The Snoopers' Charter comes sneaking back. Again.

By Mark Wallace
Follow Mark on Twitter.

When Nick Clegg announced that the Communications Data Bill - AKA the Snoopers' Charter - was being dropped, he prompted jubiliation from campaigners for privacy, individual liberty and digital technology.

The past history of the issue, however, suggested this wouldn't be the last we would hear of the proposals to gather data on emails. This idea has come up again and again, under different Governments, suggesting it is the pet project of someone or some group within the Home Office Civil Service.

Indeed, when one campaigner tweeted "What's next?" after the Government backed down, I was cynical enough to reply:

RT @nickpickles What's next? << defeating the Snoopers' Charter again when the civil service bring it back in disguise in 6 months' time?

— Mark Wallace (@wallaceme) April 25, 2013

And lo, it came to pass. Only hours after the Queen's Speech, the BBC is reporting that the Government is looking at "fresh proposals" to pursue the same rotten idea.

Continue reading "The Snoopers' Charter comes sneaking back. Again." »

Our Afghan interpreters should be offered refuge in Britain

By Mark Wallace
Follow Mark on Twitter.

The Military Covenant is a weighty responsibility. The wars of recent years have greatly increased the public and political recognition of how important it is that those who fight for all of us should receive a fair deal as well as the respect and support they are due in return for their service.

That means many things - from troops in the field getting good body armour to their children getting proper access to schools back home, despite the regular moves involved in a military life. The Armed Forces are some of the most enduring bastions of decency and honourable service in our society - so it is fitting that those of us not in uniform should treat them with the same values they exemplify.

It is not often that I agree with Liberal Conspiracy, but they are right to argue that our responsibility to those who serve extends to offering sanctuary to the Afghan interpreters who helped our troops to do their job over the last 12 years.

This is not an open door to the whole Afghan army, this is an offer specifically for a few hundred people who worked directly for us, and their dependents. These are people who risked their lives to keep our soldiers safe, assisting them in a bitter war against the Taliban, and who could far more easily have stayed at home and looked the other way.

Continue reading "Our Afghan interpreters should be offered refuge in Britain" »

Cameron gets a steer on Trident from Rahm Emanuel

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

There are two core arguments in the Prime Minister's Daily Telegraph article today about Trident, which coincides with his trip north of the border and his visit to Trident-carrying HMS Victorious.

• Trident provides Scottish jobs, which independence would risk: "I want to thank all those who provide our deterrent. The submariners, away from their families for months on end, who show the highest degree of dedication in training for a duty they hope never to carry out. The families who support them, and who endure such long periods without contact. And the 20,000 people who work onshore – including the engineers and mechanics at Faslane and Devonport; the teams at Rolls-Royce and the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and the architects and construction workers in places like Barrow who design and build our submarines." Beware, all of you: Salmond's risking your livelihoods!

• The world is as risky as ever - just look at North Korea: "There is a real risk of new nuclear-armed states emerging. Iran continues to defy the will of the international community in its attempts to develop its nuclear capabilities, while the highly unpredictable and aggressive regime in North Korea recently conducted its third nuclear test and could already have enough fissile material to produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons. Last year North Korea unveiled a long-range ballistic missile which it claims can reach the whole of the United States. If this became a reality it would also affect the whole of Europe, including the UK." Take heed, everyone: nuclear proliferation is a risk!

Cameron is right.  North Korea has a record on proliferation as long as your arm - or the forced queue for one of its death camps.

His point would of course be less topical were the present stand-off between its regime and the Obama administration not taking place.

Perhaps Cameron was thinking of the words of Obama's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, when he had the Telegraph article drafted: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste!"

Are we sticking to the plan in Afghanistan? The generals seem to have their worries…

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

What with the news about benefits, the NHS, financial regulation and energy policy, this story in today’s Independent may struggle for attention. But it deserves noting, at least.

It relates a warning from the most senior UK commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General Nick Carter, about troop withdrawals. “Precipitating withdrawal that is not in line with the current plan will damage Afghan confidence,” he says. And he adds that we should “provide the Afghans with the support to take this through into 2014.”

It’s telling, in itself, that the general is saying this. He recommends staying “in line with the current plan” – which is to reduce troop numbers from the 8,000 currently in Afghanistan to around 5,000 by the end of the year – so does that mean he thinks there’s a chance we won’t? Is the plan at risk?

Continue reading "Are we sticking to the plan in Afghanistan? The generals seem to have their worries…" »

The next Conservative leadership election is under way

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

There's a triple significance to the post-Eastleigh interventions of the three main Conservative members of the National Union of Ministers - Philip Hammond, Theresa May, and Chris Grayling.

It may look at first glance as though Hammond's plea for savings from welfare to be found to protect his budget, and May and Grayling's interventions over the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act last weekend, have little connection, if any - but they've more in common than meets the eye.

