Philip hammond

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was in the Commons this afternoon, discussing, among other things, the spate of attacks on Shia Muslims in Afghanistan. At least 59 people have been killed in sectarian atrocities over the last week or so, a chilling a new pattern of violence as Western powers begin to contemplate withdrawal. Hammond denied that there is a link between the forthcoming transition and these attacks. Instead a ‘new front’ is opening in Afghanistan. What is this new front? Hammond was vague, but Lahore-based journalist Ahmed Rashid explains, in tomorrow’s edition of the Spectator, that the sectarian attacks are the hallmark of a now desperate al-Qaeda. As happened in

Dave Wooding rightly upbraids one Labour MP, Alex Cunningham, for trying to make political capital out of the fact that MPs on the government benches were not wearing poppies at PMQs yesterday. In another sign of how politicised our symbol of rememberance has become, the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has written to his Cabinet colleagues providing guidance on when it is appropriate to start wearing a poppy. The note informed ministers that while there was no definitive view on when it was appropriate to start wearing one, that Thursday from noon would be a good time as that would coincide with the launch of the Royal British Legion’s campaign. Obviously,

A day into his new job, Phillip Hammond would be excused for sitting back and wondering what he has let himself in for. The job of defence secretary is every Tory’s dream, and the businessman-turned-politician is well-placed to excel in it. But the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence face a number of challenges that would test even history’s greatest defence and war secretaries. Six challenges stand out: 1) To reshape the military’s structures, systems and capabilities. This should be done according to the decisions taken in the SDSR to place defence on a surer financial footing. Much of what needs to be done has been set in train,

It is as you’d think: a sea of news coverage and commentary about Liam Fox’s departure. Some of its currents are merciless, such as the Mirror’s front cover. Some are more circumspect, such as an excellent pair of articles by The Spectator’s own Matthew Parris (£) and Charles Moore. But, on the whole, there is a strange absence of finality about this story. A Defence Secretary has resigned – and rightly so, I think – but we still cannot be completely sure why. Maybe it is just the “appearance of impropreity,” as Philip Stephens puts it, that killed this Fox. Or maybe there is something more poisonous waiting to emerge

It’s official: Philip Hammond is the new Defence Secretary and it’s a wise choice. The tough work: making the cuts, axing Nimrod, leaving the east coast undefended etc.: has been done. I doubt Cameron would have been able to get that little lot past his party as easily had it not been done by Liam Fox. Now, the task is implementation. It requires mastery of detail and a sharp eye for financial irregularities, and Philip Hammond is the man for that. As Osborne’s number two in Opposition, he will, like Des Browne, approach defence from the perspective of fiscal management. The future of Trident is less assured: Hammond will not

The Telegraph’s James Kirkup has already highlighted Boris’s suggestion, yesterday, that the coalition is being “lily-livered” over strike laws. But, as there has been no let up in the Mayor’s rhetoric today, we really ought to mention it here too. “The government needs to get a move on,” is how he put it this morning, in reference to the sort of legislation that might hinder the RMT and their persistent Tube strikes. Boris’s latest broadsides against the coalition are all the more notable because he and Cameron were united, arm in arm, against the unions only a few months ago. In a joint piece for the Sun in January, they

By his own admission, to today’s Mail, David Cameron is not afraid of unpopularity. On hearing this, a few quizzical grins may break across his critics’ faces, but, undeniably, the government’s fate was cast this week: either its fiscal plan will work or it won’t. Cameron is unperturbed because he is sure that he is right – not only in his political and economic judgement, but also in terms of morality. It is ‘right’ that everyone contributes, ‘right’ that the affluent forgo some state-awarded privileges, ‘right’ that those who have scrounged are made to toil, ‘right’ that those who were subsumed by welfare dependency are freed, ‘right’ that Britain honour its pledge

You have a computer for years. It gets gummed up with old applications, many of which can’t do the job you need them for today. It hogs far too much memory, and – when it doesn’t freeze entirely – it runs painfully slowly. That’s Britain’s government: it is clogged with quangos and schemes and even whole departments that eat up vast quantities of tax and deliver very little output. So it’s time to re-boot government. Back up the useful bits, bin the rest, group your files more rationally, and re-start. Which seems to be what Britain’s coalition government now promises: but will they succeed? Several countries have been through the

Philip Hammond was quietly brilliant as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and it would have been a travesty if he was excluded from the Cabinet. Having avoided assuming the mantle of ‘the most hated man in England’, Hammond has been handed the poisoned Transport brief. A popular saying about frying and pans and fires comes to mind as he will tasked with renewing Britain’s congested roads, baleful airports and Victorian railways amid austerity. Still, he could have been sent to Northern Ireland. Hammond’s first announcement has been to confirm George Osborne’s pledge that the £16bn Crossrail project will not be cut. “It’s happening, it’s being built, spades are in

For the past few years, the Tory task has been to look like a government-in-waiting. Now, with the election only a matter of days away, David Cameron has dialled that process up to eleven. In interviews with the Sunday Times and Andrew Marr today, the Tory leader concentrates firmly on the nuts and bolts of government. The content of the Queen’s speech, the depth of Tory cuts, the possibility of coalition – all get name-checked and cross-referenced. There’s much in there to encourage Tory supporters. Indeed, CoffeeHousers have been clamouring for one of Cameron’s proposals: a “Great Repeal Act,” which would “scrap ID cards, home information packs and dozens of

Philip Hammond gave the first presentation at this Big Society event, and he admitted something that the Tories don’t admit too often.  First, he attacked Gordon Brown for doubling the national debt. And then he added that, “unfortunately, we’re on a trajectory where the national debt will double again over the next few years.” Hammond’s right to highlight this. The danger for a Tory government is that their attacks on Brown in 2010 could look hypocritical in 2015, when they would have presided over rising debt as well. The key thing is to pin the blame for this situation on Brown, and ask whether he can be trusted to keep

Bernard Gray, a member of the Tories’ Public Service Productivity Advisory Committee, explains why he has joined forces with the Tories. He writes in today’s Times: ‘From my experience of working in and with the Ministry of Defence over the past decade I know how strong such vested interests are and how much commitment is required to overcome resistance to change. It will take acts of extraordinary political will to take on these entrenched interests. The Shadow Treasury team, George Osborne and Philip Hammond, have persuaded me that they are have the determination, drive and belief in change to tackle this issue at this critical time. That’s why I’ve been