“All budgets have pressure. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence”

Unless of course you are the budget for the Department for International Development.

In 2008/09 we provided £5.5 billion of aid to poorer countries. Our budget will increase to £7.8 billion by 2010/11. By 2013, the equivalent of 0.7% of the UK’s gross national income will be dedicated to development assistance, from 0.36% in 2007/08.

DFiD – Who we are and what we do

Can anyone please explain how the MoD is being battered by a Conservative PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer whilst the very same pair are increasing funding for contraception in Uganda

Britain will provide urgently needed contraceptive supplies to Uganda to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and improve family planning, DFID Secretary of State Andrew Mitchell said today.

DFiD – Britain to provide life-saving contraception in Uganda

Am I in some sort of weird alternative universe?

Perhaps we should ask the team to look into the footwear of MP’s and the cabinet.

Quite clearly they are not wearing the correct footwear, instead of the expected elegant brogues they seem to be wearing these.

Amid the continuing confusion over withdrawal dates and strategies in Afghanistan we have the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Defence, Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister chipping in with contradictory comments.

Whilst they are sweating over the canapes in the White House or subsidised drinks in the House of Commons they should spare a thought for those doing the real sweating and try and get their act together.

Then we have the Prime Minister dropping his trousers and bending over for the US President

In the final act of buffonery, we have the Deputy Prime Minister, a Minister of the Crown, standing at the Despatch Box trying to score a cheap political point against Jack Straw by declaring the Iraq War illegal.

Come to think of it, am I being unfair to clowns?

Our glorious leaders have been debating the forthcoming Defence Review, it was nearly a month ago (21 June) but only just got round to a spot of analysis

Full transcript here or here

Good news, there was standing room only.

OK, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, there were about 30 in attendance, lets call it 5%

5% neatly ties in to our last post on the subject of defence debates and giving a shit

Skip forward to 1 hour and 17 minutes for the start of the debate

Were all the Defence Select Committee in attendance?

Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Chair)	North East Hampshire		Conservative
Mr Julian Brazier MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Canterbury		Conservative
John Glen MP	Salisbury		Conservative
Mr Adam Holloway MP	Gravesham		Conservative
Bob Stewart MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Beckenham		Conservative
Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Lagan Valley		Democratic Unionist
Mr David Hamilton MP	Midlothian		Labour
Mrs Madeleine Moon MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Bridgend		Labour
Alison Seabeck MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Plymouth, Moor View		Labour
Ms Gisela Stuart MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Birmingham, Edgbaston		Labour
John Woodcock MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Barrow and Furness		Labour / Co-operative
Mr Mike Hancock MP	Portsmouth South		Liberal Democrat

7 out of the 12 attended, all of the women and most of the Labour members.

Not even the Chairman bothered to show his face for what is the most important aspect of the defence area in many years.

If our politicians in general cannot be bothered, surely we have a right to expect those in the select committee to show an interest.

But what about the content, surely quality is more important than quantity?

Putting the 45 odd thousand words from the speech into a word cloud generator creates this.

Take out some of the obvious ones like hon and members and you can get a reasonable approximation of what the honourable members were talking about.

You will notice the word ‘constituency’ is quite prominent because quite a considerable amount of the debate was taken up by MP’s with defence related business in their constituency canvassing for that particular group. I suppose it is fair enough that an MP makes representation on behalf of his or her constituents, that is what they are there to do, but this debate was about the strategic direction of the UK’s defence and security.

Menzies Campbell made a pretty cuting remark that was absolutely spot on

Indeed. During earlier exchanges, the thought occurred to me that, if there were any Treasury Ministers looking in on the debate, they certainly were not getting any encouragement about a willingness on the part of anyone in any part of the House to give up any capability or programme, or any installation or base that happened to be in their constituency.

There were some good contributions but they were in the minority, despite the members habitually congratulating themselves on having a good debate and there were quite a few maiden speeches that were mostly, again, pleading for their constituency.

Bob Ainsworth attended and made an excellent contribution which confirms, at least to me, that he is a decent sort and despite having his hands tied whilst in Government, tried his best.

Jeffrey Donaldson also made an excellent contribution, I thought he was hugely impressive on the recent Question Time and I am glad that politicians from Northern Ireland are breaking out of parochial politics and making valuable contributions to the issues that face all of the United Kingdon

Here are a few snippets, I haven’t labelled them so you can judge the quality without having regard to the person, each paragraph from a different MP

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position. Ministry of Defence statistics show that since the previous strategic defence review there have been more than 10,000 defence job losses in Scotland and an under-spend of more than £5.6 billion. What consideration will be given in this SDSR to ensure a fair and balanced defence footprint throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the review will consider the international conventions used for the engagement of advanced technology? I am thinking particularly of drone planes. Does he believe that such planes are within international law when they are used for the targeted extra-judicial killings of suspected terrorists?

Does my hon. Friend agree that something that we should look at very carefully is the number of top brass? Indeed, the suggestion has been made that there are more admirals than there are vessels in the surface fleet.

It is important that we use our helicopters for what we need to use them, and not use them to ferry our top brass to other functions.

Here is something I thought was very encouraging.

I have consistently held the view that the defence budget is too small. To cut it now would be unthinkable. Education and health are vital, and it is right that they should be ring-fenced, but their importance will pale into insignificance if our way of life is threatened by terror or, even worse, if we find ourselves under the heel of a foreign power. The difficult question is, as always, estimating the level of the threat that we face, but we must always err on the side of caution and fear the worst. The justification for defence expenditure should be based primarily on necessity, rather than affordability. In conjunction with the strategic defence review, we must look at our foreign policy commitments, because we must decide what sort of country we want to be before we make up our mind on our strategic defence position. We could, for example, model ourselves on Belgium, Switzerland or Scandinavia, and send the message to the world that we do not intend to do anyone any harm, in the vain hope that they will not do us any.

