ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Fox appears to say that Trident will be safe under a Conservative government

Speaking on BBC1's Politics Show the Shadow Defence Secretary appeared to put an end to speculation that replacement of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent could be scrapped under an incoming Conservative government:

"There'll be a replacement for our Trident system under the Conservatives... The country requires it for its defence."

Dr Liam Fox would not set out the exact nature of the deterrent, however, avoiding direct questioning on the number of submarines that would be associated with the deterrent.  He repeated however that a nuclear deterrent would be necessary to defend Britain from "nuclear blackmail" by states such as North Korea and Iran.

Dr Fox also refused to be drawn on other defence commitments.  He said that an incoming Conservative government would have to take account of the "train wrecked" public finances.  The Conservatives would, he said, conduct a strategic defence review, define Britain's national interest, the threats we'll face, and then set out the equipment and alliances necessary to meet those threats.

A clash with Britain's defence industry seems highly likely, however.  Dr Fox is known to be sympathetic to the Canadian model where that country's armed forces are being renewed by purchasing cheaper, off-the-shelf defence equipment from overseas.

Tim Montgomerie

David Cameron refuses to rule out scrapping/ delaying replacement for Trident

The Tory leader was speaking at his monthly press conference.

MORE SOON.

10.30am, Highlights from Mr Cameron's press conference

On Trident and defence cuts: Mr Cameron was asked on three occcasions about making savings from the defence budget.  He said that the Conservative Party supported all of the items currently in the 'forward defence programme' but given the scale of the budgetary crisis would not say if the aircraft carrier and Trident programmes were still affordable.  I'm not going to start ruling things in and out, he continued.  In the FT this morning David Davis had questioned the affordability of Trident.

On today's votes on expenses: Mr Cameron said the Conservative frontbench would abstain from the vote on second jobs disclosure because it is badly drafted, but added that he supports the principle of it.  PoliticsHome has more on this aspect.

On the 50p tax band: He agreed with Fraser Nelson that the 50p tax band was bad for Britain but declined to agree that it might lose the Treasury money.  He didn't know for sure, he said.  In a follow up question Fraser Nelson said that rich people would not change their plans and move abroad if they knew that the 50p band would be repealed by a Conservative government.  Mr Cameron said that he would not make a commitment now and that 50p would have to join a queue of other bad Labour measures that the Conservatives wished to repeal.

On working with Nick Clegg: He said that yesterday's victory on Gurkhas was hugely important and said that the Conservatives will work with the Liberal Democrats on issues of common interest, such as the environment, strengthening local govenment and opposing the surveillance state.

On Obama's first 100 days: He declined to comment on the American President's domestic policies but paid tribute to a "pretty successful" foreign policy.  He highlighted an end to torture, the promised closure of Gitmo, the re-engineering of strategy in Afghanistan and engagement with Iran.

On Margaret Thatcher's thirtieth anniversary: I asked if he would be marking the anniversary in any way and if he was studying how she prepared for government... As Mr Cameron started to answer a military band started playing and marched past the window... Mr Cameron credited Andy Coulson with arranging the march past!  After the journalists' laughter had died down he said that the best way of honouring Margaret Thatcher was to elect another Tory government.  Yes, he was studying the period - the things she got right but also the things that were wrong including the decision to honour Labour's public pay commitments from the Clegg Commission that delayed the necessary fiscal adjustment until 1981.

Tim Montgomerie

David Davis concludes that he cannot justify a wholesale upgrade of Trident, as he weighs into the debate about public spending

As a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, David Davis was always likely to want to contribute from the self-imposed freedom of the backbenches to the debate about how to get the public finances under control.

And today, through an article in the FT, the former shadow home secretary addresses the question of where the Government - and therefore a future Conservative government -  could find savings.

Firstly, he tackles the Labour language of "Tory cuts" head on:

"The choice we face is not between Labour growth in public services and Tory “cuts”. It is between taking a grip of the public finances and watching our people’s economic prospects, and our ability to afford decent public services, slowly dribble away."

Mr Davis goes on to suggest some of the ways in which he would find savings; several, such as abolition of ID cards and abolition of regional government, are already party policy - but others are not and therefore act as a useful contribution to the debate on the issue of how to tighten the nation's belt:

Tories and Lib Dems defeat Government on settlement rights for Gurkhas

Following exchanges over the issue at PMQs earlier, a vote has just taken place during an Opposition Day debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats in which the Government was defeated on settlement rights for Gurkhas.

