Philip hammond

Sometimes I wish Conservative cabinet ministers would couch their arguments in favour of the Union in terms of principle, not process or drab accountancy. Philip Hammond, the unimpressive Secretary of State for Defence, is the latest minister to warn that some of the perfectly solvable problems that are an inescapable feature of unwinding the United Kingdom are in fact so intractable that it’s a fool’s mission to even think about resolving them. Mr Hammond’s interview with the Daily Telegraph today is but the latest example of this question-begging. He appears to believe that Scottish independence is an idea so obviously ridiculous that it effectively refutes itself without the need for

On The Sunday Politics today, Vince Cable told Andrew Neil that he disliked ring fencing particular departments. But he accepted that the NHS and DFID budgets would remain protected for the rest of this parliament Cable, who joked that he was being fingered as a shop steward of the National Union of Ministers, made clear that he opposed any further welfare cuts. When asked about Philip Hammond’s comments that welfare should be cut not defence, Cable responded by saying that the Ministry of Defence should scrap Trident. Interestingly, Cable conceded that capital spending was still too low and that he would push for further increases in it in the Budget.

The government’s position on defence spending is, to put it politely, confused. After the completion of the SDSR and the defence spending settlement, there was an expectation that the military budget would begin to rise again in real terms from 2015. There has long been talk in Whitehall that David Cameron assured senior military figures that this would be the case and, as James Kirkup notes, he told the Commons that he believed that this would happen. So, this morning when we woke to the news from the Prime Minister’s plane that the defence budget would rise in 2015-16, it seemed that Cameron had imposed his will on the bureaucracy.

The Sunday shows have been dominated today by the aftermath of George Entwistle’s resignation. But Phillip Hammond gave a significant and combative interview on the Sunday Politics. Pressed by Andrew Neil on Michael Portillo’s criticisms of renewing Trident, Hammond dismissed them with the line that the former Defence Secretary ‘doesn’t have access to the information that would allow him to make that judgement on a sound basis.’ He then went on to argue that Trident is a necessary insurance policy in a world that will see an ‘an arms race in the Middle East’ if Iran does get the bomb. Iran, and the dangers it poses, was also Hammond’s justification

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

Aside from the party conferences, two big set piece events are looming large in Downing Street’s thinking: the coalition’s mid-term review and the autumn statement. Both of these are expected to be heavy on economic measures as the coalition tries to get growth going again in the face of the headwinds coming off the continent. I understand that extra runways at Stansted are being considered in an attempt to boost aviation capacity in the south east. David Cameron is also trying to boost the enterprise agenda of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite Cabinet minister Lord Young. He brought forward a meeting on it scheduled for September 5th to Thursday last week. He’s

David Cameron’s decision to convene an inner Cabinet of seven Tories to advise him is a sensible move. As I say in the Mail on Sunday, calling this group together shows that Cameron knows he needs help handling his party. I understand that it meets regularly with a particular emphasis on the Conservative party side of coalition management. One Cabinet minister told me recently that the Prime Minister spends more time on coalition management than any other subject. To date, this has too often been at the expense of party management. Inevitably, if you spend most of the time thinking about what the Liberal Democrats will accept you begin to

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

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

A sombre and muted PMQs this week. Dame Joan Ruddock raised the issue of benefits and asked David Cameron if he was proud of his new reforms. Tory backbenchers cheered on the PM’s behalf. ‘Then would he look me in the eye,’ Dame Joan went on, ‘and tell me he’s proud to have removed all disability payments from a 10-year-old with cerebral palsy.’ This tactic — the Super-Vulnerable Voter ploy — is highly manipulative and highly reliable. But Dame Joan had forgotten something which Mr Cameron is unlikely to forget. Explaining his reform of the Disability Living Allowance he glared angrily at her. ‘As someone who has had a child

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz continues to intensify, with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond showing that, like his predecessor, he is not shy of pushing back when he gets a shove. Today he warned Iran that any attempt to block the straits, a key shipping lane, would be ‘illegal and unsuccessful’, and would be countered militarily if necessary.     In truth, any conflict over the straits would be very costly for both sides. Iran is likely to have the capacity to strike, in a shock-and-awe attack, at US and British bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman. But this would be a dramatic escalation of events which would —