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

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

The Tail Wagging The Dog - Guest Post

If the energy expended on working out whether England subsidises Scotland or whether all North Sea oil is in Scottish territorial waters could be connected up to the National Grid, the the wind turbine programme could be cancelled and electricity bills scrapped.

It is ironic that no mention is made of the Barnett Formula in connection with the Falklands Islands public finances. 

The Falklands Islands government had revenues of £42.4 million from fisheries licences and taxation in 2009/10 and spent £47.6 million on public services for the Falklands. The Falkland Islands is “economically self-sufficient”, only relying on the UK for foreign affairs and defence. Defence of the Falkland Islands, ie one airbase, four Typhoon fighters, three radar stations, one thousand service men and women, several helicopters, one frigate, a patrol ship and a submarine costs “about 0.5% of the UK defence budget”, ie about £180 million per year for 3,000 people with a per capita income of about £40,000 and no unemployment.  Compare that with Scotland’s figures of about £21,000 and unemployment around 8%. That's not fair.

But, people say, so long as the Falklanders wish to remain a self-governing British Overseas Territory, we should skew the defence budget to protect the 3,000 mile logistics neck down to the South Atlantic. One or both of the £10 billion Queen Elizabeth class carriers is allegedly vital for the islands’ defence. After all, there may be oil down there – ignoring the fact the tax revenues from which will stay in Port Stanley. 

Another argument is that the Falkland Islanders wish to live there with red phone boxes and fish and chips and Coronation Street on cable TV and we should support their right to do so. But that right was never granted to the inconveniently black Chagossians who were evicted from their homes in 1965 to enable the Diego Garcia base to be built. Thanks to a cunning plan in the form of a maritime nature reserve they will never be allowed to return.

The final argument propounded is that because 256 British servicemen died in 1982 to recapture the islands from Argentine invaders, the ground is sacred and forever part of Britain. Yet the UK is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2015 after losing 375 sons and daughters and the vast majority of the 16,000 military deaths since 1945 were in former parts of the British Empire.

Is it fair for the wishes of 3,000 people to dictate the defence and foreign policy of 61,000,000? In Warwickshire, hundreds of people will be forced to leave their lifetime homes that will be compulsorily purchased for the unpopular HS2 trainline and thousands forced to endure noise and loss of amenity for the “greater good”. Isn’t a negotiated transfer of sovereignty, with the opportunity of generous compensation and relocation to the UK or even New Zealand for people who didn’t want to stay, be the only sustainable solution to an ongoing problem that will be an increasing burden on the defence budget?

Brian

Tweet