MPs voted by 267 to 246 in favour of a motion that the government should extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

Conservatives and Lib Dem joined forces along with, I imagine, a number of Labour rebels (28 according to sources around the murmurs around the Commons). In advance of this afternoon's vote, shadow immigration minister Damian Green said:

“We are supporting the Gurkhas today because we believe the Government is being ungenerous and unfair. A Conservative Government would give all Gurkhas and their immediate dependents the right to settle here, and we hope the Government listens and acts immediately on this matter.”

Paul Waugh notes that David Cameron and Nick Clegg made a joint appearance outside the Commons in the wake of the vote, which is the culmination of a long campaign, highlighted here last week.

5.45pm update:

The following statements have just been put out:

Joanna Lumley, campaigning for Gurkhas, says she is "ashamed" of Labour

The actress was responding to Labour's bureaucratic plan for the settlement of Gurkha soldiers in Britain.  Ms Lumley says that Labour's criteria for settlement will be impossible to meet for "ordinary Gurkhas".  Watch the video in full.  Well worth it.

Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green MP commented:

“The Government is trying to evade the effects of a very clear court judgement. This is an insult to the Gurkhas. We have said all along that the Government should not try to challenge the courts and they would have done better to listen.”

Tim Montgomerie

> Click here for the website of the Gurkha Justice Campaign.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind makes the case against his own hope for a nuclear free world

The Daily Telegraph today publishes key extracts from a speech that Sir Malcolm Rifkind has given on his hope for a "Global Zero"; a nuclear free world.

Although the former Foreign Secretary says that total elimination would be "extremely difficult" he says that the pursuit of the task would be very good for the world:

"If we can reduce the current number dramatically, and radically improve verification and inspection, we will have started a process that could lead to zero; we will have ensured the continuation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the vast majority of countries respect and observe; we will have made it much easier for the Security Council to put successful pressure on North Korea and Iran; and far more difficult for terrorists to get their hands on fissile material. That would be a historic achievement – and one that our children and grandchildren would most certainly thank us for."

I have sympathy with Sir Malcolm's point that a reduction in nuclear weaponry would reduce the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on fissile material but not with his implications for the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.  As I have written before, Tehran and Pyongyang actually have an added incentive to acquire a nuclear weapon if other world powers disarm.  The reason can actually be found within Sir Malcolm's speech:

"If the United States destroyed all its nuclear weapons but Russia, secretly, retained one or two, it would have the power to blackmail Washington without fear of comparable retaliation."

The difficulty of verification means and the ease with which nuclear weapons could be 're-acquired' by hostile powers means that all talk of complete disarmament is unhelpful.  As Margaret Thatcher said in 2000, nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented.  Leading Tory politicians would be better advised to support American investment in missile defence systems.  The Obama administration has sent out conflicting signals on its commitment to continue President Bush's deployment efforts.

Tim Montgomerie

Liam Fox: A Britain obsessed with celebrity, indifferent to serious learning and unsure of its values and history risks being unable to defend itself

1. Russia is spending over $200 billion in the next five years upgrading its forces.  Vladimir Putin's strategic bombers are probing UK airspace again.
2. The world's greatest exporter of terrorism - Iran - is inching ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.  An Iran - still publicly committed to wipe Israel off the face of the map - with nuclear capability will be able to sponsor 'nuclear terrorism' which may include the detonation of a dirty bomb containing enough radioactive material to contaminate whole cities.
3. The ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist continues to be spread across the globe.  All over the world young Muslims are being exposed to an ideology that is "irreconcilable to our political system and our values."

These were some of the threats outlined by Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox yesterday - during a speech to Politea.  He could also have mentioned the increasingly worrying situation in Pakistan.  Dr Fox warned that Britain was a nation that was losing its moral seriousness and that this endangered our ability to meet the threats to our peace and security:

"There seems to have been a view developing in recent years that defines peace simply as the absence of war.  If only we can avoid armed conflict the argument seems to say then we will live in a more peaceful world.  But peace is not simply the absence of war.  Real peace has an unavoidable set of values which accompany it.  Freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from fear are essential for real peace.  Unfortunately we sometimes have to fight and even to die for these freedoms. The need to maintain public support for the conflicts which are sometimes required to ensure these freedoms is a burden which democratic states have to carry but many of our enemies do not.  The absence of a clear and rational argument for the necessity of military action in certain circumstances can hand the advantage to those who wish to undermine our democratic systems and, indeed, our whole way of life.  This is where our social attitudes, our political direction and our national security converge- in the crucial question about the state of our national resilience.  For it is our resilience-  our political and social fortitude- which will determine whether or not we are able to deal with the threats and challenges which lie before us."

