Defence

As Pete wrote this morning, the plan to share aircraft carriers with France is controversial. It seems that concerns over sovereignty, job losses and differing strategic interests reduce to the one issue that no government has addressed: the protectionist system of defence procurement, which hampers the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. Typically forthright, Douglas Carswell identifies the problem: ‘Seems like protectionist defence procurement isn’t quite giving us sovereign capability the way we were promised, eh? Had we ordered much of the new carriers to be built overseas, we could have had them at a fraction of the £5 billion cost. But the asinine logic of the Defence Industrial Strategy

Two spitfires have just flown over our offices at The Spectator, to commemorate the Battle of Britain. The aircraft are deservedly iconic, but it’s a bit of shame that over the years they’ve eclipsed the de Havilland Mosquito in the public memory. They were developed too late for the Battle itself, but were incredible aircraft when they were deployed. And, crucially, privately-developed. In 1937, the British had only 46 bombers where the Germans had about 800 – and the speed at which the RAF developed was extraordinary. The battle of Britain exposed the weaknesses in the Luftwaffe – and Nazi procurement policy. Hitler relied on a vast, unwieldy bureaucracy to

Iain Martin reports that IDS has secured a £3bn fund to meet the upfront costs of his benefit reform. ‘To help ensure that IDS can make the cuts which unlock his funds for welfare reform, I am informed that Number 10 and the Treasury now accept that some of the commitments made by David Cameron before polling day to protect specific benefits will have to be revisited and potentially watered down. In return, IDS is being urged by colleagues to accept that he cannot behave like a bull in a china shop. Says one: “He has been immersed in welfare reform for years. But he can’t present his solutions as

A curious, intermediate kind of speech from Liam Fox this morning. The general emphasis on streamlining the armed forces, and shifting power away from Whitehall and towards the military, was welcome. But we’re going to have to wait for a trio of reviews before we know what that will look like in practice: the Spending Review, the Strategic Defence Review and a review by the new Defence Reform Unit, chaired by Lord Levene. As Douglas Carswell points out, Levene has fought for choice and competition in defence procurement before now – so we have an idea of where his review will head – but, for the time being, it’s still

With today being the 65th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, I thought I’d excavate The Spectator’s leading article from the time:    A Crisis of Civilisation, The Spectator, 10 August, 1945 In Mr Churchill’s statement about the atomic bomb issued by Mr Attlee on Sunday exultation at having anticipated the enemy gave way to awe. Mr Churchill spoke of this “revelation of the secrets of Nature” as one “long mercifully withheld from man.” So terrific a power of destruction is now known to be in the hands of the Allies that in retrospect we can see that the race between the scientists threatened to be the decisive factor in

Domestically speaking, it has been an encouraging week from the coalition. Internationally speaking, less so. And today we see the first real rush of fallout from David Cameron’s appearance on the world stage, as the Pakistani intelligence agency cancels a visit to London, “in reaction to the comments made by the British Prime Minister against Pakistan.” It’s not the kind of development that we should exaggerate –after all, it still looks likely that President Zardari will visit Cameron next week, even if officials in Pakistan have been wavering on that front. But we shouldn’t underestimate it either. The main reason to worry is, largely, one of personality. The Times runs

What do we have here, then? Another public disagreement between Downing Street and Liam Fox? Certainly looks that way, as George Osborne assures an interviewer in India that the entire cost of Trident should be borne by the Ministry of Defence’s budget. As the Telegraph reminds us, Fox suggests that the running costs of Trident should be part of the MoD’s responsibilities (as they are currently), but the approximate £20 billion capital cost of renewing the nuclear deterrent should be paid for by central government. In his words, on Marr a couple of weeks ago: “To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are