There’s an interesting interview with Tory defence secretary Philip Hammond in this week’s House magazine. Two snippets in particular will be of interest to Lib Dem readers.
Let’s start with the defence department and horses. In the lead-up to the spending review when tensions were spilling over between the treasury and the spending departments, Danny Alexander remarked in an interview: “Of course, in a department that has more horses than it has tanks, there are room for efficiency savings without affecting our overall military output.”
Danny’s jibe stung the MoD (which does indeed have over 500 horses, mostly for ceremonial duties, compared with 227 Challenger 2 tanks). Here’s Mr Hammond:
“I think if I’d have pitched up at Downing Street and said ‘you know what? I can do some cuts but it will mean getting rid of all the horses, and we won’t be able to do the Trooping of the Colour’, I would quite probably be accused of shroud-waving. I think I’m not quite sure about those comments, made as they were two days before the Trooping of the Colour.
“Of course the Army has more horses than it has tanks. I would say that the ceremonial role that the Army plays – which is a tiny, tiny part of their overall activity – is very important both to internal morale, military morale, but also of course, it generates billions of pounds of return for the UK in terms of international reputation, tourist revenue, greetings card sales. If you were looking at it as an investment in UK plc it’s a very worthwhile investment.”
Hammond’s little-seen sense of humour surfaces once more: “I presume Danny Alexander would put bagpipes in the same category as horses, as things which don’t deliver direct military effect. I would tell him the same story about bagpipes.”
Philip Hammond sees this as an illustration of the disconnect between the defence department and the Lib Dems more widely since the party lost its ministerial representatives in the MoD and the foreign office: Nick (now Sir Nick) Harvey was asked to step aside by Nick Clegg, while Jeremy Browne was moved across to the home office.
Was he surprised his Coalition partners pulled their ministers from the MoD and Foreign Office in the last reshuffle? “I was surprised yes, I hadn’t seen that coming at all. But very disappointed. I think we are the poorer for not having that direct link into the Deputy Prime Minister’s office and having someone in here who really understands defence.”
It’s an interesting take from a Tory who’s not usually regarded as the most Lib Dem-friendly. I argued last year that it would be a good idea “to focus Lib Dem resources in key departments, rather than spread ourselves so thinly”. I think I’ve changed my mind since.
For sure, there are weaknesses in trying to embed a Lib Dem in every department. Too often it’s resulted in an uncomfortable impasse, and very often with the (junior) Lib Dem minister forced to front on Newsnight and elsewhere for Coalition policies which were driven chiefly by the (senior) Tory cabinet minister.
But Mr Hammond has a point. If you’re going to govern for five years within a single coalition government it’s better to have a proper channel of communications, with both Tory and Lib Dem ministers understanding departmental spending pressures (rather than, say, assuming that putting some horses out to pasture is the best way to generate savings) — and with both Tory and Lib Dem ministers committed to delivering the savings needed.
And if that doesn’t persuade you of the argument for having ministers from both parties across government departments, ask yourself this question: How much more grisly would the spending review process have been if departments had been divvied up into Tory/Lib Dem strongholds, pitched into battle against each other?
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
The true cost of the Rwanda farce
Call for Southwell's importance to Byron to be recognised
Peter Watson
Steve Comer
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
Katharine Pindar
20 Comments
The removal of Nick Harvey from Defence was yet another Clegg blunder – not only for the reasons outlined by Philip Hammond but it has hampered our ability to argue against Trident and a potential invasion of Iran as well as making us look weak on defence.
@colinross1975
‘And if that doesn’t persuade you of the argument for having ministers from both parties across government departments, ask yourself this question: How much more grisly would the spending review process have been if departments had been divvied up into Tory/Lib Dem strongholds, pitched into battle against each other?’
You mean there would have been a fight put up by the Lib Dems? Can’t have that now can we.
And there was I thinking that the new Defence Secretary was uncomfortable at having a senior minister who knew more than he did!
Colin I assume it just may have crossed your mind that our leaders don’t want any real sort of argument about Trident? Just the usual, NC says ” We don’t want Trident replacement very much”. Cameron tells him he won’t get that through his own party, and that’s an end to the matter (apart from a bit of shouting at Conference, which will be ignored, in the now usual way).