Alternatively, we could growl fiercely at our would-be aggressors, declaring that if they give us a problem, we will sink our sharp teeth into them. One thing is clear: we would be unwise to flip between the two models. It is sensible not to be too aggressive, but Britain’s history, its place in the world, and our culture define us as a nation. For my part, I confess to feeling much more comfortable with an ability to bite potential invaders, as opposed to begging for forgiveness and pleading for mercy.

So whilst the attendance was shocking, some of the contributions irrelevant or plain ridiculous there were some gems to pick out,

I will let you search the text for the originator of this rather brilliant text but he ends with this…

In conclusion, the most important job for the coalition is not just delivering an effective strategic defence review, but paying for it.

Exactly

I will maintain this over time but this is version 1

Party	Pledge or Promise	Reality
Lib Dem	With strong Treasury involvement, review all major defence procurement projects through the SSDR to ensure money is being spent effectively. We will not purchase tranche 3B of the Eurofighter.	Mo news on 3B but there will be strong treasury involvement in the SDR
Lib Dem	Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime it is unaffordable, and Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives	Trident replacement has been confirmed but value for money will come under greater scrutiny
Lib Dem	Reinvigorate Franco-British and wider European defence co-operation to ensure procurement costs are kept low.	Unclear, no real news or indications yet
Lib Dem	Give a pay rise to the lower ranks so that their pay is brought into line with the starting salary of their emergency services counterparts.	The budget has placed a pay freeze on all ranks except those on £21k or less, which is more or less Lance Corporal and below. Those under will get a few hundred pounds increase
Lib Dem	We will reduce the number of civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence	No news yet but can I suggest we start with diversity coordinators
Conservative	establish a new Permanent Military Command for Homeland Defence and Security to provide a more structured military contribution to homeland security	Interesting one this, especially since there was already one in existence
Conservative	we will press other members of NATO to take their fair share of the military burden	Nothing in the news as of yet
Conservative	We support the decision to renew Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based on the Trident missile system.	Its looks like they are following through on this one
Conservative	We will release spending on unnecessary and bureaucratic EU defence initiatives and spend the money on our Armed Forces. As part of that process, we will re-evaluate our position with the European Defence Agency.	Nothing in the news yet
Conservative	We will double the operational allowance	Completed, well done
Conservative	maximise rest and recuperation leave	No news on how they are going to achieve this yet
Conservative	ensure our servicemen and women are treated in dedicated military wards in hospital	Another interesting one, given they were already in place
Conservative	Provide university and further education scholarships for the children of servicemen and women killed while on active duty	No news yet
Conservative	Immediate negotiations to achieve cost reductions from major suppliers	mmm
Conservative	it would also not be appropriate to make in-year reductions to the existing defence budget in 2010/11	Confirmed
Conservative	We will publish all items of spending over £25,000 online	No news yet
Conservative	place an obligation to manage taxpayers’ money wisely at the heart of civil service employment contracts	No news yet
Conservative	strengthening the role of the Chief Information Officer to get a grip on government ICT projects	No news yet
Conservative	We will review the structure of the Ministry of Defence to reduce running costs by 25 per cent	I know, lets reduce costs by running a LGBT seminar and giving GD (of BOWMAN infamy) a contract for £500million for 7 prototypes
Conservative	We will reform the procurement process to ensure the delivery of equipment on time and on budget.	No news yet

Click here to view the embedded video.

Read the transcripts of the sessions, rather than the sanitised final reports and it is clear that the relationship between the committee and military and civilian staff at the MoD was difficult to say the least.

The old committee consisted of the following

Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Chair)	North East Hampshire	Conservative
Mr David S Borrow MP	South Ribble	Labour
Mr David Crausby MP	Bolton North East	Labour
Linda Gilroy MP	Plymouth Sutton	Labour
Mr David Hamilton MP	Midlothian	Labour
Mr Mike Hancock MP	Portsmouth South	Liberal Democrats
Mr Dai Havard MP	Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney	Labour
Mr Adam Holloway MP	Gravesham	Conservative
Mr Bernard Jenkin MP	North Essex	Conservative
Mr Brian Jenkins MP	Tamworth	Labour
Mr Kevan Jones MP	Durham North	Labour
Robert Key MP	Salisbury	Conservative
Willie Rennie MP	Dunfermline and West Fife	Liberal Democrats
Mrs Madeleine Moon MP	Bridgend	Labour
John Smith MP	Vale of Glamorgan	Labour
Richard Younger-Ross MP	Teignbridge	Liberal Democrats

For the new committee the final appointees aren’t completely in yet (no Liberal Democrats) but this is the story so far.

The Conservative and Labour survivors are to the top of the table and the new members beneath.

Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Chair)	North East Hampshire		Conservative
Mr Julian Brazier MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Canterbury		Conservative
John Glen MP	Salisbury		Conservative
Mr Adam Holloway MP	Gravesham		Conservative
Bob Stewart MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Beckenham		Conservative
Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Lagan Valley		Democratic Unionist
Mr David Hamilton MP	Midlothian		Labour
Mrs Madeleine Moon MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Bridgend		Labour
Alison Seabeck MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Plymouth, Moor View		Labour
Ms Gisela Stuart MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Birmingham, Edgbaston		Labour
John Woodcock MP Spoke at the Strategic Defence and Security Review debate	Barrow and Furness		Labour / Co-operative
Mr Mike Hancock MP	Portsmouth South		Liberal Democrat

As the MoD wrestles with its runaway equipment programme, implements budget cuts and manage overseas operations, the job of the select committee is as important as ever.

There has to be a strong team.

What about the new members

Alison Seabeck, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor, formerly Plymouth Devonport (spot he naval connection) and is the partner of Nick Raynsford MP, the same Nick Raynsford that was reported as earning thousands from construction organisations connected with his ministerial position.

Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgebaston brings some useful foreign affairs experience to the committee, having served on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow and Furness and is a strong advocate of anything to do with submarines, remind me what gets built at Barrow.

Julian Brazier, Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whistable with a long military background, just don’t ask him about gay rights though.

John Glen, Conservative MP for Salisbury, part of the 2010 intake of new MP’s.

Bob Stuart, Conservative MP for Beckenham and the well known former commander of the Cheshire Regiment, BBC soundbite man and general thorn in the side of the MoD. One of his best quotes in relation to the MoD is accusing them of acting with the speed of  a striking sloth, I have high hopes for Bob, a real soldier with an interesting background, exactly what we need.

For example, when asked what he could do that outgoing MP Jacqui Lait could not, he replied: “I can ejaculate!” He later tried to backtrack by insisting he used the word “educate”

Priceless

The only problem I have so far is with those not on the list.

If the list is correct, it’s source being the FT’s Westminster Blog, it would seem that the Liberal Democrats yet to be appointed will outnumber the Conservative and Labour members.

What.

Eh.

Surely some mistake.

It will be interesting to see the remaining pieces of the jigsaw fall into place.

UPDATE

I had not picked up that the new select committee have been reduced in size so the Liberal Democrats only have 2 positions.

Thanks to ‘A’ in comments

Can I just remind those at the BBC that we have over 10,000 service personnel at war, enjoying the delights of sweltering heat, snipers, IED’s and one shower per week.

Whilst you are writing the news scripts from the warmth/coolness and comfort of the BBC’s rather plush offices is there any chance you might actually recognise this?

Thanks

Words fail me and normally I would resort to swearing but I simply cannot muster the words to describe my outrage at the Guardian for giving Gerry Adams a platform to make cheap political capital and Gerry Adams.

To quote the article (which I note hasn’t got comments switching on)

On the way home someone had placed hundreds of little name plaques along the grass verge at the side of the road outside Dungiven. The names were of hundreds of citizens killed by the British army and other state forces here during the conflict, including the 11 from Ballymurphy.

Cameron should know they and their families continue to be denied truth. His apology for Bloody Sunday was right. But he said that “Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service the British army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969-2007.”

That is wrong.

Bloody Sunday is the defining story of the British army in Ireland.

If you want to read the rest of this drivel, click here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/16/bloody-sunday-british-army

Hundreds of citizens eh Gerry, how about the 2057 citizens killed by republican terrorist groups or the 1,123 citizens of the security forces killed. Let’s not even go into the torture and beatings.

I don’t often quote Wikipedia but I thought a screen grab would speak volumes

How much does Gerry Adams get paid from the taxpayer.

More than the average soldier, thats for certain.

The Armed Forces must be held to a higher standard than terrorists, who were intent on torturing and killing innocents in a premeditated fashion, so we must not draw any moral equivalence between the actions of the soldiers and the actions of the IRA, but it is worth noting that the loudest voices of protest seem to be coming from the organisations with close links to the PIRA.

We need to recognise that the soldiers over reacted and made a terrible mistake, resulting in the death of innocents, but sitting in quite calm judgement over the actions of young service personnel, being subjected to acid attack, gunfire, petrol and nail bombs is something we should be very careful of. The enquiry fails to put the events in context, the constant attacks on soldiers and the fact that the area was a complete no go area for the RUC.

General Sir Michael Rose said:

‘How ironic now that the soldiers who brought peace to Northern Ireland are likely to be treated as criminals as a result of this inquiry, while former terrorists like McGuinness and Adams – who did everything to prevent peace – are feted in their roles as ministers.’

Having read the enquiry report it makes a number of puzzling statements that seem to prejudge the evidence or interpret it with singular bias. Despite stating that the soldiers fired the first shot it is widely believed by many credible witnesses that the distinctive first shots were were from a Thompson sub machine gun, the same type of weapon that a certain prominent politician was reported as carrying and a favourite of the IRA at the time. Perhaps if a criminal prosecution against the soldiers was bought and likely held outside Northern Ireland, Martin would be called as a witness and face serious cross examination, rather than the soft soaping he received from Saville.

I wonder if charges of possession of a firearm will follow as well?

Is it really in the public interest to pursue criminal charges against former soldiers, who will now be in their sixties. If it is, then it is equally in the public interest to spend as much time and money on an enquiry into the violent death of every single victim of the troubles; Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, Regents Park, Manchester, Guildford, Omagh etc etc. If it is, then a prosecution against Martin McGuinness should follow.

It is the soldiers of the British Army and members of the RUC, UDR and security forces that held the ring and made both sides of the sectarian divide realise that there was no future in armed terrorism.

As usual, the great and the good will pour liberal quantities of blame off their well teflon’d shoulders and down onto the individuals doing their best, in difficult situations , at the sharp end.

The politicians who placed those young soldiers in Londonderry will of course be absent from any proceedings.

There was much injustice and many victims but Northern Ireland today is a very different place. Whilst the yoghurt knitting folk over at the Guradian and BBC get on with the business of characterising the entire Army in general and the Parachute Regiment in particular, as bloodthirsty murderers, perhaps we might pause for a moment and ask where the last recipient of the Victoria Cross was from.

Cpl Bryan Budd VC; a member of the Parachute Regiment and son of Belfast.

As David Cameron apologised I wonder if we will get an apology from Sinn Fein as well.

It’s time to draw a line and move on.

Its very roughly the amount of aid we have given to India in the last 10 years, the 10 year period counting back from 2010/2011 will be more like £2.2 billion but for the sake of convenience lets stick with the nice round number. We can also ignore accumulated inflation and other factors, £2billion it is then.

As the MoD enters a period of yet more austerity it might be interesting to ponder what one can buy with a couple of billion quid.

The House of Commons Defence Select has a new Chairman, James Arbuthnot, hold on, that’s the same as the old one.

That’s new politics for you, more of the same.

