Defence

Boulter vs Fox

The Liam Fox imbroglio has just started to make more sense. The original story was broken by The Guardian (of whom more later) and the main source appears to have been one Harvey Boulter, an American mogul whom Fox fatally agreed to meet in June at the suggestion of his friend Adam Werrity. It was the kind of meeting that a civil servant would never have arranged. Boulter was, to use a political term, toxic. He was being sued for blackmail by 3M, in a court case being fought in London, and after landing this meeting with the UK Defence Secretary he tried to use it as ammo. According to

James Forsyth

Liam Fox’s apology

In a bid to save his Cabinet career, Liam Fox has just issued a statement, which he also read to the cameras, apologising for allowing ‘distinctions to be blurred between my professional responsibilities and my personal loyalties to a friend’. The defence secretary goes on to accept that he should have ensured that officials were present at meetings between him and Adam Werritty at which ‘defence and security related issues were rasied.’ He says that he has apologised to the Prime Minister for the Dubai meeting, at which Fox saw a commercial supplier with no official present. Apparently, the MoD permanent secretary will now be putting in place new procedures

Fox would lead anti-coalition Tories

So far, the Prime Minister seems to be playing down any potential fallout from the crisis dogging Liam Fox. No 10 seems to be saying “if the Defence Secretary goes, it won’t be such a big issue”. Much remains to be seen about the Defence Secretary’s career – and he may survive the crisis that is currently engulfing him. But it looks increasingly hard for him. Evidence is emerging daily that Adam Werritty was somehow a member of the Defence Secretary’s team, closer to Fox even than junior ministers. And there may be more trips to be uncovered and more meetings that he joined. He was, for example, spotted at

Fox on a knife edge

Another deluge of awkward news stories for Liam Fox this morning, with almost every paper providing new details for our consideration. The Observer has video footage and emails which suggest that Adam Werritty was indeed a close participant in the Defence Secretary’s meetings with foreign dignitaries and businessmen. The Sunday Telegraph quotes Fox as saying that “I have absolutely no fear of complete transparency in these matters,” but adds a warning from Whitehall sources that he “could be gone within days”. And, perhaps most concerning of all, a senior MoD type tells the Independent on Sunday that “[Werritty] appears to have been involved in arms contracts all over the place”.

How safe is Fox?

This weekend’s gossip is all about Liam Fox and his ministerial future. Ministers and journalists are calling each other, weighing the evidence, trying to find out the latest gossip. Nobody should underestimate the Defence Secretary’s fight — he is an alumni of the school of hard knocks. But two things go against him. First, having annoyed many colleagues — not least in No 10 — not everyone is rushing to his defence, as they did during the suspicions that dogged William Hague. No.10 has now given him its “full backing,” but, as history shows, that can mean anything from support to sayonara. David Cameron would prefer not to reshuffle his

The problem with using soldiers to advance women’s rights

Mariella Frostrup, fresh from interviewing Nick Clegg in Cheltenham, writes about women’s rights in Afghanistan in The Times (£). Her pithily-titled piece — “Women’s rights in, before troops out” — makes the case that British forces cannot withdraw from, and the government should give no development assistance to, a country where the plight of women is so terrible and declining. It is hard not to sympathise with Frostrup’s point. During my own time in Kabul I witnessed plenty of examples of female subjugation, and was glad the West was present to help address some of these problems. Western policymakers were, at the time, eager to portray the entire mission as

Fox hunt

This is one Fox who doesn’t have the benefit of a hole to bolt into. He is on open ground, and exposed even more this morning by fresh revelations surrounding his relationship with Andrew Werritty. A business card and a self-aggradising title, that certainly smelt of impropriety. But now we’re talking about sensitive business meetings arranged by Werritty, and attended by both him and Fox. It’s a whole different level of concern. And it leaves Fox in a most difficult position. The FT has the full story, but basically Werritty arranged for Fox to meet a group of businessmen in Dubai looking to transfer “communications technology” to the Libyan rebels.

