Uk politics

Fighting terror with the National Security Council

Since September 11, Britain has lost one war and is not winning another. But the question of why this is the case remains depressingly low down the agenda. There is remarkably little interest in why the “British army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq”, to quote Gordon Brown's and David Miliband’s favourite counter-insurgency expert, David Kilcullen. Today, the Tories launched their green paper on national security with speeches by Pauline Neville-Jones and David Cameron. The document is a mixed bag. But the Tories deserve credit for squarely facing up to the fact that Britain is now an “incubator of extremism and an exporter of terrorism”.

Burnham’s exocet misfires

The sword of truth is working overtime this afternoon. First, Andy Burnham writes a letter to David Cameron demanding answers about a £21,000 donation from John Nash, chairman of CareUK, to the office of, oh dear, Andrew Lansley. As Paul Waugh notes, a conflict of interest scandal looms here because CareUK is a private firm that makes £400m running GP surgeries and so forth for the NHS. But the truth will out as they say. It turns out that the Chairman of BUPA, Lord Leitch, wasted £5,000 on Gordon Brown’s unopposed leadership campaign. BUPA also does rather well out of the NHS. The indefatigable Waugh has dug up this gem from a speech Leitch made to the Lords: 'When we debate healthcare in the UK, all too often the focus is on the NHS alone.

Surprise, suprise, inflation’s on the rise

Oops! Britain's inflation is heading back to 4 per cent territory ­ as you'd expect with the Bank of England printing money and using the debt to finance government spending. If you create more money, you reduce the value of the money. Citi has done another brilliant research note, which it is putting online, laying out the implications. The punters are facing pay freezes, or settlements below 2 per cent. The cost of living is soaring. Result: misery. Here are the two graphs from Citi that spell it out. First, inflation (much affected by the VAT hike ­ in the same way that it was artificially reduced by the VAT cut. The resulting inflation was, of course, a great excuse to print money to finance Brown¹s fiscal debauchery.

The cost of saving the Army

We have led the magazine this week on coming Tory defence cuts, with a brilliant piece by Max Hastings. Look closely at the cover image (our second by Christian Adams) and you can see the guillotine blade will hit he RAF and Navy guys before the Army. This, Hastings argues, will be the effect of the Tory Strategic Defence Review. And even this will leave cuts of up to 20 per cent across the defence budget under the Tories. How could Cameron justify that, in this dangerous world of ours? David Cameron prepares the ground today with an important speech in Chatham House promising “one of the most radical departures in security policy we’ve seen in decades”. He goes on to say that “We need to do much better at stopping wars from ever starting.

The Tories may raid the aid budget to fund the military

The think tank, Chatham House, is the next venue for Cameron’s intermittent policy blitz. He will unveil his national security strategy, part of which, the Telegraph reports, will enable the government to raid the international development budget to fund military projects. ‘The Conservatives are committed to increasing the international development budget to meet a United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent of gross national product on aid. However, some Tories believe the party can honour that pledge by counting some spending done by the Ministry of Defence as development aid, since the work of the Armed Forces contributes to the development of countries like Afghanistan.

Google poses Obama a problem

Google’s decision to publicly confront the Chinese government over cyber attacks that have been hitting Google customers for the past year or so poses a difficult challenge for the Obama administration. The threat by Google to shut down its operations in China over the attacks is the first public acknowledgement by a major US corporation of the attacks which the US intelligence community has known about for almost a decade. The facts are that China has been waging a cyber war against the US government and companies that involve literally millions of attacks each day. Every major US corporation operating in China has been targeted, as have universities, research laboratories and other American companies that have intellectual property worth stealing.

Labour rebels muster to oppose reform of universal jurisdiction

Martin Bright and the Jewish Chronicle have the scoop that Labour will change the laws so that the power to issue arrest warrants under universal jurisdiction will pass from magistrates to the attorney general. What this means is that foreign politicians will not be arrested in this country for human rights abuses or war crimes without the say-so of the attorney general. The aim is to prevent a repeat of the situation where the Kadima leader and former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni could not visit the UK because of an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate. As I blogged yesterday, there is a Labour revolt brewing over this issue. Martin is hearing that up to 60 MPs might oppose this change so the government will have to rely on Tory support to get this through.

Cutting the Foreign Office

Spending cuts are coming – we all know that.  And if any party is serious about tackling the debt mountain, then pretty much every department will have to face the axe in some form or other.  But wherever that axe falls, you can expect loud protest in reponse.  Cut the RAF, and a former Chief of the RAF will pop up on TV and say that the cuts will endanger the nation. Rationalise the NHS, and the party responsible will be called heartless. Close the High Commission in Port Moresby, and the newspapers will be full of stories about the historical link between Britain and Papua New Guinea. So to make matters easier for a future foreign secretary, I have decided to have a first go at cutting British legations – i.e. its embassies, high commissions and consulates.