One of the contenders was Douglas Carswell. I regularly comment on his blog and whilst I often disagree with his somewhat simplistic and often uninformed view of defence acquisition I think he would have made an excellent Chairman, he has a sharp and enquiring mind and would certainly have no fear of the vested interests that make up the government – military – industry axis that despite decades of smart procurement, fast trackers, consultants studies and being an ‘intelligent customer’ is still as much as a dysfunctional basket case as ever.

It’s a shame he didn’t make it.

Patrick Mercer also stood, making a claim for the top spot on the back of his military career. A former Colonel there is no doubt his military experience would have proven valuable but I also think it would have been detrimental. Being an Army officer does not necessarily equip one for an oversight role across the whole defence estate, far from it. That said, I think Patrick Mercer would have been a better choice than Mr Arbuthnot (former Eton Head Boy) and should at least be on the committee.

We have some real defence experience in the MoD and parliament and perhaps a note of optimism is in order, all we need now is the MoD and services to experience a similar change.

Hang on there…

Looks like there is change at the top of the MoD and armed forces as well.

Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup will resign later this year, earlier than planned.

Sir Bill Jeffrey, Permanent Under Secretary of State, will go at the same time.

We should not forget the Sir Jock had his tenure extended by Gordon Brown just to stop General Sir Richard Dannatt getting the job and Sir Bill was heavily criticised by the formidable former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Sir Edward Lee) for allowing tennis courts to be refurbished whilst presiding over big cuts to service personnel accommodation maintenance and they are both widely seen as being far too close to the former Labour government. It was always a mystery why Sir Bill was appointed in the first place, perhaps his Scottishness had something to do with it.

When the armed forces and civil service become overly politicised it is service personnel that inevitably suffer.

Expect to see the pair of them propping up the benches in the Lords, continuing to draw their pay and feather their overly stuffed pension funds.

Perhaps they will find the bottle to criticise the former government.

If we listen to the press, it will be a soldier in the hot seat but it is the Senior Services ‘turn’ not that it should really make any difference. Expect the senior officers of all three services to be honing their slicing skills because slicing is what they will be doing.

If we have accepted change is needed and in fact in the pipeline, why wait?

Get the pair of them, and a few layers beneath them, out now.

The situation in Afghanistan, the cost problems at the MoD and the increasingly dysfunctional relationship between the MoD, Services and government needs some serious surgery, not just a shuffling of seats at the top.

Expect lots of stories in the mainstream and specialist media about how important the carriers are, why we need Typhoon Tranche 3 and why it is really important that we maintain the Army at the expense of Trident, etc etc

We will definitely start seeing stories from the RAF and RN about how they are supporting operations in Afghanistan or how the RN is a pirate buster extraordinaire.

Some of it will promote genuine debate but most will be nothing short of a naked attempt to protect sacred cows. As we reported earlier though, sacred cows make the best beef burgers.

Its going to be fun to watch the the usually very slick RAF media machine going head to head with the other services, who knows, there might even be a stitch up between the big equipment spenders of the Crab and Andrew variety, against Tom!

A former Guardsman with experience in Northern Ireland, Hong Kong and Malaysia he should be another strong appointee with plenty of experience.

He was previously an opposition spokesman on defence and is President of the Motorsport Industry Association.

The UK has a vibrant and innovative motorsport industry and there is absolutely no doubt, closer links between it and the MoD should be beneficial, technology transfers have created many advances for military vehicles.

Lets hope those industry connections don’t get in the way, like the unfortunate Gerald Howarth MP, who rumour has it, is on the wrong side of an MoD revolving door because of close links with the defence industry.

Oh, hang on…

In 2007, the Motorsport Industry Association initiated the Motorsport to Defence Initiative to foster greater co-operation and develop business opportunities, here is a quote from Lord Astor;

“The MIA Motorsport to Defence Programme has already delivered many new positive business opportunities for our Members in the defence sector. I am delighted that real business has been created.”

In this article and this one

Last week BAE representatives met the Motorsport Industry Association to discuss how innovations in racing can benefit the defence and aerospace industry

Here

Lord Astor and Gerald Howarth MP, Shadow Spokesman for Defence in the House of Lords and House of Commons respectively attended the event and were able to gain a first hand experience of the considerable effort the industry is putting in to support the FRES programme.

See if you can spot Lord Astor at the Autosport International Show where Supacat were exhibiting in support of the MIA Motorsport to Defence initiative.

The same Supacat that are bidding for the LPPV contract that Lord Astor might have some part in awarding.

Click here to spot him

To what extent is it legitimate for politicians to have links with manufacturers or their industry associations?

Hold on, wasn’t Gerald Howarth MP supposed to be in that job.

Shuffle shuffle…

One wonders if Mr Howarth’s involvement with the defence industry as highlighted by Guido had anything to do with it?

The Sunlight Centre for Open Politics has made the following statement

The Sunlight Centre welcomes today’s decision not to put Gerald Howarth MP in charge of the nations defence procurement.  A spokesman for the organisation said: “Mr Howarth’s lobbying connections with the industry would have made it impossible for the public to be sure they were getting the best deal in this already controversial market. For the sake of propriety the decision to remove him from defence procurement was the right thing to do.”

In light of the upcoming announcement on the winner of the light protected patrol vehicle (LPPV) competition, in which Supacat are short-listed with Force Protection Europe, perhaps this statement made in the House of Parliament some time ago has come back to haunt him

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on one point. The WMIKs are not being built by Supacat, which is a company based at Dunkeswell, the managing director of which happens to be the nephew of my former secretary—so I know a bit about it. It is building the Jackal, which, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard from the Minister, is performing superbly and is a fantastic bit of kit. Supacat is not involved in the WMIK programme.

What are these lobbying connections?

See here and here for information from Guido.

Having a look at the recently released MP’s Parliament event list, Gerald Howarth booked 4 for the Air League and 9 for the Air Power Association.