Pasted below are sections of Dr Fox's speech in which he identified the key forces weakening Britain's fortitude:

Liam Fox fears mental health crisis inside armed forces

In a speech earlier today Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox highlighted the mental health problems facing British servicemen:

"From January 2003 to December 2006, 2,333 regulars and reservists who served in Iraq during Operation TELIC were managed by the Defence Medical Services for mental illness attributed to their deployment.  In 2007, there were 1,898 new referrals to the MoD’s Departments for Community Mental Health (DCMHs) who were diagnosed with a mental health disorder and had served in Iraq or Afghanistan or both in 2007.

I fear that, deployment after deployment and year after year, the mental health problem will become a mental health crisis. This is because our armed forces are operating at a tempo for which they are neither resourced nor manned. There are some service members who have been on multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Each deployment only makes matters potentially worse for the service member and studies have shown a nexus between the length of time on operations the possibility suffering from some form of mental health illness.

In the U.S., a recent study found that soldiers on their third or fourth deployment have significantly lower morale, more mental-health problems and more stress-related work problems.  In the UK, a report in the British Medical Journal reported that of those troops serving 13 or more months in a theatre of operations, 5.2 percent suffered from PTSD; 21.8 percent suffered from psychological distress and 23.9 percent suffered from severe alcohol problems."

Dr Fox promised to build a "land fit for heroes" and promised investment in support services for servicemen returning from duty.  Full speech here.

Liam Fox attacks Muslim fanatics who branded British soldiers as "babykillers" during homecoming parade

Soldiers returning from Iraq - and marching through Luton as part of a homecoming parade - were greeted with banners branding them as "butchers, war criminals, murderers, terrorists — and baby killers" by Islamic extremists.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Express: “This was a very offensive protest by a tiny number of known extremists who should not be allowed to tarnish the reputation of Luton’s Muslim community."

The police had to form a protective cordon around the Islamic fanatics when local people turned against them:

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox called the protests “disgraceful, appalling and offensive”.  He continued "It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests."  'The Sun Says' agrees:

"Our brave troops have enough to put up with as they risk life and limb in Afghanistan and Iraq.  To top it all, now they fly home to vicious abuse from Islamic fanatics.  The Royal Anglians had to face a chanting mob waving grotesque placards accusing THEM of terrorism and child murder.  Astonishingly, this despicable demo went ahead with police approval.  When it turned predictably ugly, who did our brave bobbies arrest?  Not the extremists who started the trouble, but a couple of locals who rallied to Our Boys’ defence."

What do readers think?  Should the police have approved this "despicable demo"?  I think not.  It was the wrong time and wrong place for such protests.

Tim Montgomerie

Should the Conservatives abandon the inheritance tax cut? Should the upgrade of Trident be scrapped? Can we afford National Citizen Service?

Big cuts in public spending are going to be necessary to restore order to Britain's public finances (and to avoid large tax increases).  It is politically essential that Cameron-Osborne show that they aren't just prepared to cut things that hurt others but that they are prepared to cut things that will be seen to be uncomfortable for Conservatives too - either personally or politically.  Three such candidates for cuts are floated below:

(1) Abandon the inheritance tax pledge
Within today's leading article critical of Tory economic policy, the FT urges David Cameron and George Osborne to abandon their 2007 commitment to abolish inheritance tax for all but millionaires:

"Their proposal to cut inheritance tax should, in particular, be abandoned. This policy was a tactical masterstroke when announced in 2007. It is also inexpensive. But slashing the duties owed by millionaires on unearned income will make it politically harder to sell the severe and unpleasant structural tightening for which – if they are a successful administration – they would be remembered."

Responding to a recent question from Jonathan Isaby the Tory leader said that he would NOT abandon the pledge.  The calculation at the top of the party is that the now cheaper pledge would be too difficult to unwind - certainly in respect of the political aggravation that it would cause.  But is cutting inheritance tax the right thing to do in such changed economic circumstances?

