more cash. And, look, it’s very convenient for General Sir

Liam Fox rows back on carrier sharing

For a while then, it looked as though Britain and France really were going to share aircraft carriers as a mesure d’austérité. But, today, Liam Fox seems to have put a block on the idea, describing it in Paris as “utterly unrealistic”. He did, though, add that we could pool some of our transport planes and helicopters with the French (which sounds like the military equivalent of hitching a lift, if we happen to be going in the same direction). And Fox’s spokesman has since said that there still might be “strategic co-operation across the maritime domain,” whatever that means. So some sort of link-up with the French should be