Air League - Where Political Leaders meet Aviation Leaders, Representing the three main parties in both Houses of Parliament, the APAG brings those involved in aviation together with politicians for the discussion of topical aerospace issues. By allowing representatives from industry and associated groups to discuss aviation issues directly with leading members of political parties, the APAG has been an unqualified success. Parliamentarians of both Houses are Parliamentary Members of The Air League; at present there are 220.

Their web site lists Gerald Howarth as a Council Member

Air Power Association, The Air Power Association today plays a decisive role in enhancing the image of the Royal Air Force by fostering close links with the media and the defence and aviation industry.  Its aim is to develop a better understanding of the Service and the role played by air power through a programme of top-level briefings, functions and professional visits. The Association has two categories of membership: Industry Members (currently Boeing, EADS, AgustaWestland, Lockheed Martin UK, Rolls-Royce, A|D|S, MBDA, Raytheon, DSS, Thales, Eventuality UK, BAE Systems, Hawker Beechcraft and The Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises); and Individual Membership.

As Mr Luff starts to arrange the pens on his new desk and begins to make decisions that will impact thousands of service personnel perhaps he might reflect on some of the items of expenditure he was responsible for, as revealed during the scandals;

Radio £148.99
Clock radio £116.99
Ladder £22.67
Lavatory £256
Bed £708
Kitchen table and six chairs £1,583
Vacuum cleaner £194.37
Microwave £218.99
Ironing board £49.99
Sandwich maker £12.95
Vacuum cleaner £139
Kettle £29.99
China service
Cookware £18
Bread bin £18
Cafetiere and bed linen £48.48
Electric heater £49
Pillows (6) £42
Towels (2) £14
Wastepaper bin and magazine rack £64.92
Glasses £20
Laundry bin, mirror, duvet cover, mattress cover, sheet, pillowcase £157.50
Ironing board £14.99
Bed linen £20
Dining room table, four chairs, bar stool £596
Carpet £1,589.93
Towels (4) and bathmat £76
Food mixer, kitchen scales, table lamp, bulbs £150.90
Fan £24.99
Bathroom access-ories including lavatory seat, towel, shower curtain £274.84
Bedspread £100 (W) (Food mixer, bed sheets, towels Bedside light, alarm clock radio £246.75
Bed linen, incl: duvet cover (1) pillow cases (4) valance £255.50
Mattress £675
Shower curtain, lavatory set £133.94
Bed linen including sheet (1) pillow case (2) duvet cover (1) £75
Highgrove bedside chest £144.93
Kettle £17.99
TV £809.91
DVD £224.99
Chest of drawers £725
TV stand £99.99
Coffee table £120
Cutlery and table accessories £107.45
Bed £369 Bed linen £18.36
Bed linen and cushions £123
Bed linen £36
Two sofas, two tables, pouffe £1,774
Kitchen equipment £23.46
Phone £22.49
Kitchen accessories including door stopper, £3.99, £156.62
Dishwasher £299

One might think that having a knowledgeable MP with links to the Armed Forces and the defence industry is actually a good thing, but whilst an equipment minister is so closely linked to lobbying organisations and the defence industry there will always be a perception of wrong doing, which trumps any positives by a long way.

Hat Tip: Order Order

The defence and security aspects are as below

8. DEFENCE

The Government believes that we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. We also recognise that we need to do much more to ensure that our Armed Forces have the support they need, and that veterans and their families are treated with the dignity that they deserve.

We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

We will aim to reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by at least 25%.

We will work to rebuild the Military Covenant by:

• ensuring that Service personnel’s rest and recuperation leave can be maximised;
• changing the rules so that Service personnel only have to register once on the Service register;
• exploring the potential for including Service children as part of our proposals for a pupil premium;
• providing university and further education scholarships for the children of Servicemen and women who have been killed on active duty since 1990;
• providing support for ex-Service personnel to study at university,
• creating a new programme, ‘Troops for Teachers’, to recruit ex-Service personnel into the teaching profession;
• providing extra support for veteran mental health needs; and
• reviewing the rules governing the awarding of medals.

We will double the operational allowance for Armed Forces personnel serving in Afghanistan, and include Armed Forces pay in our plans for a fair pay review.

We will ensure that injured personnel are treated in dedicated military wards.

We will look at whether there is scope to refurbish Armed Forces’ accommodation from efficiencies within the Ministry of Defence.

We will support defence jobs through exports that are used for legitimate purposes, not internal repression, and will work for a full international ban on cluster munitions.

15. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The Government believes that Britain must always be an active member of the global community, promoting our national interests while standing up for the values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. This means working as a constructive member of the United Nations, NATO and other multilateral organisations including the Commonwealth; working to promote stability and security; and pushing for reform of global institutions to ensure that they reflect the modern world.

We will take forward our shared resolve to safeguard the UK’s national security and support our Armed Forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state.

We will work to establish a new ‘special relationship’ with India and seek closer engagement with China, while standing firm on human rights in all our bilateral relationships.

We will maintain a strong, close and frank relationship with the United States.

We want to strengthen the Commonwealth as a focus for promoting democratic values and development.

We will work to promote stability in the Western Balkans.

We will support concerted international efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We support reform of the UN Security Council, including permanent seats for Japan, India, Germany, Brazil and African representation.

We will work to intensify our cultural, educational, commercial and diplomatic links with many nations beyond Europe and North America to strengthen the UK’s relations with the fastest-growing areas of the world economy.

We will never condone the use of torture.

21. NATIONAL SECURITY

The Government believes that its primary responsibility is to ensure national security. We need a coherent approach to national security issues across government, and we will take action to tackle terrorism, and its causes, at home and abroad.

We have established a National Security Council and appointed a National Security Adviser.

