Letwin's 'Heavy' Burden

According to a good friend who lives in Dorset Oliver Letwin is an excellent MP. His public persona is one of a blustering eccentric, but rather like Boris Johnson, he has a sharp political mind. That's the reason David Cameron appointed him his chief policy advisor.

That said, I'm astonished at his recent strange behaviour of dumping constituents' correspondence in park dustbins.  Dictating his responses during early morning walks in St James's Park sounds rather irregular, but if that's Mr Letwin's choice of venue for dealing with his constituency work, I see no problem.

What his actions have brought to light is that he doesn't keep his constituency correspondence on file. Surely any MP worth their salary does that. I'm sure, apart from the Data Protection issues involved, some of Mr Letwin's constituents won't be too happy this weekend knowing that he discards their missives so casually. When people take the time and trouble to write to MPs it's usually because they're greatly concerned about a subject.

This begs the question - how many other MPs dispose of constituents' mail once a response has been given? Surely constituents correspondence should be given the same respect as that of classified government papers? Obviously Mr Letwin thinks not.

Liam Fox has resigned and not before time. The results of the poll are above with only 18% thinking he wouldn't be in his post next week.  One fact of the Fox/Werrity issue which stands out for me is how ineffectual so many of our political representatives appear to be.  Once upon a time we had altruistic MPs who had a commitment to serve the people of these islands to the best of their ability.  Nowadays it appears, as in the Fox case, many are far more egotistical and happy to be used as puppets by their billionaire paymasters.

Tweet

More Fox News

Owing to vision problems at present, I haven't been reading blogs for the past couple of days.

However thanks to Peter and John - two of my readers - who directed to this post.

The writer is seldom, if ever, uninformed. This matter has far-reaching consequences for the safety of these islands and its people.

Tweet

Is Fox A Dead Duck?

There's no honour amongst politicians these days. Their only interest is saving their careers and ensuring their post-political jobs pay a sufficient amount to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed - courtesy of the taxpayer.

I think it was Sunday night when I watched a pathetic, cringe-worthy statement from Liam Fox on the television news. He was begging for his job and obviously thought that admitting he had made mistakes, although there was no impropriety when he permitted his old flat mate to accompany him to top-level talks.

The crux of Fox's behaviour has been well recorded in the past few days so there is no need to repeat them here, but one point has puzzled me - who pays Adam Werritty?

Nick Robinson suggests he has the answer.  He has spoken to a wealthy backer of Liam Fox who says he and half a dozen others raised funds to pay for Adam Werrity to act as the Defence Secretary's unofficial adviser.  The backer wants to remain anonymous of course. How convenient. It seems to be a brazen admission that anyone with sufficiently large enough wads of cash can simply bypass democracy. But we have to ask what his backers want in return?

Being Defence Secretary is perhaps the second most important post in government and the country deserves someone who has our interests at heart and not those of his friends. He should be sacked immediately.

I've placed a poll in the right-hand column for those who wish to vote.

Tweet

Tranche One Hits The Navy

The former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West was prominent on the media yesterday when he criticised the decision by the MoD to sack about 350 sailors from the Royal Navy.  These personnel had not applied for redundancy.

A total of about 1020 Navy staff have been told they are being made redundant in the first round of military job losses, a third of them compulsory.  Approximately 810 sailors applied for redundancy but only 670 are being allowed to leave. The Royal Marines are exempt from the current round of redundancies.

Specified naval personnel were instructed to notify those who have been selected for redundancy either face-to-face in their Ship or establishment or where this is not possible, by telephone.  Callously the military are still sacking staff by telephone. The order also stated 'There are a number of people who have today been notified of redundancy who are deployed or serving overseas. Arrangements will be made to return them to the UK in sufficient time to start the resettlement process. Applicants selected for redundancy will serve up to 6-months' notice and the aim is for them to be employed in the UK by 16 December 2011. Non-applicants [those who did not apply for redundancy] will serve up to 12 months notice and the aim is for them to be employed in the UK by 30 June 2012'.

While Liam Fox refuses to take any responsibility for his decision and prefers to blame the redundancies on the ineptitude of the military brass, some sailors deployed in war zones must be feeling distraught knowing that, within a year they will no longer be part of the Navy.

Earlier this month about 920 soldiers and 930 RAF personnel were told they too were being made redundant - 750 of them against their will.

Is it any wonder morale is at an all-time low?

This is only the first round of redundancies within the military.  Tranche 2 is due early in 2012 and there will be two further tranches to be delivered by April 2015.

Tweet

Fox By Name, Foxy By Nature

On what he thought was the last day of Parliament it took only ten minutes for Liam Fox to announce his Defence Transformation which included the closure of RAF Leuchars and simultaneously 'save' RAF Lossiemouth. The grapevine was partly correct, although Leuchars is not to be sold but turned over to the Army along with RM Condor near Arbroath.