(2) Don't renew Trident
Michael Portillo has already made this case:

"The money that Brown intends to spend on renewal could be diverted instead to aircraft carriers, cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft, all of which have awesome destructive power and almost certainly will get used. It is to be hoped that the Conservatives are thinking the issue through. For that matter a different US administration might also believe that Britain would be a more useful ally if it spent less on Trident but could unleash more explosive and fly more missions in the next regional war than it did against Iraq."

By not renewing Trident the Conservatives could both strengthen conventional firepower and still have some change left over for reducing government debt.

(3) Scrap National Citizen Service
This is a flagship David Cameron idea but is it now affordable?  By scrapping/ delaying something so closely identified with his personal mission, the Tory leader would be signalling the seriousness of the budgetary situation.

***
I do not know conclusively what I think about each of these three suggestions for saving money but I do think that this is the sort of tough thinking that is now necessary.

Tim Montgomerie

Liam Fox: The world cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power

Liam Fox was in a determined frame of mind at this morning's Conservative Friends of Israel briefing on yesterday's elections which - even by Knesset standards - have produced a messy outcome.  (The joys of proportional representation).

The Shadow Defence Secretary worried that paralysis might result from the result and Israel could not afford uncertain leadership in a year in which Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

Dr Fox worried that Iran was absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons.  It has seen North Korea's experience as proof that the world will not enforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they are determined to join the 'nuclear club' of nations.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon the risk is not just that they might use it against Israel, he said, but that they might provide a dirty bomb to one of Tehran's terrorist surrogates; not least Hamas.  A nuclear Iran will also trigger an arms race across the region - provoking Turkey and Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons.

Also at the meeting David Lidington MP said that it was vital that the EU matched the USA's sanctions regime against Iran.  He also said Russia and China needed to be pressurised to pressurise Tehran.  Mr Lidington, a Shadow Foreign Minister, said the great problem facing western policymakers was a lack of intelligence about thinking within the Iranian regime.

> Liam Fox has also written for The Telegraph about the nature of Hamas:

"It is a general rule that those with nothing to lose are likely to be willing to gamble with it. Give people a stake in their own prosperity, security and freedom and they behave in a more circumspect way. It follows that if you want people to be in a perpetual state of anger, reconciled to terrorism and ripe for Jihad, then the maxim of Marxism that less is best pertains. Having purged the moderate Palestinians from their territory, Hamas have rocketed the power station in the Israeli city of Ashqelon which provides electricity to Gaza itself. The people of Gaza are sure to be the losers but Hamas will not care."

Notes on Conservative foreign policy

The decision by William Hague and David Lidington to speak against Israel's attempts to disarm Hamas is the latest indication of the nature of David Cameron's foreign policy.  Here are some thumbnail summaries of key components:

Europe: Opposition to Lisbon and a commitment to hold a referendum on all future transfers of power to Brussels have pleased Eurosceptics. There has also been a hardening of policy against the Euro but there has been retreat from Michael Howard's support for abolishing the Common Fisheries Policy.  David Cameron's delayed pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP was undermined by the decision to protect pro-EPP MEPs from deselection by grassroots members.

Multipolarity: David Cameron has insisted that America remains Britain's most important bilateral partner - although never "slavish" - but has also said that Britain has a special relationship with India. He and other shadow cabinet ministers have also regularly visited China.

Wider Middle East: William Hague believes that Labour has neglected relations with moderate Arab states and has invested considerable time in improving relations with these nations.  He has also called for a thawing of relations with Syria.  He has talked of "acquaintanceship".

Israel: William Hague and David Cameron have edged Britain away from the US position on Israel.  Mr Hague criticised Israel for a "disproportionate" use of force against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in 2006 and has urged Israel to cease its current military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

Iraq: The Conservative Party has not retreated from its initial support of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein but opposed the one decision that has probably been the most successful component of the campaign; General Petraeus' troops surge.

Afganistan: David Cameron has consistently made the case for continued engagement in Afghanistan but - with Liam Fox - has complained about a lack of clarity in the mission.

NATO: The Conservatives support NATO expansion - notably for Georgia - and a new mechanism whereby nations that do not fight contribute to the financial costs of those who do.

Defence: David Cameron backed Tony Blair's decision to renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.  Mr Cameron and Liam Fox have led public disquiet against the Government's record on the welfare and resourcing of servicemen and their families. Defence is Tory members' number one public spending priority and Liam Fox recently secured his brief as one of four Tory expenditure priorities.

