Cameron announces 'national and international security' policy group

David Cameron has appointed Dame Pauline Neville-Jones to chair the party's policy group on 'national and international security'.  The appointment of Dame Pauline is another sign of Mr Cameron's embrace of the establishment.  A career diplomat Neville-Jones played a controversial role in the Foreign Office's 1990s Balkans policy.  She is an opponent of ID cards and former Governor of the BBC.

Tom King, the former Defence Secretary and first Chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, will be Deputy Chairman of the policy group.

CCHQ has issued a press release detailing the group's remit:

• "The Group will investigate the structure of policing in the UK, including reform to bring local policing closer to local populations and to provide a fully effective force or forces to deal with regional, national, and international policing challenges, including international terrorism.  In addition, the Group will analyse the effectiveness of border control, the security services and administrative structures in Whitehall to deal with the threat of terrorist attack.
• As part of its work on security, the group will consider issues relating to social cohesion - including questions of community relations, immigration policy and their linkages with the UK’s foreign policy.
• The Group will examine the UK’s geo-political positioning vis a vis the EU, NATO, relations with the USA and relations with Commonwealth Countries, as well as with less-developed countries and the emerging giants - taking into account central issues of international relations, including human rights, the spread of democracy and the rule of law, and Islamic fundamentalism.
• The Group will examine UK defence policy in the light of the current and emerging security challenges which the country faces."

We now know the leadership of all seven policy groups:

• Iain Duncan Smith and Debbie Scott of Tomorrow's People will oversee the social justice policy group.
• Ken Clarke chairs the Democracy Taskforce.
• John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith will look at the environment and other quality of life issues.
• Peter Lilley (with a three hour input from Bob Geldof) will look at global poverty and globalisation.
• Stephen Dorrell and former Chief Inspector of Schools Baroness Perry will investigate public service improvement.
• Dame Pauline Neville-Jones and Lord King will chair the security group.
• John Redwood will oversee the investigation into economic competitiveness.

My guess is that four groups are in the hands of establishment figures and three (social justice, global poverty and economic competitiveness) are not.

Comments

[Ed R]

And in case you've missed the splashy (though not terribly informative) websites:

http://www.oursecuritychallenge.com/
http://www.publicserviceschallenge.com/
http://www.qualityoflifechallenge.com/
http://www.globalpovertychallenge.com/
http://www.socialjusticechallenge.com/

I don't know what the site is for the economic competitiveness challenge?

[Editor]

Thanks Ed R. We provide a great service!

[William Norton]

This is an excellent start. The key questions are: who else will be on it? will it develop into a fully-fledged Shadow National Security Council (ie more than a one-off enquiry)?

[RobC]

Mr Editor

Why are you so keen to highlight whether somebody is from yhe 'establishment' or not? What do you mean by establishment? Is it your subjective view whether somebody is or is not a member of the 'establishment'? What is the relevance?

[malcolm]

I would echo Robc,s post Tim.Are you implying that being part of the establishment is bad?

[John Hustings]

"Are you implying that being part of the establishment is bad?"

From my point of view it is. Establishment figures tend to be more politically correct, and are thus less willing to tell harsh but necessary truths.

(This is because Political Correctness is our governing ideology.)

For example, on global poverty the establishment, or politically correct reason would be lack of aid, and the West's protectionism; as opposed to giving the much less politically correct reason of Third World governments' own corruption.

[Frank Young]

I must admit I’m also confused by what you mean by establishment figures. I would welcome a response to Rob C's post. As far as I can see all the committees are lead by senior political figures with expertise and experience in their area.

[johnC]

Follow the link on 'controversial role' above to see why this appalling woman should never have been given this job. She was Hurd's sidekick during the years of Bosnian appeasement and connivance at Serbian genocide and joined him in his disgraceful negotiations with the Butcher of Belgrade on behalf of NatWest. What can Cameron be thinking of ?

[Editor]

By talking of people being part of the establishment I'm suggesting that they are more likely to defend established ways of thinking.