• All three show up Downing Street's lack of authority and grip.  It wasn't clear at the weekend whether David Cameron had licensed Hammond to defend his budget.  It now seems that it didn't: today, an anonymous "close ally of the Prime Minister" is quoted as saying: “You cannot be a fiscal conservative and then say that does not apply in your own department.”  And it still isn't clear whether or not Number 10 was aware of, or was perhaps even the source of, this weekend's report that Theresa May favours leaving the ECHR.  (It was presumably aware of Chris Grayling's on-the-record support for tearing up the Human Rights Act).  Indeed, news of her backing for the measure doesn't seem to have come from her, though it hasn't been denied by the Home Office and hasn't drawn a view from Downing Street.  This is the nub of the matter.  Prime Ministers will sometimes encourage Ministers to float ideas, and then let it be known that they approve of them.  But there has been no real follow-up to Grayling's words or May's view from Number 10 - no rowing-in behind abolishing the Act or leaving the ECHR, no sense of political purpose, commitment or direction. Instead, Ken Clarke has taken his colleagues to task. This sense of Ministers stating their own views and going their own way, with Downing Street apparently powerless to prevent them, opened up Number 10 to Mark Field's blood-drawing counter-attack.

• The May and Grayling follow-up, together with Number 10's own reaction to Eastleigh, shows that it hasn't a settled strategy for dealing with UKIP.  Tearing up the Human Rights Act...leaving the ECHR...restricting the access of immigrants to legal aid and benefits...proposals for less Europe and more border control are leaking from Ministers and Downing Street into the media.  It is unfair to accuse Downing Street of "lurching to the right" after Eastleigh.  (Why do we hear so little from the BBC and others of Ed Miliband "lurching to the left"?)  David Cameron's Sunday Telegraph article was careful to balance "bringing down immigration" with "proper investment in the NHS".  But Downing Street is undoubtedly preoccupied with how to deal with UKIP in the aftermath of Eastleigh and the run-up to this spring's local elections.  Promises of tougher border control and tighter benefit conditions won't be enough - and nor will hints about quitting the ECHR.  UKIP is a boot which angry voters, who believe that Britain is changing for the worse, are using to kick the system.  Those disillusioned voters now include a significant slice of the Conservatives' natural electoral base, who believe that Cameron is a creature of the political class who cares nothing for their values.  May's record of reducing net immigration  won't win them all back.  Nor will Number 10's "Santa Claus" line of attack - at least until voters stop using UKIP as a protest vehicle, and start questioning how it would reconcile tax cuts for "everyone" with more police, prison places, NHS services, student grants, bigger pensions and higher defence spending.  Hammond's intervention on the last shrewdly recognises another UKIP pressure point.

Continue reading "The next Conservative leadership election is under way" »

The National Union of Ministers' target is IDS's budget - not the health and aid ring-fences

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

Theresa May was reported earlier this week to have led a Cabinet charge by the "National Union of Ministers" - herself, Philip Hammond and Vince Cable - against the protection of the health, education and aid budgets.  I have certainly heard senior figures in the Home Office suggest that the NHS might like to take a leaf out of its own lead on police reform with a non ring-fenced budget.

But tearing up party and Government pledges on ring-fencing is not the aim of the new N.U.M - or not of all of its members, at any rate.  A Cabinet Minister told me earlier this week that its real aim is the welfare budget. Indeed, my source claimed that the Home Secretary wasn't even at the Cabinet meeting in question, since she was abroad.

And now Philip Hammond breaks cover this morning, giving an interview to the Daily Telegraph in which he warns that "any further reduction in the defence budget would fall on the level of activity that we were able to carry out". (He also gave a quick interview yesterday to the Sun.)  He says:

It is the welfare budget, and other issues dear to Liberal Democrat hearts, that are in this Defence Secretary’s sights. “There is a body of opinion within Cabinet that we have to look at the welfare budget again. The welfare budget is the bit of public spending that has risen the furthest and the fastest and if we are going to get control of public spending on a sustainable basis, we are going to have to do more to tackle the growth in the welfare budget.”

Continue reading "The National Union of Ministers' target is IDS's budget - not the health and aid ring-fences" »

Tory Cabinet ministers and Lib Dems have one message for Osborne: Cut the ring fences

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

George Osborne is getting a very similar message from his Conservative and Liberal Democrat colleagues: Lift the ringfences.

Liberal Democrats are telling the Chancellor that they won't accept further cuts to welfare if he isn't willing to cut richer pensioners' benefits and, potentially, also "gently trim" the budgets for the NHS, schools and aid. Unlike the Tories, the Lib Dems' 2010 manifesto did not promise to ringfence key Whitehall budgets or the perks paid to better off pensioners.

And from his Right, Tory Cabinet colleagues are also saying that the next round of spending cuts will only be acceptable if the whole of Whitehall shares in the pain. Cabinet ministers like Theresa May feel that she's already achieved the near impossible. She has cut the budgets of the police for the first time ever and without a breakdown in law and order. On the contrary, crime has actually fallen by 10%. Eric Pickles is equally proud of the cuts he has made. Cuts to local government have been frontloaded but there hasn't been a meltdown for Tory councillors at the ballot box. Public opinion polls suggest that voters are seeing through Labour attempts to 'shroud wave' while, for example, maintaining reserves.

Continue reading "Tory Cabinet ministers and Lib Dems have one message for Osborne: Cut the ring fences" »

Dominic Raab asks this year’s £3.6 billion question: when are the troops coming home?