We have commenced a Strategic Defence and Security Review, commissioned and overseen by the National Security Council, with strong Treasury involvement. We will also develop and publish a new National Security Strategy.

We will urgently review Control Orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes. We will seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.

We will deny public funds to any group that has recently espoused or incited violence or hatred. We will proscribe such organisations, subject to the advice of the police and security and intelligence agencies.

We believe that Britain should be able to deport foreign nationals who threaten our security to countries where there are verifiable guarantees that they will not be tortured. We will seek to extend these guarantees to more countries.

Others

The next items are presented in summary format

We will take steps to open up government procurement and reduce costs; and we will publish government ICT contracts online.

We will require full, online disclosure of all central government spending and contracts over £25,000.

The Government believes that even in these difficult economic times, the UK has a moral responsibility to help the poorest people in the world. We will honour our aid commitments, but at the same time will ensure much greater transparency and scrutiny of aid spending to deliver value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of our aid budget.

We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.

We will introduce full transparency in aid and publish details of all UK aid spending online. We will push for similarly high levels of transparency internationally.

We will keep aid untied from commercial interests, and will maintain DfID as an independent department focused on poverty reduction.

We will stick to the rules laid down by the OECD about what spending counts as aid.

We will support efforts to establish an International Arms Trade Treaty to limit the sales of arms to dangerous regimes.

We will provide a more integrated approach to post-conflict reconstruction where the British military is involved – building on the Stabilisation Unit in Whitehall and creating a new Stabilisation and Reconstruction Force to bridge the gap between the military and the reconstruction effort.

The team has some real military experience as well, which makes a refreshing change and bodes well.

This is just a gentle reminder of what they said whilst on the opposition benches.

Dr Liam Fox MP, Secretary of State for Defence

We have 99,000 people in the Army and 85,000 civilians in the MoD. Some things will have to change – and believe me, they will

With headline equipment programmes utterly unmatched by funding, future defence procurement becomes little more than a child’s wish list to Santa Claus.

The defence and security of the United Kingdom is increasingly being run on a wing and a prayer and, as the money has failed to materialise for the unfunded projects, so they are delayed and delayed with the taxpayer left to foot the bill and the military left to ponder their absent capabilities.

This has led many to believe that we have to choose between fighting the war or a war-but this is a false dichotomy.

Saying that we can only focus on the war at the expense of a war is not good enough for the British people and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.

You can delegate authority, but not responsibility. Labour Ministers are to blame for the failings at the Ministry of Defence – not the Civil Service or the Armed forces.

This is a government willing to spend £12.5bn on a pointless VAT cut, but not to maintain the capability of our Armed Forces.

And why are we reducing minehunter capacity when tension in the Gulf is rising? We need to maintain that capacity at a time when there are tensions over what Iran intends to do

Mr Nick Harvey MP, Minister of State for the Armed Forces

It is exasperating to learn how pervasive the culture of denial and deception among MoD officials is when it comes to acknowledging the £21 billion funding gap in defence procurement

This is yet another example of the Government making empty promises to our Armed Forces. The brave men and women who have risked life and limb in service of our country deserve better

Mine detection equipment is clearly a vital capability in Afghanistan. With IEDs now the biggest single threat our troops are facing, any failure to provide them with enough metal detectors is simply unforgivable

Our brave service men and women have suffered enough as a result of this Government’s disastrous record on military procurement.

The Government has presided over a decade of overstretch and spiralling costs without being straight with the public about the consequences

If the Government is not prepared to resource our commanders properly, it should not be putting troops on the front line

It is painfully obvious that when our frontline troops are desperately short of helicopters and airlift, we should not be pushing ahead with the costly, Cold War irrelevances of Trident and Eurofighter

These aircraft are unnecessary Cold War relics. The Government has put Britain in a position where we are being forced to throw money at this massively expensive project while our troops on the front line are crying out for the helicopters and armoured vehicles they desperately need

While there is a need for modernisation of our reserve forces, any cut in numbers could be like a slap in the face considering the massive contribution they have made

It is a dereliction of the duty of care owed to our service personnel and their families that they should have to face a battle over good standard accommodation on the home front

It beggars belief that the MoD can blow so much on poor project management while our troops are risking their lives because of a lack of armoured vehicles and helicopters

This report shows that the MoD is riddled with incompetence

The MoD’s Defence Planning Assumptions have been operating in a parallel universe for many years now

When the Government’s terrible record on major IT projects is brought together with the MoD’s catalogue of failure on procurement, it is no surprise that we see this perfect storm of incompetence

On this occasion, the lions in Afghanistan have been failed by the donkeys in Whitehall

We must be sure that an economic downturn does not water down the support to the military particularly at a time of heightened threats

Mr Gerald Howarth MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Defence

It is critical that the UK maintains an air superiority fighter aircraft, without which ground forces are potentially extremely vulnerable, as we saw in the Falklands campaign.

I say to the Foreign Secretary that the Almighty is not the only person who could remove Mr. Mugabe; the Special Air Service could also do a pretty good job

Mr Andrew Robathan MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Defence

People serving now are in unbelievably dangerous conditions and are in need of a supportive Government. In my view, Labour failed to stand up for the armed forces and that has to change

At the moment, processes within the MoD are slow and inefficient. My colleagues and I will be looking to transform that

God luck chaps

With the installation of the new UK coalition government, the UK Ministry of Defence finds itself with a new superior, charged with the responsibility of securing the nation’s security both home and abroad. We profile the Shadow Defence Secretary and see just where his policies and opinions lie.

Overview

Dr Liam Fox, 48, is MP for North Somerset. Having been raised in a council house in East Kilbride, Scotland, he went on to study medicine in Glasgow and earned his title in 1983, before becoming a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners, a Civilian Medical Officer, and a Divisional Surgeon with St John Ambulance. It was at University that he became involved in Conservative politics.