Labour put “guarantees” at the heart of their campaign

Does Gordon Brown look like the kind of guy who can keep a promise?  Because that's the main question which stands in the way of Labour's election strategy, if Andrew Grice's revelations in the Indpendent are anything to go by.  According to Grice, Labour are going to repeat their trick from 1997, and focus on five or so pledges – what Downing St now calls "guarantees" – during their election campaign.  It's not certain what they'll be yet, but Grice reports that Labour MPs are being instructed to concentrate on the following policies in their constituencies: -- Training or further education will be provided for all school-leavers and a job or training for jobless young adults. -- Suspected cancer patients will receive their diagnosis within one week.

Getting rid of the 0.7 percent aid target

A leader in yesterday’s Times concentrated on the Conservatives’ aid policy – and, in particular, their commitment (shared by the government and by plenty of developed nations) to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income on development assistance. There was much to like in the article, but it misses a few key points and trains too much fire at the Tories. The key points to make about the 0.7 percent commitment is that it is not based on any assessment of how much money is needed to achieve any defined set of objectives, and has not been revised since it was set forty years ago to take into account new trends – such as remittances from migrant workers, a rise in philanthropic giving, or the role of China and India.

Is there a Labour revolt brewing over any changes to universal jurisdiction?

Following the issuing of an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the government committed to looking at changes to the way that ‘universal jurisdiction’ is applied. David Miliband said that, "The Government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed in order to avoid this sort of situation arising again."   It is expected that the government will say what changes it intends to introduce next week. But judging by a debate on the Goldstone Report in Westminster Hall yesterday, there will be trouble from some Labour backbenchers over this. Five Labour MPs spoke out explicitly against any change and several more did so implicitly.

An energetic contest

At last, Cameron’s got it. He finally varied his tactics at PMQs today. Brown had no warning. That made the change doubly effective. First Cameron asked two easy-peasy questions about salt which the PM answered in his favourite strain of complacent pomposity. At one point I think I heard him say the nation’s supplies are so crucial that he may create a ‘salt cell’ in the middle of Britain so we never again run low on this vital condiment. Cameron then tossed aside the salt-pot and declined to ask a further question. Brown was unsettled by this. Realising the worst was yet to come, he waffled nervously through an answer to the next question from Dari Taylor (Lab, Stockton South) which focused on adoption and fostering.

What a difference 13 years make

Hearing Cameron joke, in PMQs, that Labour would airbrush Gordon Brown out of their election campaign, I couldn't help but think of Labour's 1997 manifesto.  As you can see to the left, it proudly featured Tony Blair's face (and not much else) on its cover.  So: what chances that Labour use Brown's face on the front of this year's manifesto?  And, more importantly, how long before someone makes a spoof version of the 1997 cover with an image of the current Labour leader?

PMQs is a contest again

Well, well another PMQs where Brown holds his own. He struggled for a long time after the election that never was, but in the past couple of months Brown has found some form. For the second week in a row, he had the best line: “He’s getting much redder than he is on his photograph”. Cameron did have one particularly effective moment when he asked Labour backbenchers whether they were putting Brown on their election literature. Only a handful did. In some ways this is all Westminster Village froth, few voters watch PMQs. But Cameron’s failure to win these clashes is bugging him. While Brown’s performances must be boosting his confidence before the three planned televised debates.

Memo to Brown: before boldness comes unity

Stop sniggering at the back.  I mean, all I asked was whether Gordon Brown can be bold and radical.  The way things are looking, he certainly needs to be – and, according to Philip Webster's insightful account of yesterday's three-hour Cabinet meeting, the PM has called on his colleagues to think up as many "eye-catching" proposals as possible for Labour's manifesto.  One "senior source" says that the party "should have the most radical manifesto yet put to the electorate." Which is, of course, much easier said than done – a fact highlighted by another passage in Webster's report, which reveals: "Mr Brown said there must be no repeat of last week’s botched coup.

Cuts and strategic dividing lines are indivisible

Daniel Finkelstein suggests an alternative analysis to that which prevails about the cabinet split. Labour’s aristocrats are divided not over style or substance, but the timing and extent of spending cuts. Finkelstein locates his argument in Labour’s repetitive history of poor financial management. Every Labour government runs out money and becomes riven by the prospect of retrenchment, a policy that is instinctively anathema to the left. The current episode dissents from the model in one regard: 'As Chancellor, Mr Brown spent money as if there would never be a bust — an absurd hypothesis. And now, as Prime Minister, he is blocking the measures necessary to put right this error.

Just like old times

As Paul Waugh notes, it was just like old times. Alastair Campbell told us all to grow up and trust in Tony. Naturally, controversy about the dossier was the product of over imaginative hacks, and Campbell asserted that the caveats of experts are nothing compared to a PM’s need to take major decisions. It was a sensational spin operation. Inspired by Uriah Heep, Campbell cast himself as the humblest of functionaries amid grand events. In doing so he was unremittingly arrogant, almost to the point of delusion.