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

Afghanistan is on the agenda as David Cameron sweeps into Mumbai. The Indian Government is, apparently (£), concerned at our PM’s efforts to involve Pakistan in the maintenance of the Afghan state after Western troops have departed. They fear losing whatever influence they currently have in Kabul.

But questions about Afghanistan are also waiting for Mr Cameron back home, in Britain – and they’re questions which, I suspect, will take on ever greater significance as the year progresses.

One of these questions is implicit within Dominic Raab’s article for the Financial Times (£) this morning. Mr Raab recommends a swathe of further cuts to bolster the economy and public finances, but there’s one that stands out above all the rest. “Beyond Whitehall,” he writes, “bringing all UK troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2013 (instead of 2014) would save £3.6bn.”

Continue reading "Dominic Raab asks this year’s £3.6 billion question: when are the troops coming home?" »

David Cameron’s running battle with military chiefs

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

Of all the headlines about David Cameron’s decision to intervene—and intervene more forcefully—in North Africa, there’s one that stands out: “Top brass resist PM’s Mali war”. And it stands out because of its familiarity. It now seems that almost every time Mr Cameron turns his attention to defence policy the top brass, or “defence chiefs”, or military chiefs”, are there to resist him. For instance:

• Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2010: Military chiefs accuse coalition of rushing defence review
• The Guardian, 25th February 2011: Military chiefs urge David Cameron to rethink cuts
• Daily Telegraph, 11^th May 2011: David Cameron has triggered a row with military chiefs by insisting that hundreds of British troops must be withdrawn from Afghanistan within weeks
• Evening Standard, 18th May 2011: Military chiefs call on Prime Minister to scrap increase on foreign aid
• Daily Telegraph, 23^rd June 2011: Military chiefs' clash with politicians over Libya and Afghanistan
• Daily Mirror, 17th February 2012: David Cameron dismays defence chiefs by agreeing project to build drones
• The Sun, 12th November 2012: Top brass reject David Cameron’s plan to send troops to Syria
• Daily Express, 7 January 2013: Defence chiefs slam military cuts

I could go on, but you get the point.

Despite all that, a Downing Street source says that the relationship between the Government and the military command isn’t a total slanging match, but more often a case of “raised eyebrows and curt handshakes”. Yet there’s still no denying that it boils over into anger, on occasion. Even Mr Cameron has admitted as much. His barbed quip that “you do the fighting and I’ll do the talking” was a sign of the frustration he sometimes feels.

To some extent, it was ever going to be thus. We can always expect military chiefs to defend their own patch, and particularly from incursions by the Treasury’s bean-counters. News of today’s cuts—with 5,000 soldiers set to be axed—will not ease their concerns about military overstretch.

Although it’s not just the cuts in themselves, but also the way they are being implemented. In his statement yesterday, Mr Cameron cited the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010, saying that it prioritised those assets required for the battlegrounds of the future, such as special forces, cyber-security and drones. But the military chiefs have their doubts. That review was always, as I’ve said before, a document shaped by compromise. It’s stuck between the competing demands of conventional warfare, counter-terrorism and cuts.

So, what should be done? It might be too much, politically as well as fiscally, to have another review — but it oughtn’t be too much for the Coalition to consider it. If Britain is going to be striking at Africa for years to come, then we should ask questions of “how”, almost as much as questions of “why”.

David Cameron’s intervention in Mali has shades of Libya and Afghanistan

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

It didn’t take long for David Cameron to offer British assistance to the French forces in Mali. Only 24 hours after Operation Serval had been initiated, to combat the Islamist militants who are spreading out from the north of the African country, Mr Cameron was on the phone to President Hollande to see what we might do. The outcome was announced last night: two RAF transport planes will be dispatched to provide logistical support.

Admittedly, this is a limited intervention, so far. But it already has parallels with recent operations in Libya and Afghanistan. Libya because this is another swift, targeted response to a situation that — with thousands of people fleeing the north of Mali in the wake of reported atrocities — has definite humanitarian dimensions. Afghanistan because the main emphasis of Mr Cameron’s statement yesterday was on preventing the spread of terrorism. Or, as he put it:

“I am deeply concerned about the recent rebel advances in Mali, which extend the reach of terrorist groups and threaten the stability of the country and the wider region.”

I’m sure this concern is Mr Cameron’s overriding reason for getting involved in the Mali conflict: like all Prime Ministers, he does not take military decisions lightly. But it’s also hard to ignore the possible political ramifications of all this. The PM’s relationship with François Hollande is generally even tetchier than that he had with Nicolas Sarkozy, and yet he may soon require Mr Hollande’s help to secure a new relationship between Britain and the EU, particularly given the recent noises emanating from Berlin. His willingness to assist the French in Mali may have diplomatic benefits.

And as for whether that British assistance will be stepped up, perhaps even to the point where we have a combat role, much could depend on what progress the French make by themselves, and whether the US gets involved too. The White House is currently said to be mulling over a French request for support in the shape of military drones. This could escalate yet.

P.S. My former colleagues at the Spectator’s Coffee House have put together a useful briefing on Mali here.