Fox unsuccessfully contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in 1987, but later succeeded in his election to MP of his current constituency (then known as Woodspring) in 1992. From this platform, he transitioned through several roles, most notably as a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury and then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Fox’s first major ripple in international affairs was his 1996 brokering of a proposed Peace Plan; an agreed bipartisan deal between Sri Lanka’s United National Party and the opposing People’s Alliance, in an effort to end the ethnic war. This plan did not however make the desired impact, but he has continued to travel to Sri Lanka over the years to, in his own words, “promote peace and reconciliation”.

Utilising his frontline experience of the healthcare system, Fox became Shadow Secretary of State for Health in 1999 before managing Michael Howard’s 2003 campaign to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party following the rejection of Iain Duncan Smith. His own campaign for leadership whilst in the role of Shadow Foreign Secretary – following the General Election defeat two years later – was trumped by David Cameron, who subsequently appointed Fox to the Defence team at the end of that year.

He has been married since 2005.

Where he stands on the key issues

An immediate strategic review is set to begin, in which the following factors will be assessed and decisions outlined by early November.

Procurement and Armed Forces spending

Fox believes that the UK is currently under-spending on defence and failing to pay soldiers fair wages. He will however face a battle to find funding for all of his aims with budget cuts required by July.

He plans to restructure the MoD’s process for procurement and has expressed an intention to increase the amount of defence-related exports from the UK.

He will be expected to act on last year’s Review of Acquisition, which suggested that the present command structure is chaotic, crowded, and laden with bureaucratic hurdles.

He has pressed for NATO to re-evaluate its funding system to offer a more proportionate “burden sharing” between members for NATO led military operations.

Fox helped to establish the Military Covenant Commission which aims to improve the conditions of serving soldiers, veterans, and their families. He is likely to push for more funding and attention for soldier and veteran healthcare – particularly mental health, a subject that he has been outspoken about.

Trident: In line with a key Conservative policy raised during the election campaign, Fox will maintain the status of the Trident deterrent system.

Afghanistan: Fox fully supports the Afghanistan campaign and has visited the country on five occasions. He has pressed for well-defined targets and a clear exit-strategy. He is critical of some European NATO members, whom he believes are not involving themselves enough in the campaign, but are relying instead on the UK to provide a greater number of soldiers and to deal with the more dangerous regions.

Iraq: Fox voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and supports a British presence in the country until a stable post-conflict arrangement is in place.

Iran: Fox visited Iran in July 2007 in efforts to improve diplomatic ties. Unsurprisingly, he is very much against a nuclear-capable Iran, suggesting that actions towards such an ambition could warrant a military response.

Relations with the EU: Fox is against the involvement of the European Commission in defence matters, as well as the existence of the Security and Defence Policy, which he believes undercuts NATO’s resources. He also opposes the Lisbon Treaty’s approach to defence provision. He believes the UK could do more to increase defence ties with France, Norway and Turkey, among other strategic partners.

Relations with the US: Fox founded The Atlantic Bridge, a charity that aims to “strengthen the Special Relationship” through the sharing of policy ideas and personal networks. He led the maintenance of Conservative-US relations despite clashing with the Republican Party over the direction of the Iraq campaign.

Relations with other states: Based on previous suggestions, Fox will likely push for stronger defence relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

I fear that a lot of bad news about the public finances has been hidden and stored up for the new government. The skeletons are starting to fall out of the cupboard.

So the propaganda has already started; we will be able to somehow wriggle out of taking any responsibility for the UK’s massive public debt and the painful measures we are going to have to take by simply blaming ‘those big boys over there’

The thrust of the article is that Labour had hidden contracts from view, signed up for contracts just before the election to create a scorched earth that would make the Election winners incredibly unpopular and consign them to the electoral dustbin the next time.

Billions of pounds in public money was committed in the run-up to the election campaign in a deliberate strategy to boost Labour’s chances at the ballot box and sabotage the next government.

It goes on to list a number of these scorched earth contracts

The article goes on to list some of these so called ‘black holes’

The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:

- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.

Now if those new ministers had bothered to read Think Defence they wouldn’t have been surprised, we covered the rush to splash the cash here and here.

One the FSTA, it has has been running for a couple of years, we covered it here, here , here and here

In our Future Defence Review we looked at it in a bit more detail and wondered if a straightforward purchase or availability contract was the more sensible solution to provide a cost effective and more relevant capability than what is actually being provided. What is being provided is a massive leap forward compared with the ‘held together with blood, sweat and tears’ solution that we have now but it will still be short in many areas.

It might be cheap because we can spread the cost out over the 27 year term, but it is definitely not value for money.

Liam Fox MP, now Secretary of State for Defence recently stated it was

one of the most absurd procurement decisions taken by this Labour government

I happen to agree with Mr Fox, but to say it has been unearthed is rather ridiculous.

Or would that perhaps be a deliberate act from tricky politicians.

General Sir Richard Dannatt

Speaking on the Radio 4 Today programme the former Chief of the Defence Staff discussed options for the future

“I think by anyone’s recognition we’ve got too many tanks, too much heavy artillery, too many fast jets.”

“The navy needs to look very closely at what it needs to be. And I think, particularly as far as fast jets are concerned, a number of contracts need to be looked at. One of which is the air-to-air refuelling contract, which was a shameful one, very, very expensive two years ago. “

“A new government has got a chance to look a number of contractors in the face and say ‘hang on, things have changed. We’re going to do it differently’. We can make a lot of savings on the equipment programme and still do what we need to do.”

“We need three separate armed forces that work superbly together on joint operations,”

In a separate Telegraph article Sir Richard expands on the issue, praising the formation of the National Security Council.