International justice: George Osborne has agreed that Conservatives should honour the Government's plan to contribute 0.7% of national income to overseas development.  David Cameron recently made a big picture speech on human rights but it contained no bankable commitments.  William Hague led calls for Guantanamo Bay to be closed in 2007.

Tim Montgomerie

Conservatives announce £4.2bn tax cut for savers

David Cameron is about to get to his feet and announce the beginning of what is expected to be three Tory tax cuts.

By reducing public spending growth to +1% in 2009/10 (excepting the four protected priorities of health, education, international development and defence) the Conservatives believe they can save £5bn compared to Labour's spending plans.

£4.2bn of this will be used to abolish the basic rate of tax on savings (£2.6bn) and to raise pensioners' personal allowance by £2,000 (£1.5bn).

The Tory Treasury team gives an example of how this would benefit older savers:

"A 70 year old couple who are retired and have total pension income of £14,000 a year each. They currently pay £902 in income tax each, or £1,804 in total. Their tax bill on their pensions would fall to just £502 each, or £1,004 in total, so they would be £400 a year better off each, or £800 better off in total. If they also currently get £1,000 a year each in interest from their savings account, they would pay £200 less each in tax on savings, or £400 in total. So in total they would be £1,200 better off."

The relief for savers fits into an emerging Tory narrative of rewarding people who do the right thing.

Up until today only the NHS and international development were identified as Tory spending priorities.  They have now been joined by defence and schools - both of which are also prioritised by grassroots members.

1pm: David Cameron's speech in full.

5.30pm: Video highlights of David Cameron's remarks.

Tory members say Defence should be top public spending priority

From 22nd to 28th December 1,816 Tory members told us their highest and lowest priorities for twelve calls on public spending identified by ConservativeHome. The two graphics below summarise the findings (click on either to enlarge):

HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC SPENDING

LOWEST PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC SPENDING

We asked the two relevant shadow cabinet members - Liam Fox for Defence (members' highest spending priority - not for the first time) and Jeremy Hunt for Culture, Media and Sport (members' lowest priority) for their reactions:

Dr Liam Fox:

"ConservativeHome readers clearly understand what Gordon Brown's government fails to- namely that national security is the first duty of any British government. It is worth noting that while President Sarkozy was announcing a 2 billion euro boost to defence spending as part of his economic stimulus, Britain's Labour government were announcing delays to major programmes such as the carriers. Not only has Labour failed to live up to its part of the Military Covenant and failed to fully fund our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but they will leave behind a huge unfunded liability in defence procurement for future taxpayers. No one knows how catastrophic Brown's economic legacy will be but picking up the pieces in defence will be one of the most difficult challenges for the next government."

Jeremy Hunt:

"Spending at the disposal of the department of culture, media and sport amounts to less than half of one percent of all government spending. That means the potential to make a large impact on government spending as a whole is limited. That said, all government departments - big and small - need to tighten their belts in the current climate and that of course includes DCMS."

ConservativeHome comment: "The public spending priorities of Tory members are largely very sensible.  The first duty of any government is defence of the Realm and law and order at home.  There is no ambition amongst grassroots members for cuts in education and health and there is also a concern to invest in infrastructure spending.  Where members are wrong is, I think, in the low priority they attach to international development.  Maintaining international development spending is not just the morally correct course - in an age when so many are dying of treatable and preventable diseases - it is also an essential part of any national security agenda.  While trade liberalisation and private investment are more important to prevent failed states George W Bush has shown in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, that well targeted aid can save hundreds of thousands of lives.  Britain's aid budget could be better spent - and Andrew Mitchell is right to promise a diversion of aid from nations like China towards the poorest nations - but we should not trim a budget that is already worth £334m less because of the sharp decline in the pound.   

Tim Montgomerie

> Five days ago we published the views of Tory members on appropriate public sector economies.
> Stephen Crabb MP's case for maintaining development spending.

Britain fails the Crockery Shop Rule in Iraq

There are various versions of the Crockery Shop (or Pottery Barn) test but the essence is: If you break it, you own it.

My own view is that Saddam broke Iraq and set up the insurgency but once Britain and America had entered Iraq we had a responsibility to fix the chaos that ensued.

Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo has written a superb piece in The Sunday Times about Britain's defeat in Basra.  Here are the key quotes:

Britain abandoned Basra to 'fundamentalist thugs': "For all his persuasiveness, Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army."

America may have got much wrong but it didn't quit: "In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys... If a fair-minded account of the Iraq war is written, credit should go to President Bush for rejecting two years ago the report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that called for force reductions. He defied conventional wisdom and ordered a troop surge instead. It has been an extraordinary success and, unlike Britain, the Americans will not withdraw in defeat."  [Unfortunately no senior Conservative frontbencher supported the surge; William Hague actually warned that it might fuel the insurgency.]

Hi-tech weaponry isn't enough: "It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down."

The media share in Britain's failure: "The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack."

David Cameron's reaction to the troops withdrawal was silent on these key issues on Thursday - only Bernard Jenkin MP addressed the heart of the matter: That America has had to 'own' the situation in Basra after Britain failed the Pottery Barn test.

Tim Montgomerie

Tories lead attack on sale of Aldermaston

It's a relatively quiet news day, but the one issue which has been exercising politicians  is the Government's quiet sale of its remaining share in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment, as featured on the front page of today's Independent.

Shadow defence minister, Gerald Howarth, has taken to the airwaves to condemn the move, suggesting that the Government must be "strapped for cash" and that by failing to announce the move to the House of Commons it is "holding Parliament in contempt in respect to Britain’s nuclear capabilities".

PoliticsHome records the reaction he has given to the BBC:

“It has even been announced here. Parliament hasn’t been told. There has always been a reluctance by this Labour government to be open and frank about issues to do with the nuclear deterrent. What we want to know is what are the strategic implications of this.

“I suspect that it’s another sale by the government, in this kind of fire sale they’re undertaking. Obviously Gordon Brown is strapped for cash, and he wants to get the money from wherever he can. There is also a real reluctance to interact with Parliament on something that is absolutely crucial.”

Jonathan Isaby

"Membership of the Royal British Legion is no longer limited to current and former members of the Armed Forces but is now open to all."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox has written to every Tory MP pointing out that membership of the British Legion is now open to everyone and encouraging them to sign up.  You can join too.

A PDF of Liam's full letter.

Owen Paterson defends Belfast celebration of Royal Irish Regiment's Afghan service

Earlier today Belfast hosted a homecoming parade for the Royal Irish Regiment.

For Sinn Fein and symathisers any celebration of the British Army is an affront to their republicanism.  Mark Thompson of Relatives for Justice remembered the Brirtish Army in this way in the Belfast Telegraph:

"In Ireland the British Army is responsible for the use of lethal force, shoot-to-kill, the use of rubber and plastic bullets, collusion, internment and torture — all with official impunity."

For Owen Paterson MP, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the Royal Irish deserve to be honoured for their work in Afghanistan:

"For the past six months the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, has been deployed on Herrick 8.  Their immensely difficult job was to mentor and assist the Afghan National Army in all aspects of its operations. It is vital for the future security of Afghanistan that a non sectarian army is created.

It needs a unique set of skills to take on raw Afghan troops from a wide variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds, speaking different languages, to teach them, to encourage them, to organise them and then accompany them into battle.  This job has been performed supremely well by the Royal Irish, in one of the toughest and most dangerous battle zones in Helmand...

This immensely difficult work has been carried out by people from across the community in Northern Ireland and a good number from south of the border.  With horrible symmetry two friends were injured, one a catholic from Dublin the other a protestant from Belfast.  Over 70 have been injured and tragically, Ranger Justin Cupples was killed days before the end of the tour.  Our thoughts will be with his family and friends as we celebrate our troops’ return."

Read a PDF of Owen Paterson's full article.

Cameron pledges proper rest periods for the armed forces

Since British intervention in Afghanistan began, the Conservatives have criticised the poor pay and equipment for her Majesty's armed forces in strong terms as a breach of the nation's covenant with our troops.

As David Cameron looks closer to power than any Tory leader for over a decade, he has become increasingly clear in his pledge to put this right once in government, hinting at various measures that may entail higher defence spending. After meeting troops in Afghanistan, Cameron has today announced that the Conservatives will tackle the issue of lost leave - under which soldiers' rest periods are counted from the moment they leave the field, including all delays in flights home. He endorsed the recommendations of Simon Weston and Frederick Forsyth that the leave be counted only from the moment they arrive home.

