Defence

Last summer, parliament was recalled after President Assad’s forces used chemical weapons in Syria. David Cameron wanted the Commons to support air strikes against the Syrian regime in response. But the Commons refused, defeating the government motion. Whatever you thought of the decision, it was a bold move by MPs. They had demonstrated that even on matters of war and peace, the traditional preserves of the executive, they were prepared to stand athwart the Prime Minister. The decision changed Western foreign policy, but not perceptions of parliament. Almost a year on, the public are still cynical about the institution and MPs remain deeply unsure of the worth of what they

Rory Stewart, the colourful and interesting Tory MP, has been elected as chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Stewart is a formidable appointment. He is knowledgeable on defence and foreign policy matters: having served as a diplomat in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written widely of his experience and insights, and has taught related subjects at Harvard University. He is well-regarded by serving soldiers, many of whom speak highly of his views on counter-insurgency and the work of his charity Turquoise Mountain Foundation. He has, however, taken his head ‘out of the mountains’ of Afghanistan – and sees that security threats have taken new forms, such as cyber security, human

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir George Zambellas has said, in the Telegraph, that the sum of the Royal Navy’s parts is not greater than its whole. Scottish independence, he says, would weaken the naval power of the nations of the British Isles. Sir George also appeals to our shared naval history – nearly a third of Nelson’s men at Trafalgar were Scottish, the Grand Fleet was stationed at Scapa Flow and the Soviet menace was monitored from bases in Scotland. The positive, emotive arguments done, Sir George issues a warning to Scottish voters. In the event of independence, Sir George says that the rump UK’s navy would be able to

The US Army’s cuts are good for Britain. They will force our European allies to think about their own defence and re-evaluate their policies. This will highlight the benefits of NATO’s guarantees and put the focus in the EU on what matters. For over twenty years European members of NATO have had a free ride. They’ve enjoyed the protection of a shield on land and a fleet at sea wherever needed, and have prospered as a result. Insurance without premiums has been one hell of a gift. It has also led to what Sir Humphrey would call ‘courageous’ assumptions. Just think what hasn’t happened. The Baltic States haven’t been invaded,

Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, has a battle on his hands. 20 or so Tory MPs have signed John Baron’s amendment to the Defence Reform Bill. The bill aims to increase the strength of the Army Reserve (what you and I know affectionately as the Territorial Army) from 19,000 to 30,000 by 2018 in order to make up for personnel cuts to the regular army, the strength of which is to fall to 82,000. The Tory rebels worry that missed recruitment targets and rising costs prove that the plan is in trouble. As one of them puts it to Coffee House, ‘Recruiting is in chaos. CAPITA has failed in the out-sourcing

listen to ‘Hammond: ‘A Conservative government will never send our forces in to battle without the right kit’’ on Audioboo Philip Hammond’s speech to the Conservative conference was accompanied by the set of circumstances that most ministers have bad dreams about after eating too much cheese. First he was interrupted by two men in military clothing, shouting about defence cuts and fusiliers. ‘I’ll come and talk to you later, let me finish my speech,’ the Defence Secretary said, hopefully. The man didn’t stop, and was escorted from the floor, followed by a cloud of journalists scribbling away and enthusiastic photographers. Then the giant screens behind Hammond that were beaming two

When Ed Miliband dropped his support for the government’s motion on military intervention in Syria, it was seen as a convenient way of the Labour leader avoiding the thorny question of what his party really thinks about the principle of intervention. He and his team were astonished when David Cameron said ‘I get that’ and took the option off the table entirely, but privately they admitted that it wasn’t the most inconvenient thing that could happen. But today, Miliband’s Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy delivered another one of his measured, impressive speeches on the party’s defence policy in which he reminded party activists that in spite of the ghosts of

Defence Questions this afternoon was, as you might expect, a rather chippy affair. It seemed that whenever Philip Hammond rose to answer a question, he answered it by reminding the Labour MP asking it of their party’s decision to oppose the government’s motion on Syria. Nowhere was this more the case than in the Defence Secretary’s exchange with Jim Murphy, where both men set out some interesting wriggle room in their party positions on a second vote. listen to ‘Hammond: ‘Circumstances would have to change very significantly’ before MPs get another vote on military action in Syria’ on Audioboo