Liam fox

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

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

Boris’ long-game strategy

Has the sheen come off BoJo? The question is echoing around some virtual corridors in Westminster this weekend. The Mayor of London was caught off guard by the recent riots and his initial decision to remain en vacances made him look aloof and remote, a sense that grew during his disastrous walkabout in Clapham. Then he joined Labour in calls for cuts in the police budget to be reversed, a decision that reeked on opportunism, superficially at least. The FT’s Jim Pickard has an excellent post on these matters and he reveals that Boris Johnson has been voicing these concerns in private for months and that he has a brace

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,

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

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

Who is the coalition’s tough guy?

Next week the Prime Minister will make his much-awaited law-and-order speech. This should, under normal circumstances, be the third or fourth such speech by a Tory leader who’s been in government for more than a year. Normally, it would be an occasion to score easy points from centre-right voters. But these are not normal times. The PM has rebranded the party to such a degree that it has nearly lost its law-and-order credentials. In addition, the U-turn over sentencing policy now needs to be explained. So this is a claw-back kind of speech, where the PM has to restore trust and win friends anew. The real problem is, of course,

Not just a wily Fox, but a watchful hawk with time on his side

Liam Fox is fond of reminding us that he didn’t come into politics to cut the armed forces. A wistful look falls across his face when he says it – an indication of frustration as much as sincerity, a sense deepened by his letter of concern about the government spending so much more on international development. Opponents of Fox might characterise this as hypocrisy: he would reduce the size of the state without touching the armed forces, they say. His enemies in the Conservative party say that it’s typical of this “clever fool’s” intellectual indiscipline. Fox the military and fiscal hawk wants to “have it both ways”. The Economist has

Labour’s malfunctioning front bench

The old adage that it’s hard to make an impact in Opposition is ringing true. Dan Hodges has denigrated Labour’s opposition thus far in the New Statesman’s political column today. He charts the party’s competing interests to create the sense that Miliband’s lack of direction, which is marketed as consensual politics, is the prime cause for Labour’s passivity. A listening exercise and numerous policy reviews are under way, but Labour is still stuck at Robert Frost’s fork in the road. Sooner or later, Miliband will have to act. Without firm leadership, shadow ministers are being left to their own devices; which perhaps allows the coalition to escape misfortune because often

Choppers add to the Libyan fog of war

There was much ado about choppers in Westminster earlier today. Yesterday, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet told reporters that Britain and France were to deploy attack helicopters to Libya; and that the British had instigated this move. The fog of war then descended. Labour’s defence spokesman Jim Murphy called on the British government to explain why the conflict is escalating. Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey contradicted Longuet’s account; and a source at the Ministry of Defence told me that this was the first he’d heard of helicopters being deployed to Libya in that role. The implication was that the French were trying to force the issue. Then again, a separate

Debt as a security concern

Is Britain’s growing national debt a matter of national security? In a speech this morning, Liam Fox said so. Sure, he said, you can protest at the defence cuts — but strength comes from having a strong economy and strong national accounts. “Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the Defence Review are really arguing for increased defence  pending. But they fail to spell out the  inevitable result — more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere. The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement and an affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term.” In

Fox letter: storm in a fair trade, biodegradable cup

David Cameron probably let out a sigh when he was informed that yet another letter from Liam Fox had been leaked to the press. And when the Defence Secretary called No 10, as he undoubtedly did, to do his now-familiar Captain Renault routine, the Prime Minister can be excused for feeling a little frustrated. For the debates that have occurred in consequence miss a number of key points. The PM believes in overseas development – believes it is right, believes it is useful. No doubt he may find it useful to “decontaminate” the Tories but would not have been willing to spend 0.7 percent of GDP for something he did

Cameron’s personnel issues

The past fortnight has been instructive in just how little control David Cameron has over the make-up of his Cabinet. Every choice he makes, it seems, has to be weighed against the fragile balance of the coalition, as well as against the internal divides of the two coalition parties themselves. I mean, Vince Cable calls the Tories “ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal” — only the latest of a series of provocations — and his position doesn’t look precarious in the slightest. Chris Huhne is mired in a scandal that may still terminate his political career, and yet there is little indication that the scythes of Downing Street are moving to

Alex Massie

Shocker! Liam Fox is Right!

This, Watson, is the salient fact to be gleaned from the stramash over International Development funding. There is nothing especially wrong with aspiring* to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid but it’s wrong to legislate to make this a legal requirement. Wrong because government should not try to tie the hands of or otherwise control their successors. Sure, Messrs Blair and Brown may have done this to Dave and the Gang but, as even a cursory acquaintance with the Good Book should remind them, that’s no excuse for doing likewise to their own descendents. Similarly, of course, putting the so-called “Military Covenant” into law is a Bad Idea.If Dr