The closure of Leuchars as an airbase was upsetting enough to locals here but when Liam Fox emphasised that the threat of an independence referendum from the SNP Scottish government had played a significant part in the way he had decided to reconfigure the armed forces across the UK, I gasped in astonishment.  Surely such reviews should be undertaken for reasons of security and practicality?  Since the demise of Scottish regiments by the last Labour government and the introduction of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, I am convinced our military are political pawns. One of my readers is so incensed, he has written to the Queen to express his anger about the politicizing of certain military events.

Liam Fox insisted the changes would save money but, as Leuchars had a multi-million pound refit only a few years ago and now it will be necessary to spend more millions in order to convert it to an Army base, I only see expenditure.  The new barracks at Kirknewton, near Edinburgh, has no price tag attached, although it's been reported in the press that the sale of Craighall, Redford Barracks and Dreghorn Barracks (all Edinburgh area) could release a sum around £50 million. Many are unhappy at the closure of these Army bases.

£1.5 billion is to be invested in the reserves over the next 10 years, building up the Territorial Army as the regular force numbers decline. It is expected that 30% (36,000) of the armed forces are to be part-time TA by 2020.

As my title denotes Dr Fox's plans may be more relevant to this rather than the security of these islands, even though William Hague currently disagrees.

Tweet

Scotland - The Future And The Past

Yesterday Alex Salmond laid out his five year vision for Scotland with a pledge to tackle sectarianism and alcoholic drink. He intends to bring back proposals to set a minimum price per unit of alcohol - a policy, although well intended, included some fairly thin evidence that raising prices would be the solution. It won't be the solution because alcohol is only part of the problem. Illegal drugs play a large role too but seem to be ignored.  Have we given up on the drugs 'war'?  Visit any Scottish court on a Monday morning and many of the cases involve both drink and drugs.  Both problems need to be addressed in this parliament.

It's to be hoped there will be a broad debate about sectarianism and avoid hasty, ill-conceived legislation being rushed onto the statute book. As yet I'm unclear about the proposal and was not impressed by Kenny MacAskill's performance on Tuesday's Newsnicht. He certainly appeared unclear too, although he should be aware it's not only related to football terraces but a culture spread widely throughout Scotland, particularly in the central west.  A clear definition needs to be made so as the public are in no doubt how sectarianism will be defined by law enforcers.

We have current laws which deal with drunkenness but they're seldom enforced.  Instead police convey the drunk to the nearest A & E instead of a police station.  The conveyance is often by ambulance for which no charge is made and more seriously, removes an ambulance from its role of attending emergencies. Drunkenness is avoidable, strokes and heart attacks are not.

Yesterday was a sad day in Moray as the three flying squadrons at RAF Kinloss were officially disbanded.  The airfield at the Moray base will cease to operate after 31 July. The Duke of Edinburgh, who is the Honorary Air Commodore to RAF Kinloss, was the reviewing officer.  At nearly 90 he deserves some praise for attending the event.

The Defence Secretary Liam Fox, was visiting Lossiemouth which is only 15 miles from RAF Kinloss, yet did not attend the occasion and refused to give a reason.  Some called him "insensitive" although I think that is far too polite, although could it be that he wasn't invited?  Yesterday's ceremony was private and for military personnel and families.  Not many would invite the hangman to a wake would they?

Tweet

Where Is Westminster's Dennis Kucinich?

On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) of Ohio introduced a privileged resolution, with 16 original co-sponsors, that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan.  It wants Congress to fork out over ¢33 billion more to pay for the current American military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.

Isn't it ironic that an American socialist is calling for the end of the Afghan war when his President has continued George Bush's policies.

Where's Westminster's Dennis Kucinich?  Only 14 MPs voted against the continuation of this war with 310 in favour. Isn't it a disgrace that 322 MPs couldn't be bothered to vote on this issue when they surely are all fully aware of the public mood.

James Arbuthnot, the tory chairman of the Commons defence committee said: 'it was a mistake to describe the conflict as a "war" and seen [sic] rather as part of a "wider global security mission in the Middle East region as a whole"'. His boss is considering an even wider global security mission this week.

Which label the Afghanistan conflict is given doesn't concern me, but the continuous loss of life and these words of Liam Fox do: "A more secure Afghanistan cannot come without military means but not by military means alone". How many more years are we going to be the Taliban's sniper targets?

source

Tweet

Sir Richard Dannett Quits

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, has stepped down from his role as an advisor to David Cameron after a stay of only nine months. He was appointed to the post during last year's Conservative Party conference - just weeks after retiring as chief of the general staff.

An attempt to install him in the Lords was blocked in April on the grounds that he should wait at least a year before taking up a political role.

He clashed with Liam Fox, who has since been appointed Defence Secretary, for saying publicly he was brought in because the Tory front bench lacked 'expert understanding'. He was quite right and it still does.

Sir Richard said he always intended to step down after the election. On Saturday, in an interview on Sky News, he appeared to criticise George Osborne for insisting that the Ministry of Defence budget bears the full cost of replacing Trident.

“It is effectively being put on the table for discussion by asking the Ministry of Defence to pay for it, so the issue really is: how much safer will we be with a replacement nuclear deterrent as opposed to how much safer will we be with fast jets, aircraft carriers, lots of soldiers, tanks and artillery?”

