Defence Dissembling

At PMQ yesterday, 21 January 2015, Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP) asked the perfectly straightforward question to which, one might suppose, a perfectly straightforward answer might be forthcoming?

"Will he commit to maintaining defence spending at 2% of DGP to ensure that our commitments to our NATO allies are met and that our country is secure and strong at home and abroad?"

The Prime Minister replied:

"We are one of the few NATO countries that do achieve 2% of spending on defence, and because of that, we will see, in the coming months and years, a defence equipment programme that is second to none in Europe: two aircraft carriers, new joint strike fighters, hunter killer submarines and new frigates.  We can see a strong defence industry, supported by our commitment that the defence equipment programme specifically should be protected."

Well Prime Minister, we may well be "one of the few NATO countries "spending 2% of GPP" but excluding the US (4.4%) only Greece, Estonia are scraping up to the mark.  A defence equipment programme, "second to none in Europe" is similarly meaningless when major allied programmes are examined.  In any case, there is no point in maintaining a defence equipment programme if we do not also maintain the manpower and skills to deploy it.  Two new aircraft carriers but without enough aircraft (joint strike fighters) to man them to say nothing of the escorts and submarines to provide fleet protection and support ships to maintain their oceanic presence.  Above all, no mention of an Maritime Patrol Aircraft to replace the Nimrod and which required us to borrow support from allies when Russian submarines infiltrated our waters.  Perhaps the Prime Minister should have paid greater attention to the lecture on "global power projection" during his time in the CCF?

No mention of Trident in this exchange but we must remember that there is absolutely no point in having a nuclear deterrent if we do not have the range of complementary conventional forces to ensure a proportional response to any future threat.  Or maybe that's the point?

Clegg Clings to Straws

I don't think Nick Clegg understands, when he uses the analogy in reference to intelligence gathering, quite the complexity of searching for needles in haystacks.  If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, in order to be certain of finding the needle, it would be necessary to examine all the pieces of straw.  In other words, if one is looking for someone who is intent on causing our people harm, we must examine all the evidence available in order to find and stop them.  This is inescapable and, however incompatible with utopian notions of privacy, entirely necessary.  Clegg is wrong again in stating that by examining all sources of evidence there is presumption of guilt of the whole population.  His example, "Mrs Miggins visiting the supermarket" may, indeed prove irrelevant but maybe, just maybe, Mrs Miggins is not all she seems!  Who is going to decide that Mrs Miggins must not be examined and who will be accountable for such decisions?  Is Mr Clegg suggesting that we only spy on some of our people but not on others? Just which areas are on or off limits and who will take responsibility for defining them. Not Mr Clegg, I bet!

Clearly Mr Clegg feels there are votes to be won by championing the right to privacy but he may care to reflect upon the surge in popularity by President Hollande following his tough reaction to the outrages in France and conclude that there may be more votes in promising to keep people as safe as possible in the first place.  However, once he sees which way the public mood is drifting, I feel sure he will have no difficulty in adjusting his stance accordingly!

At times of national peril like this we must trust the governance of oversight arrangements to ensure proportionality and confidentiality.  If GCHQ make the case for additional powers who are amateurs like us to disagree?  Finally, let us remember that capability (to collect intelligence) does not mean that all intelligence is, necessarily, collected!

Election Debates

The debate about the election debates is in full swing and my attention was caught by two articles in the Telegraph over the weekend.  On Saturday, Charles Moore applauded David Cameron's bravery in resisting the media clamour and pointed out that "the real question is, what makes us think that the demands of the broadcasters are the same as the rights of the voters?"  Plausible so far but Janet Daley on Sunday had a different angle.  She acknowledged that both main party leaders were running away from public debates because of the risk averse shackles of their respective party machines - pretty much an extension of Charles Moore's point.  However, Janet Daley went further by suggesting that the real reason for reticence is that "neither of them has a clear enough idea of what his party stands for to feel confident that he can state with forthright conviction - in the face of verbal assault from any direction - the straightforward truths to which he is committed." Quite so and if there are no arguments to pursue, what on earth is the point of a TV debate?

A New Year Message

Although the pre-election tit-for-tat is now well under way, The Selby & Ainsty with Elmet and Rothwell CPF group met in December to put together our five key points for the election campaign.  This is what we said to our respective MPs in a New Year message:

"This New Year's greeting records the principle concerns of our group and those we hope to see in a manifesto which looks to the long-term good of the country rather than short-term electoral advantage.  We recognise and expect that our views will not, necessarily, coincide with those at Party HQ who, it seems to us, are constantly engaged in scrutinising every poll and survey for any nuance of factional advantage.  We offer, instead, an authentic Conservative voice which we believe provides the bedrock of the support in your constituency. 

Our fear is that, in order to gain the maximum number of seats next May, the manifesto may compromise what needs to be done - in essence achieving a smaller state that lives within its means.  Whilst hoping for the best, a hung parliament and the political paralysis that would follow seems a possibility.  In these circumstances, it seems to us, it will be vital for Conservatives to hold their nerve and be consistent in our electoral message. Voters will see straight through a party who promises one thing at the election in May 2015 and then another when forced to compromise by coalition or face the electorate again at a re-run (if constitutionally possible).

We have selected 5 issues that concern us most:

• Firstly, we need to deal with the deficit and live within our means. We should not shirk from honesty about how this could be achieved.

•  Secondly, we need to show that we have a practicable long term plan to deal with the issue of immigration. A population growth plan showing what level and quality of immigration the UK economy and culture will be able to absorb, together with a credible plan to control our borders.

•  Thirdly, we must show that defence of the United Kingdom, a government's primary responsibility, is in safe hands. A commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence, funded from the aid budget if necessary.

•  Fourthly, we must send a clear statement of intent about the forthcoming negotiations with the EU.  What, exactly, are we setting out to achieve and how shall we measure success or failure.  It is vital that the electorate understand the ground-rules before the debate commences.

•  Finally, we are very worried that the genie is out of the bottle as far as regional empowerment is concerned. We have said before that a clear statement on English Votes for English Laws, separate from the non sequitur of regional empowerment, is a sure-fire vote winner.  In the timescale, it is inconceivable that a cross-party consensus could be achieved and this should be recognised in the manifesto."