Defence

The party faithful (and lobbyists) have their favourites. The conference hall rose in applause when Liam Fox sat down, having delivered his speech. This might have been a tricky engagement for Fox, who is overseeing substantial cuts to the defence budget, which might, conceivably, have angered activists. He has also been under pressure from Jim Murphy, who is described by some in government as the opposition’s ablest shadow minister. Fox, however, prevailed by giving a true blue speech aimed squarely at the audience in the hall.  The gruelling strategic defence review was necessary, he said, because deficits threaten national security – a line he’s used before. But, thanks to his management, Britain would emerge

The main event at the Labour conference this morning has been a long debate on Britain’s place in the world, featuring Douglas Alexander, Harriet Harman and Jim Murphy – shadow foreign secretary, shadow DfID secretary and shadow defence secretary respectively. The debate touched on liberal intervention, soft power and human rights; there was even a video message from Aung San Suu Kyi. But Murphy’s extended homily on the military covenant was the centre piece of the discussion. Murphy revealed a plan to allow servicemen to join the Labour party for just £1 and he also pledged to defend the pensions of retired servicemen and their widows from cuts, saying that reducing payments was

The imminent success of the Libya intervention was, to a remarkable degree, down to Anglo-French cooperation. Though the media has been keen to play up, and even conjure up, rifts and disagreements between Paris and London — and the hyper-active Nicolas Sarkozy can’t help but act first and coordinate later — the fact is that the two states worked closer and better together than they have done for years. Probably not since the Suez operation have the British and French militaries cooperated so closely. But the intervention, even if it is coming to a (deadly and protracted) end did show up a number of deficiencies in materiel and command and

Yesterday’s defence select committee report provoked stern critiques of the government’s defence policy from Alex Massie and Matt Cavanagh. It is hard to dissent from Matt’s view that Cameron, Fox and Osborne will be defined to some extent by how they handle the defence brief, which, as Alex points out, also proved to be Gordon Brown’s undoing.  It is also clear, as both Matt and Alex say, that the SDSR suggests that Britain is entering a period of ‘strategic shrinkage’, in terms of the size of the defence establishment at any rate. A political squall has erupted over this, but it’s worth pointing out that western countries are narrowing their military

As British helicopters pound away at Libyan targets, another battle is being waged inside the Ministry of Defence’s fortress-like building. The fight is over the post-2015 budget, and it is an arduous one. After the uniform-creasing settlement the MoD got in the Spending Review last year, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on 19th Oct 2010 that while the precise budgets beyond 2015 would be agreed in future reviews, his “own strong view” was that the MoD would see “year-on-year real-term growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015.” So far so good — the MoD budget may have to fall now, in line with

The Ministry of Defence is one of Whitehall’s largest and most dysfunctional departments; and it has long resisted effective reform. However, the parlous public finances dictate that reform take place. 8 per cent Budget cuts have to be delivered, while attempting to bring a £36bn black hole under control. Strategic retrenchment aside, efficiency is Liam Fox’s most potent weapon. To that end, Lord Levene has conducted an examination into departmental structures. Levene reports that the MoD’s maze of committees and sub-committees should be ripped-up to improve decision making and save money (and perhaps one of the ministry’s five ministers of state). ‘Sound financial management,’ he says ‘must be at the

After stating the obvious at PMQs this week — that the Falklands would remain sovereign British territory as long as they want to be — David Cameron has come under heavy fire from the Argentine President, Cristina Kirchner. As today’s papers report, she yesterday described our PM as “arrogant,” and said his comments were an “expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity”. But there is nothing new in the British position, which has always been that there can be no negotiations over sovereignty unless and until such a time as the Falkland Islanders so wish. The issue has recently heated up after the United States sided with Argentina in demanding