John Gummer, for example, is a leading supporter of the prevailing Kyoto approach to environmental problems. I happen to think Kyoto is an expensive distraction from pursuing technology-based solutions to environmental problems.

Stephen Dorrell will very much be a defender of David Cameron's cautious approach to the NHS. The emphasis will be on better management or improvement - not reform.

Ken Clarke is not a great enthusiast for localism. My prediction is that we won't get radical recommendations from him.

I hope, Malcolm and RobC, that I'm wrong about what they'll achieve but that's what I mean. Hope this helps.

[James Hellyer]

Anyone seeking a clarification on what's meant by the "establishment" point would be well advised to read this post by Paul Goodman on the Platfrom blog.

[malcolm]

Well,we'll just have to wait and see the results.The only difference that I can see is that the four that you have mentioned come from the left of the party and those that you haven't come from the right.
I hope all come up with interesting ideas however.

[James Hellyer]

I think that's rather the point, Malcolm. The left of the party is more inclined to accept the status quo.

[Editor]

Insofar as the establishment is left-leaning that might be true but I'm not sure left-right helps hugely in these discussions.

I think new divides include...

local versus centralist...

pre-emptive versus multilateralist...

socially conservative versus socially liberal...

idealist versus stability-focused...

innovative versus risk averse...

You get old-style left-wingers and right-wingers on both sides of these new debates.

What I'm saying about the establishment is that it's largely centralist, multilateralist, socially liberal, stability-focused and risk averse.

[James Maskell]

One thing to note about this Policy Group is that according to the Conservative Party site, the Policy Group "will examine all aspects of the UK's national security, from both a domestic and an international perspective." One question that comes to mind is whether this Group will be pre-empted. Given that Cameron asked about Iran yesterday Im thinking that it will be.

[Peter Franklin]

Is Zac Goldsmith an establishment figure? I don't think so. He has dished it out to the EU, the NFU and to the conventional economics shared by left and right alike that prices the environment at zero.

Is being anti-ID card establishment? As I recall they are supported by the Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers. As for Dame Pauline's other views, I'm not sure. Given the neo-con views of the Cameroonies I'd be surprised if this will be a surrender monkey commission.

Therefore it looks like two establishment commissions to five for the forces of goodness. I agree with your new divides though.

[Peter Franklin]

Mr Ed,

Is Zac Goldsmith an establishment figure? I don't think so. He has dished it out to the EU, the supermarkets, the NFU and to the conventional economics shared by left and right alike that prices the environment at zero.

Is being anti-ID card establishment? As I recall they are supported by the Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers. As for Dame Pauline's other views, I'm not sure. Given the neo-con views of the Cameroonies I'd be surprised if this will be a surrender monkey commission.

Therefore I make it two establishment commissions to five for the forces of goodness. I agree with your new divides though.

[William Norton]

Peter F is quite right. The modern Tory Party needs to reach out to the oppressed non-establishment hordes of multi-millionaire anti-supermarket former spy chief merchant bankers.

[Selsdon Man]

Yet another establishment Oxbridge non-conservative in charge of Conservative policy.

[Selsdon Man]

Zac Goldsmith is not a Conservative - read his interviews. He is a left wing arriviste.

[Chris Palmer]

Zac Goldsmith = $Money$

No more, no less... well, I hope not anyway.

[Selsdon Man]

Goldsmith+Gummer=Greenpeace c**p

[Editor]

Peter:

I accept what you say about ZG's anti-establishment views on supermarkets but I'd be surprised if the policy group ends up recommending anything that remotely threatens Tesco's interests. What is more than likely is that ZG and the more important (but less newsworthy) group chairman - John Gummer - will commit the Tories to Kyoto environmentalism (the ultimate in poseur multilateralism).

On the security commission I hope I'll be surprised but if Pauline Neville-Jones is as close to Lord Hurd as she is rumoured to be, I would not be optimistic. I would like to have seen someone like Ray Mallon put in charge of crime-fighting policy and Michael Gove in charge of international security policy.

And as for opposition to ID cards being anti-establishment. Nonsense! Everyone from The Guardian to The Telegraph, Liberty to David Davis is opposed to them.