If he's done nothing else in his short tenure, it is to be hoped his comments will widen the debate about Trident. Why are we storing a weapon we can't use without the authority of another country? Scotland doesn't want it and we have to make our voices heard.

source

Tweet

The New Defence Secretary's Quandries

Liam Fox has a problem and it's not only the complexities of the war in Afghanistan. Guido points out Mr Fox's choice of Special Advisor is causing security headaches, not least because he's an American citizen. Mr Fox defended Coffey's appointment and dismissed concerns of spying. He has highlighted the importance of the so-called 'special relationship' between Britain and America, saying: "It's not as if he is Russian."

Mr Fox doesn't seem to get the point does he? I don't want a 'special' relationship with a country which has a president who does not keep close contact with his commander in Afghanistan and relies upon weekly memos from General McChrystal, who now has our armed forces under his command. Of course this move was agreed by Gordon Brown but I can see no benefit - quite the contrary - to our soldiers being commanded by the US.

We all know that within political circles there are those with contacts in other countries. Is it better to have them named as in this case or have them lurking around in the depths of the MoD doing their best to look invisible?

Another headache for the Defence Secretary is the claim by Maj Gen Andrew Mackay that Britain sent troops into Helmand province with 'eyes shut and fingers crossed'. The Major General said Labour's 'complacent' approach to the Afghan mission had proved 'very costly'.

The MoD, immediately on the defensive, retorted, 'The campaign followed careful analysis and had helped combat a resurgent Taliban'. The careful analysis they mention must be that done by John Reid when he held the position. Mr Reid's plan was that ' no shot would necessarily be fired' showing his complete understanding of the Afghan situation in 2001.

Maj Gen Mackay's statement has a ring of truth about it don't you think?

Anyone with any genuine experience of this counter-insurgency business understands that it is hellishly difficult and that mistakes, cock-ups and friction are a permanent feature.

"The issue is whether or not our politicians, diplomats, intelligence services, civil servants and senior military have done enough, adapted enough, been innovative enough or courageous enough to make tough, and more often than not, unpalatable choices.

"My answer to that question is that they have not or have failed to do so too often.

"Muddling through seems to be the default setting, along with the protection of individual and collective interests."

"The genesis of this approach is born of complacency, the thought that 'we can deal with it as and when it happens'.

"It resulted, I believe, in the upper echelons of government going into Helmand with their eyes shut and their fingers crossed.

"For those who fought and died or suffered injuries in that period, this proved a very costly means of conducting counter-insurgency."

source

Tweet

Liam Fox's Statement

Tweet

Defence Matters

The UK has a new Defence Secretary. Liam Fox continues in the role but on the other side of the House.

Out of all the appointments mentioned today this one concerns me most. Liam Fox, as shadow defence secretary, never performed better than average. His media interviews were composed of soundbites and no substance and often he seemed far more concerned that the public knew he had been to visit our troops in various parts of the world rather than address their concerns.

As you will gather I'm not impressed with Dr Fox. During the defence debate a few weeks ago he was dreadful. Even Bob Ainsworth made mincemeat out of him. Not a good omen for someone who has one of the most challenging portfolios in government. Dr Fox was a supporter of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as believing that military force is an option against Iran. He strongly supports NATO and is opposed to European defence integration (as well as European political integration).

In recent years he has been vocal in his opinion that the Military Covenant is broken and that the armed forces are being asked to do too much for what they are resourced to do. He has pledged to restructure the defence procurement process in the MoD and also stated that it would be a matter of policy to see Britain's share of global defense exports increasing under this new government.

David Cameron has, as promised, has set up a war cabinet in the form of a National Security Council and the initial meeting will be tonight. Details can be read here.

I remember Liam Fox's entrance to politics when it was mooted he was destined for great things. He had an enthusiasm about his work in those days and dare I say more than a little sparkle. It's my wish his enthusiasm returns. Our troops deserve the best from the government. Nothing less will do.

Bob Ainsworth shouldn't be a hard act to follow. I remember when he was appointed I was informed he had asked to speak to a group of senior army officers. The feedback I received was that he seemed a genuine person but continually referred to his lack of formal education throughout his talk. It's generally accepted he was promoted beyond his capabilities but no doubt he did his best. One rather nice touch from him is a message he left on the MoD's website.

Liam Fox has followed his example.

Tweet

General Richards' Masterplan

Meet the new head of the Army General Sir David Richards who takes over as Chief of the General Staff on 28 August.

In this morning's Times General Richards sets out his vision of the army's role in Afghanistan.

“The Army’s role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years.”

“I believe that the UK will be committed to Afghanistan in some manner — development, governance, security sector reform — for the next 30 to 40 years,”

So now we know the masterplan. Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary said that 30 to 40 years in Afghanistan was "unaffordable".

“Any idea of maintaining military involvement for that length of time is not a runner. It would require a total rethink of our foreign and security policy,”

Goodnight Vienna has a theory which sounds about right to me. Will the British people continue to support this war for two generations? I certainly hope not.

Tweet