@colinrosss yes having no one at Defence might have been okay if we had someone at the FCO but to have nobody in either was bonkers.
Also Jeremy Browne seems to have been pretty invisible in his Minister of State Roll at the Home Office where as Lyn as an Parliamentary Under Secretary was able to get visibility on some pretty important areas of policy.
The ceremonial generates billions of £ in tourism and post card sales. I wonder where he got the facts? I thought the royal family and the arts did that. If there is an income, the MOD should set up a company and make it self sustaining. As someone who works at the Defence Animal Centre in Melton Mobray once said to me “When I look at a horse I see a ton of dog meat (or he could have added – beef burgers)
” I argued last year that it would be a good idea “to focus Lib Dem resources in key departments, rather than spread ourselves so thinly”. I think I’ve changed my mind since.”
I am glad you feel that way, I argued at the time that giving up Harvey and Brown in Defence and FCO was a mistake.
Lib-Dem’s don’t seem to understand the sympathy our ‘active’ foriegn policy commands among the electorate.
Britain is not Germany – a nation that has so thoroughly divested itself of geopolitical ambition that it will happily out-source foreign affairs to a junior partner.
As a nation, not just as a government, Britain remains a country that still sympathises with the notion that the first duty of the sovereign nation-state is the provision of external security.
This is why I am so keen to safeguard the ambitions of the SDSR from Lib-Dem’s for whom the idea of Defence spending is but an impediment to the next worthy social project in need of some funding.
As Julian Lindley-French said to the foreign select committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/uc761-vi/uc76101.htm
” Professor Lindley-French: This is where I become positive, which will surprise you. There is a very great danger that by default, if we hold our nerve, we could end up with quite a sound defence strategy. There will be two carriers, strategic mobility, Astutes-not enough, but in time you could build more over 20, 30 or 40 years-Type 45s and Type 26s. It is a concept whereby there is projectability, not globally but regionally-plus.
Almost 75% of the world’s population lives less than 100 kilometres from the sea. It is a defence strategy in which, given the capabilities envisaged, no one owns land, sea or air-no single service-as a genuine jointery comes out of this. We could actually have a defence strategy worth talking about, by muddling through and from the bottom up, which has nothing to do with the NSS or the SDSR. The issue is, can we hold our nerve over that longer investment period? ”
Holding our nerve over the longer investment period, eh, sounds rather Danny with his foolish comments about horses!
p.s. could anyone tell me why it is proving so difficult to release this trident alternatives report?
i am assured in these parts that the argument is cut and dried, so obviously logical that none could refute the merits of a tridentless world, but perhaps it is not so simple after all and lib-dem ministers are holding back from admitting the truth…
The arguments in favour of the Trident replacement programme are generally of the sort that appeal to children who get their mummies and daddies to check under the bed for spiders and snakes and bogeymen, before going to bed at night.
“I argued last year that it would be a good idea “to focus Lib Dem resources in key departments, rather than spread ourselves so thinly”. I think I’ve changed my mind since.”
I remember at the time saying the following in response to a LDV poster who was hoping the party would trade its MOD position for one in DEFRA:
“Why?
Genuinely interested in the answer.
I realise sandal-wearing types in these parts (oh how i love the stereotypes), have little interest in Defence or assertive FP but i sincerely believe the Lib-Dem’s will never get anywhere if it zeroes in on pacificst internationalism regardless of where the bulk of the electorate sits on these matters.
The Lib-Dems’s need Nick Harvey and Jeremy Browne if the party is going to be taken seriously by me at least!”
And this in response to the end-of-year ministerial rankings poll:
“lib-dem’s need to reassess their priorities.
the ‘low’ ranking of Nick Harvey and Jeremy Browne, good ministers who were shuffled out of their parties only representation in the FCO and MoD tells a disappointing tale of the priorities of lib-dem members.
Defence and Foreign Relations matter, very much, and more to the electorate than the party appears to appreciate.”