Nick Harvey MP

As the new government starts filling out its ministerial team, the Liberal Democrat MP, Nick Harvey, has been named as Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

Nick Harvey was the shadow defence minister for the Liberal Democrats and this continuity can only be a good thing. Both the Secretary of State and this minister have held Defence portfolios for quite some time and will no doubt have built up some experience. Replacing Bill Rammell the new minister told the North Devon Journal

“It’s a big job and a big honour to be asked, particularly at a time when we have got a major conflict in Afghanistan and the challenges of the strategic defence review.

“It makes for interesting times, particularly as it’s a coalition government.

“I have been very critical of about how the Labour government treated the armed forces, as were the Conservatives.

“I will try to do everything possible to improve the situation for the armed forces. We do so during an economic crisis.”

Nick Harvey has been a strong advocate of forces welfare and the military covenant but is vehemently opposed to a replacement of Trident and supports much greater integration with Europe on defence issues.

Here are a few other choice quotes from him.

• This report shows the shambolic state of the UK’s defence equipment programme
• It is exasperating to learn how pervasive the culture of denial and deception among MoD officials is when it comes to acknowledging the £21 billion funding gap in defence procurement
• Labour’s slow response to a clear shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan has been shameful
• The sad fact is that a lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles suitable for Afghanistan has persistently left our troops ill-equipped for their mission. Meanwhile, the Government has continued to fritter away vast amounts of money on Cold War projects like Eurofighter and Trident
• This is yet another example of the Government making empty promises to our Armed Forces. The brave men and women who have risked life and limb in service of our country deserve better
• Mine detection equipment is clearly a vital capability in Afghanistan. With IEDs now the biggest single threat our troops are facing, any failure to provide them with enough metal detectors is simply unforgivable
• Our brave service men and women have suffered enough as a result of this Government’s disastrous record on military procurement.
• The Government has presided over a decade of overstretch and spiralling costs without being straight with the public about the consequences
• If the Government is not prepared to resource our commanders properly, it should not be putting troops on the front line
• The military campaign cannot succeed without a political and civilian surge to win over moderate elements within the Taliban and regain the confidence of ordinary Afghans
• It is painfully obvious that when our frontline troops are desperately short of helicopters and airlift, we should not be pushing ahead with the costly, Cold War irrelevances of Trident and Eurofighter
• These aircraft are unnecessary Cold War relics. The Government has put Britain in a position where we are being forced to throw money at this massively expensive project while our troops on the front line are crying out for the helicopters and armoured vehicles they desperately need
• While there is a need for modernisation of our reserve forces, any cut in numbers could be like a slap in the face considering the massive contribution they have made
• This report is a damning indictment of the lack of leadership at the MoD. It is incredible that only 1 in 5 of MoD staff feel the department is well managed
• It is a dereliction of the duty of care owed to our service personnel and their families that they should have to face a battle over good standard accommodation on the home front
• It beggars belief that the MoD can blow so much on poor project management while our troops are risking their lives because of a lack of armoured vehicles and helicopters
• This report shows that the MoD is riddled with incompetence
• Unfortunately, the military price tag will not in itself bring success in Afghanistan. We need to see all NATO allies pulling their weight, alongside greater involvement of regional partners, including Iran, to create a stable Afghanistan
• The MoD’s Defence Planning Assumptions have been operating in a parallel universe for many years now
• When the Government’s terrible record on major IT projects is brought together with the MoD’s catalogue of failure on procurement, it is no surprise that we see this perfect storm of incompetence
• On this occasion, the lions in Afghanistan have been failed by the donkeys in Whitehall

And my personal favourites

• While the British nuclear fleet has a good safety record, if there were ever to be a bang it would be a mighty big one
• We must be sure that an economic downturn does not water down the support to the military particularly at a time of heightened threats

Over to you Nick.

The SoS Defence has issued the following message to all Defence staff…

The first duty of Government is to protect our way of life and provide security for our citizens. That is why I am proud and honoured to have been appointed as Defence Secretary by the Prime Minister David Cameron. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Bob Ainsworth, who always had the best interests of the Armed Forces at heart.

Britain’s Armed Forces are rightly respected both at home and abroad, and widely regarded as among the very best in the world. During my five years as Shadow Defence Secretary I have been privileged to see them at work in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

As a nation we have a responsibility to ensure they have our full support in return for the selfless service and sacrifice they are prepared to make in our name. The new Government will honour that duty with a new Tri-Service Covenant that will set out our obligations and commitments to the men and women of our Armed Forces, their families and veterans.

The campaign in Afghanistan is a national security imperative. We are there out of necessity not out of choice. I am determined that alongside our ISAF partners we will succeed. We will ensure that our Forces have the equipment and support they need to do what we ask of them.

Defence faces major challenges over the next few years. In today’s uncertain world, it is essential that we maintain a highly dedicated and professional body of Servicemen and women with the capability to defend our national interests whenever they are called on to do so, and a strong cadre of professional defence civilians to undertake the distinctive tasks for which they are responsible.

A review of defence is long overdue but the needs of our Armed Forces can no longer be considered in isolation from other security challenges we face. We will be taking forward a Strategic Defence and Security Review, working with other Government department’s including the new Foreign, Development and Home Secretaries as part of the new National Security Council.

Our aim must be to ensure that Britain’s defence is based on a clear definition of our strategic interests, an assessment of our role in NATO and other partnerships, the threats we face, the military capabilities we need to protect our interests and the programmes we need to deliver those capabilities.

Resources will be tight for the country as a whole and Defence is no exception. We must make sure that we make every penny spent on Defence count. This means we will have to look again at all that we currently do, including the organisation and structure of the Department, each of the Services and the support area to ensure that we can undertake confidently and effectively the key tasks for which MOD is responsible.

We need to confront these issues head on and ensure that we emerge from the review with a clear way ahead for Defence that meets the needs of the current counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan but also ensures that we are well prepared for whatever the future may bring. I will set the work in hand straight away, to deliver before the end of the year.

I look forward to working with you all to tackle the challenges we face. With your support, I know we will do so successfully.

Click here to view the embedded video.