[Ted]

I voted for DC aware that change meant a degree of discomfort but the appointment of Dame Pauline is one I take great exception to.
A robust response to Serb aggression right at the start (when Gulf War had just been won, US & UK troop levels in Germany were high, the USSR had just broken up & Russia was much more pro Western) would have probably have meant an early resolution of the Yugoslav break up, without the years of near genocidal civil war. An unholy alliance between UK and French foreign offices stymied any action until Bill Clinton (and Tony Blair) actually took action. Douglas Hurd and Neville-Jones bear a great responsibility for the outturn of events.

Who knows - if John Major's government had successfully prosecuted a quick military intervention, supporting the US, his government might have had a very different history. But I suppose his failure in the Balkans to take decisive action, and his failure to recognise the weakness of Hurd's approach, is typical of his overall prime ministerial ineffectiveness.

[Peter Franklin]

Mr Ed: "Kyoto environmentalism (the ultimate in poseur multilateralism)"

1. Climate change is a global problem, the solution has to be multilateral.

2. The Asia-Pacific Partnership which you support is multilateral.

3. So far the Partnership has done nothing but pose, though we await the results of the Sydney meeting with bated breath.

4. Kyoto is opposed not because it 'poses' but because it requires real actions that certain interests would prefer not to take -- rather like the WTO which you do support.

Selsdon: I am humbled by the sophistication of your arguments.

William Norton: LOL

[James Hellyer]

"Kyoto is opposed not because it 'poses' but because it requires real actions that certain interests would prefer not to take"

No, it's opposed because it offers miniscule benefits at a cost that outweighs those benefits.

[Selsdon Man]

Sophistication is sometimes a waste of time on this blog William. I notice that you did not disagree.

[Peter Franklin]

"No, it's opposed because it offers miniscule benefits at a cost that outweighs those benefits."

What costs would these be, James? Kyoto only requires that countries cut their carbon emissions not their economic growth. Most of this will be achieved by energy efficiency which pays for itself and then some. Most of the rest will be done by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels something we need to do anyway. As for the miniscule benefits, you forget that Kyoto only covers the period up to 2012. Further cuts will have to be made by successor treaties, but added up these amount to what is needed to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I'm presuming you do think these levels should be stabilised -- or are you happy to see them double and triple just to see what happens?

[James Hellyer]

"What costs would these be, James?"

The costs of compliance and the costs in lost sales as this increase in overheads makes countries less competitive than non-signatories.

"As for the miniscule benefits, you forget that Kyoto only covers the period up to 2012"

No, I didn't forget that.

"I'm presuming you do think these levels should be stabilised -- or are you happy to see them double and triple just to see what happens?"

As these treaties won't stop the global level increasing due to major producers - other than the US - not being signatories, it's not a meaningful way of reducing emissions.

[Sir Buffy de Vere Spoofington, Bt]

"Zac Goldsmith is not a Conservative - read his interviews. He is a left wing arriviste."

Mr Selsdon, sir, you malign Young Goldsmith unfairly.

His grandfather was the arriviste. His father was a parvenu. Zac is merely a trustafarian.

[R UK]

Blair used celebrities to appeal to younger voters. Cool Britannia etc.

Cameron is using celebrities to appeal to a wider section of the electorate in similar style.

Geldof wants to feed the hungry. Goldsmith as an ecologist presumably would prefer it if there were less human beings being born in the first place. Or doesn't he subscribe to Malthus as the Ecologist magazine used to do?

[Peter Franklin]

James Hellyer: "As these treaties won't stop the global level increasing due to major producers - other than the US - not being signatories, it's not a meaningful way of reducing emissions."

With American leadership there is every prospect that the Chinese and Indians will sign up to a Kyoto successor treaty. If there wasn't a genuine chance that the big US polluters wouldn't put so much money into the anti-Kyoto campaigns. Oh and by the way, you better hope and pray that America, China and India do sign up, and that the provisions of the new treaty are strictly enforced, because the consequences of failure are pretty grim.

[J R Lambert]

how do i connect to Dame Pauline Perry and her search for helpful ideas on education policy, please ?