Fox under pressure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOskAPgL9c The Westminster Fox-hounds think they have picked up the scent this morning. Enemies of the Defence Secretary, of whom there are many, are convinced that they’ll be able to bring him to ground over his links to Adam Werrity. Werrity was Fox’s best man and is a good friend of the Defence Secretary. But the problems stem from the fact that Werrity, who holds no official position, was dishing out cards saying he was an “adviser” to Fox, arranging meetings for him and attending diplomatically important events with the Defence Secretary. Fox has tried to kill off this story by asking the permanent secretary to investigate whether he has

Liam Fox plays his hits

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

Labour and the forces

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

Gaddafi in Tripoli as the <em>entente cordiale </em>flourishes

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

An American context for UK defence cuts

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

Surprise! Another Tory Defence Shambles

First things first: defence policy is difficult. Even more than is generally the case in other departments every decision made at the MoD is a question of trade-offs. This is true of all aspects of the brief: policy, personnel, procurement and so on. If you do this you can’t do that and so on. Add the timescales involved and the realities of inter-service rivalry plus some unhelpful sniping from the Treasury and you can see why the MoD can become pretty dysfunctional pretty damn quickly. Nevertheless… Is anyone impressed by Tory defence policy? No, I didn’t think so. Neither the Prime Minister nor his Chancellor appear to have much interest

Decisions that may come to determine the Coalition’s stewardship of defence

The House of Commons Defence Committee moves at a stately pace. Two weeks back, it gave us its considered view on the British military campaign in southern Afghanistan – a report which might have been quite useful a couple of years ago. Today it has published its verdict on October’s National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review – nine months after their launch, with many of the decisions now irreversible, and with MPs and much of the media on holiday. The headline findings are not surprising, but make for bracing reading nonetheless. They are summarised on the front page of the Telegraph: the SDSR was a rushed exercise,

The shifting sands of public opinion on Libya

All of the buccaneering rhetoric has been sucked from the Libyan conflict this week, replaced with words of concession, compromise and caution. A few days ago, it was the news that — contrary to what they might previously have said — the government is prepared to let Gaddafi remain in the country after all. Today, William Hague deploys the same line in an interview with the Times (£), in which he also warns that there are “a lot of problems and even convulsions” to come in northern Africa. As it happens, the depressed mood of our foreign-policymakers reflects the tide of public opinion. Here, for CoffeeHousers’ benefit, are a couple

Tory Defence Meltdown

How many Tory MPs came into parliament  – even this parliament – thinking they’d be asked to support a Tory-led plan to cut the army by 20%? How many Tory voters think this is where the public spending axe should fall? Precious few, I reckon. And yet, remarkably, this is what Liam Fox is planning. As I’ve noted before Fox is hoist upon his own petard having rashly promised 25% savings without (of course!) there being any impact on “frontline troops”. Now there will be rather fewer frontline troops and Liam Fox appears to have been kippered by the Treasury. Boosting the Reserve capability is a worthy goal, for sure,

Missing the target

It has been a mixed week for Parliamentary Select Committees: they have regained some of their bite, but recent events have also served to remind us of their supine performances in the past. Yesterday it was the turn of the Defence Committee to seek our attention, briefing their latest report on the British military campaign in Helmand to the Sunday Telegraph. Under the headline ‘British Force Was Too Weak to Defeat Taliban’, we read of ‘a devastating report’ which is ‘deeply critical of senior commanders and government ministers’. But, the Committee have got some fairly crucial things wrong. They conclude that the task force was ‘capped at 3,150 for financial

Will the defence budget rise, fall or stay constant post-2015?

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 military’s ECHR concerns

Earlier this week, there was a European Court of Human Rights ruling that is worth dwelling on. To summarise: the Court held that the UK’s human rights obligations apply to its acts in Iraq, and that the UK had violated the European Convention on Human Rights in its failure to adequately investigate the killing of five Iraqi civilians by its forces there. The judgment overturns a House of Lords majority ruling four years ago that there was no UK human rights jurisdiction regarding the deaths. The obligation on soldiers to protect the vulnerable during military operations is not, of course, new. It underlies the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (as well

Whitehall’s monolith faces reform

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