Defence

After Cabinet tensions on the matter, David Cameron was trying to reassure those worried about further defence cuts while visiting Algeria. The Telegraph reports a senior government source saying the Prime Minister will honour his pledge to increase defence spending from 2015. The source told the newspaper: ‘The Prime Minister does not resile from anything he has said about defence.’ But rather less reassuringly, Philip Hammond decided to clarify that reassurance this morning. The Defence Secretary told Sky News that the PM was only referring to the equipment budget, and that he would continue to make the argument for maintaining the ‘resources that we need to deliver Future Force 2020’:

I’m sure, as James says, that the idea of some kind of Tory-UKIP non-aggression pact will not go away. But that’s because many Tory backbenchers are remarkably stupid. Proponents of a Tory-UKIP alliance ignore the stubborn fact that many voters – voters the Tories need if they are to win a majority – aren’t too keen on UKIP. There is no point adding one vote from the right if it costs you two from the middle, mainstream ground of British politics. Besides, the Tories are not every UKIP voter’s second-choice and, anyway, the real battle is for the Liberal Democrat vote. Be that as it may, it is UKIP’s insistence

When Nick Harvey was sacked in September’s reshuffle, leaving the Ministry of Defence without a Liberal Democrat minister, anti-nuclear campaigners and the SNP claimed the move put the future of the review into alternatives to the current Trident nuclear deterrent in doubt. To underline the review’s security, the party announced at the start of its autumn conference two weeks later that Danny Alexander would lead it instead. But though the review may be continuing, it appears rather insecure in one crucial respect, which is whether anyone will actually pay it the blindest bit of attention. Today Philip Hammond announced a further £350 million of funding for the design of a

Where better for rebellious Tory MPs to hide from the domineering whips than behind a giant ice sculpture of a fighter jet? Defence spending is on ice in Whitehall, and Saab Technologies took this literally at their 75th birthday bash at County Hall last night. With Saab looking to open new factories in Britain, plenty of MPs dropped by in search of some constituency investment.   Lobbyists Bell Pottinger, who have had what might be described as a choppy year, are back with a bang having organised the event. But were uplighters and ice bars (straight out of a Bond film) the best way to make a room full of

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has the unenviable task today of announcing a cull of army units as the force is cut from 102,000 to 82,000. The Army 2020 review, the launch of which was delayed beyond Armed Forces Day last weekend, also doubles the number of reservists to 30,000. This leaves it half the size it was during the Cold War era, and the smallest since the Boer War. This is obviously deeply unpleasant for those troops whose units are being abolished. It is also uncomfortable for the Tories, who have long enjoyed the reputation of being the party of the armed forces. Tim Montgomerie tweeted this morning: ‘Biggest tax

It is Armed Forces Day and army morale is low – according to the Telegraph at least. The prospect of a 20 per cent cut in personnel is provoking anger in the ranks, which the civilian can perceive dimly by looking at the posts left on the Army Rumour Service. Rumours of amalgamation and abolition have been circulating for some time in the run up to next week’s announcement. The Telegraph reports that historic English regiments are going to be remoulded, especially those that rely on foreign recruits (usually from the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands). Two of the so-called ‘Super Regiments’, the Yorkshire Regiment and the Rifles, are set lose

Today’s papers carry news that British nuclear submarines are going to be replaced: a strong indication that the government will replace Trident with a like-for-like deterrent in 2016, contrary to the wishes of the Liberal Democrats. Philip Hammond appeared on the Sunday Politics earlier today to answer questions from Andrew Neil on Trident and manpower cuts to the army. Hammond said that the Trident decision has not been taken. The government is, he said, simply ensuring that Britain can implement whatever decision is taken. On army cuts, he said, ‘We [Britain] will still be able to make a major contribution to a cross-alliance operation.’ The rum suggestion being that Britain’s

Generally speaking, Philip Hammond is one of the Cabinet’s quieter members; a sort of human calculator designed to run a department efficiently and with the minimum of fuss. Which is why his interview with the Sunday Times this morning (£) is so eye-catching. There’s very little that’s understated about it at all. ConservativeHome’s Matthew Barrett has already put together a useful summary of the main points, so suffice to say that Hammond is dismissive about both Lords reform… ‘He believes the upper chamber “works rather well” as it is and that voters are “probably largely indifferent” on the subject.’ …and gay marriage: ‘He believes gay marriage is too controversial for

As Pete says, Liam Fox’s piece this morning calling for more supply-side reform is broadly helpful to the Chancellor and has been written with his approval. Strikingly, the former defence secretary — who still has a constituency on the right of the party — goes out of his way to back one of the most contentious Osborne decisions, increasing the British contribution to the IMF. But there is one line in the article that carries with it not the air of helpful advice but menace: ‘It must be understood that further reductions in budgets for security, leaving overseas aid untouched, would be met with fury by most Conservatives.’ This is

Remember when Jim Murphy spoke about defence cuts last month? It was not only a smart refinement of Labour’s fiscal position, but also a preview for the defence review that they’re conducting as an alternative to the government’s SDSR. Well, that review was officially launched this morning, and I was in the audience on reporting duty. Here’s a quartet of quick observations that I bashed out on my phone: 1) Cuts, cuts, cuts. There was, it is true, a greater emphasis on the ‘constrained fiscal circumstances’ in Murphy’s opening remarks than there is the consultation paper that Labour released today. But that emphasis was still striking in itself. Murphy, for