And when Nick Thornsbury valiantly tried to engage LDV members in Defence & Foriegn Policy issues, to garner a grand total of four responses (two of which were mine):
https://www.libdemvoice.org/some-recommended-reading-from-the-bbcs-defence-correspondent-34156.html
@ NC – “The arguments in favour of the Trident replacement programme are generally of the sort that appeal to children who get their mummies and daddies to check under the bed for spiders and snakes and bogeymen, before going to bed at night.”
You don’t actually answer my question, except you do in the most ironic of ways: you have just demonstrated exactly why it is going to be difficult to announce the result of the review if the conclusions turn out not to be CND friendly as you might wish.
@jb
I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, unlike yourself apparently. If the review’s conclusions were strongly in favour of the Trident replacement, I would have thought it would have been leaked by now.
As for actual arguments for the like-for-like replacement of Trident, I remember our current Prime Minister getting rather worked up about the need for an SLBM system in order to “deter North Korea”. It didn’t take much thought to realise (as I pointed out on this forum) that a nuclear strike against the DPRK using Trident D5’s would require a ballistic trajectory over Russian and or Chinese territory. Unless one proposed sending Trident through Suez, Panama or around the Cape, all rather dubious propositions.
I was deeply upset that Clegg gave up our ministers in the MOD and FCO (certainly he needs some defenestration – referring to the defenestrateclegg responder common in these pages) as a result..
I assume that Danny Alexander was tongue in cheek in his comments. The cost of ceremonial duties is miniscule, but a significant contribution to our collective national life. The real defence heavy guzzlers (with at best highly dubious positive defence impacts for us() are operations in Afghanistan and the putative replacement of Trident and the required submarines.
@ NC – “I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, unlike yourself apparently. If the review’s conclusions were strongly in favour of the Trident replacement, I would have thought it would have been leaked by now.”
Why on earth not, they are enormous fun, just another form of idle speculation after all.
Tell you what, I’ll lay a bet of five virtual pounds that:
1. The report is delayed because they cannot find a cheaper nuclear alternative to trident that has any military or economic credibility
Feel free to suggest your own counter…
Errr, no.
Re: Nick Harvey and Trident; he came to Portsmouth to talk about a range of subjects to do with the military recently, and Trident obviously came up. I was rather surprised at his summary of the situation as ‘if you think we need a nuclear deterrent at all then a powerful case can be made that Trident is the most efficient way of having one’. Although he didn’t state this outright, the implication was that he was of the opinion that we did need one – and so should find the money to pay for it.
It was a very interesting talk, with good arguments and fun anecdotes. I think I tend more towards the view that we’d be better off spending the money on other parts of our armed forces and scrapping Trident, although keeping a ‘breakout’ capability – to allow us to quickly re-arm if we felt it absolutely vital.
@ Jonathan – “Although he didn’t state this outright, the implication was that he was of the opinion that we did need one – and so should find the money to pay for it.”
Then that would rather make a mockery of the Trident alternatives report, now wouldn’t it?
Apparently the report won’t reach a conclusion, lol, after two years:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/07/trident-alternatives/
Credibility on Defence and FP – never a lib-dem strong point – is going to hard pressed when this report eventually reaches the light of day.
@jedibeeftrix – well, that rather depends what the report says. I was surprised, as I’d assumed he’d obviously be against renewal, but it was still a personal view that he was expressing. Or hinting at. (And I may have misunderstood.)
In any case, making the case that we don’t need nukes is not necessarily the same as saying we don’t need Trident. What he was saying could just as easily be taken as ‘if we scrap Trident, we shouldn’t think we’re going to get an equivalent nuclear deterrant for less’. As a country, we may be happy with a lesser one, but we shouldn’t pretend that it’s as ‘cast iron’ as Trident. We’ll have to see…
“As a country, we may be happy with a lesser one, but we shouldn’t pretend that it’s as ‘cast iron’ as Trident.”
Quite happy to agree with that, and even support it provided it isn’t used an excuse to cut Defence further, I am merely skeptical of the endless delays around this report, suspecting that it might not be as conclusive as its cheerleaders here hope.