"Today when our servicemen and women end their duties in the heat and dust of Afghanistan or Iraq, their leave starts not when they arrive home but often after several days delay in trying to get home.  Under our plans, the leave clock would not start ticking until they arrive back on British soil.  This is a common sense idea that will make a big difference to the lives of our brave troops and their families.

"I think this is fair for our troops. They should be able to predict how long their leave is going to be rather than having to spend it on an aeroplane and on air bases a long way from home."

Liam Fox has warned regularly in his capacity as Shadow Defence Secretary of how under-funded the armed forces have been, noting in March that the army, air force and navy are now sufficiently small that every single serviceman will be able to fit into the new Wembley Stadium.

Cameron has explained to Dylan Jones how as Prime Minister he would handle the issue of military overstretch, so that the resources available to our armed forces genuinely reflect our nation's commitments:

“There is a very strong case for a bigger army, and this will sound like a fudge but it isn’t meant to be: what we need is a defence review based on our national security, not on Treasury guidelines, and that will tell us either that we need to reduce the commitments that we have or we need to increase spending.”

Liam Fox condemns "outrageous" nature of alleged pact between British forces and Basra criminals

The main story on page one of this morning's Times alleges a "Secret deal kept Army out of battle for Basra".

"Outrageous" is the word Liam Fox uses within a letter that he has just sent to his opposite number, Defence Secretary Des Browne.

The letter seeks clarification of whether British intelligence did strike such a deal.  The full text is pasted below.

If true, it is another humiliation for the British military.  Our troops have fought bravely throughout the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan but their political direction has been consistently poor.  Basra was dominated by criminal groups when Britain retreated and it took the Iraqi armed forces - backed up by US troops - to start to turn that situation around (and here) in what was called Operation Charge of the Knights.  The humiliation is doubly depressing if  our absence from that Operation wasn't for strategic reasons but because of a shoddy deal with Iranian backed terrorists.  When will civilised nations learn that dealing with terrorists only invites more terrorism for the future?

Prime Minister Cameron's early decisions

Over at Coffee House, Daniel Korski looks at how Prime Minister Cameron might operate (should he be elected!). He suggests that Mr Cameron might appoint a new Cabinet-level Secretary of State for Veteran Affairs (entirely consistent with the Cameron-Fox emphasis on these issues) and also a Secretary of State for Climate Affairs.  We like the first idea and hope the second idea is unfounded.

Prime Minister Cameron is rumoured to be considering restoring Ken Clarke to the Cabinet.  He will also decide if he wants to restore other big beasts to the frontbench.  David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood are some of the party's biggest hitters.

Prime Minister Cameron's first one hundred days is the focus of the final part of Andrew Grice's five-part series on Project Cameron this morning.

Mr Grice notes the importance of the Implementation Unit under Francis Maude and the Tories' determination to hit the ground running from day one. Although Labour carried out big changes in their early days in power - like Bank of England independence - their more difficult reforms on schools and hospitals, for example, were delayed.  David Cameron doesn't want to repeat that mistake and centrepiece reforms on schools and welfare will come early so that the benefits also come early.  There must be a risk, however, that Labour will leave the economy and public finances in a mess.  George Osborne's first budget could define the early Cameron years in the same way Geoffrey Howe's budgets defined the Thatcher years.

Mr Cameron won't rush to reverse the Hunting Ban (via a free vote). This will probably be a second year action.  The Conservatives will want to appear focused on the bread and butter issues facing the nation.

Military Covenant Commission reveals interim conclusions

The Military Covenant Commission set up by David Cameron last March has announced its interim findings this afternoon. Liam Fox MP was joined by Chairman of the Commission Frederick Forsyth, and Simon Weston and Andrew Murrison MP in CCHQ this afternoon. Download a copy of the report here.

Here are the key points that came out of the report and press conference:

The Military Covenant should be clearly established and written into tri-service doctrine (as opposed to just the army's charter).

There should be a Strategic Defence Review about every four years. Fox criticised the Government for not having one since 1998, and therefore for basing its response to the new strategic environment on old assumptions.

Inquests have repeatedly pointed to inadequate provision of basic equipment. Forsyth estimated that fifty or sixty deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan could be attributed to "crap equipment". Injured soldiers (and NHS professionals) should be aware of their right to priority treatment.

Des Browne as Secretary of State for Defence should be full-time, and the minister for veterans and personnel should be a Minister of State.

Public shows of support for members of the Armed Forces and veterans should be encouraged with corporate and civic sponsorship. Simon Weston said that the public engaged with the military more positively during the troubles in Northern Ireland because the fighting was closer to home than the wards in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wearing of uniforms in public more would help with the disconnect between society and military. 

Unpaid defence bills must come before tax cuts, warns Fox

Later today Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox will welcome the interim report of the party's Military Covenant Commission, chaired by Frederick Forsyth and launched by David Cameron in March.  The report will recommend:

1. A guaranteed NHS dentist for service families even if the lists in the areas they move to are full.
2. Passporting of their place on NHS waiting lists so that they do not start waiting all over again when they move from one NHS jurisdiction to another.
3. Extra investment in pre-school childcare and after school clubs.
4. Extra education funding for servicemen's children; the report finds problems of underachievement related to constant changing of schools.
5. Faster refurbishment of service families' accommodation.
6. A new system for compensating injured soldiers so that "functional impairment rather than a formulaic assessment of individual injuries" determines payments.

The report's recommendations will now go to Dr Fox and the shadow cabinet for consideration.

Dr Fox told The Sunday Telegraph that Tory defence policy would have five priorities:

• Repair the Military Covenant
• Sell parts of the defence estate to improve service housing.
• Place greater pressure on Nato countries to contribute troops and cash to the war in Afghanistan.
• Transform defence procurement.
• Hold a Strategic Defence Review.

The Shadow Defence Secretary expands on those themes in an interview for this morning's Financial Times.  The man regarded as the leading voice of the right, tells the FT that tax cuts may be impossible because of the possibility that the party might inherit “unpleasant, unpaid bills” at the Ministry of Defence.  An on-message Dr Fox says:

"I take every opportunity, despite being an ardent tax cutter myself, to warn my colleagues that we may find a number of unpleasant unpaid bills left behind by Labour on taking office. I would not go as far as to call it a scorched earth policy, but we have big worries about the size of this.”

Conservative Party members have voted for the defence budget to be an incoming Conservative government's number one expenditure priority.

ConservativeHome's Samuel Coates will be at today's Forsyth Commission launch and will report more afterwards.

Fox welcomes judicial censure of Labour's failure to equip our troops

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox has released this statement in response to a judge's warning that inadequate equipping of our frontline troops could be breaching servicemen's human rights:

“It should not take a court ruling for the Government to realise that it has a responsibility and a moral obligation to ensure that when it sends troops into harm’s way, they are the best trained and best equipped in the world.  To date this Government has failed.  It is shameful the Defence Secretary tried to gag coroners who have been critical of his Government’s abysmal stewardship of our Armed Forces.  Many will suspect that this is an example of how New Labour will react when their backs are increasingly against the wall.  This marks a new low in the Government’s attitude towards our Armed Forces and the broken military covenant.”

By way of postscript: Earlier this week Liam Fox spoke to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation about the dangers posed to NATO by the Lisbon Treaty's provisions on defence:

"Americans must realise that NATO must maintain its primacy in European security, and that any advancement of EU military capabilities must be done wholly integrated, not as a pillar, into the current framework of NATO—in support of NATO’s aims and objectives."

Download a PDF of the full Fox speech on NATO.

Cameron calls for other NATO nations to help pay for UK and US military

Liam Fox, William Hague and Pauline Neville-Jones were all at Chatham House this morning for a speech on NATO from the Tory leader.

Here are the key sections of the speech - Crossroads for NATO:

There are too many caveats governing NATO nations' commitments: "The problem is not with a national caveat per se.  The decision to deploy troops in combat is the most important decision a sovereign government can take, and it is inevitable that they should wish – and are sometimes constitutionally obliged – to be able to retain an ultimate say in how their troops are deployed.  The problem is with the proliferation of national caveats that started in NATO’s Balkan operations and has got completely out of hand in Afghanistan. Last month the Times reported that examples of national caveats currently range from a  ban on deploying out of area, to no night flying, to no flying in poor weather, no involvement in riot control and no venturing from bases without the maximum force protection or too far from the nearest hospital.  This is no way to fight a war. Decisions in NATO are unanimous. No enterprise can be undertaken unless every member agrees. But once a government has agreed to send troops on an agreed enterprise, there has got to be a basic doctrine, that if you’re in, you’re in."