Defence spending and operations

(Picture from the Telegraph website)
I have hesitated before writing this piece. In part this is because my period in the Army ended more than 15 years ago and because, even though I spent nearly 7 years in the Army, I left a relatively junior officer – my last job in the Army was as a Captain running a Brigade operations room in Northern Ireland.

The nature of the threat faced by servicemen and women on operations today is rather different to the threat that I and my colleagues faced in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Although there are some superficial similarities, the addition of instant reporting and the powerlessness of those in authority to have any effective control of communications make the job today far more difficult.

In a speech to a conference in Israel, Colonel Richard Kemp described some of the differences in the nature of the current conflicts – especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan – differences that make the whole basis of what I knew as the ‘rules’ of engagement very difficult indeed. You can read the speech here.

In the debate that is taking place in the media about the recent deaths of servicemen and women in Afghanistan, it appears to me that inadequate consideration is being given to what I believe to be one of the fundamental failings of the Government’s policy in Afghanistan (and in Britain’s involvement in Iraq).

This failing is one of policy – the absence of any clear strategy and thinking about what it is that we want our servicemen and women to achieve. The gloriously glib statement that ‘we want to promote stability and democracy’ in these countries is not a policy that can be defined, let alone achieved. What are we involved in Afghanistan for? What do we actually want to achieve there? A clear definition of achievable aims and objectives must be set out and very soon indeed.

Only once we have these can we consider how many people we will need on the ground or what equipment and other resources we will need to have in place to achieve the objectives.

When sufficient clarity has been achieved, we must then provide adequate resources (men, women, munitions and other materiel) to achieve that objective. Until then, my fear is that we will continue to pour water into the sand …

Car passes and proving things …

(Image from Haringey Council's website)
Today I went to Haringey Council to get a car pass for a car that I have bought. I need a car pass for a controlled parking zone and I had to complete a form, provide some documents in copy form and pay a fee.

Now the poor person behind the counter took my application form and then copied the documents that I provided – ‘for the record’. So, I asked why did they need to keep these documents on file (it appears on paper and on computer disk) and was told that this was to allow an audit.

What is interesting is that this happens every time I go to get a car pass – on renewal and even when I go to get the visitors’ permits that I buy every quarter or so. The same documents are copied – the latest council tax bill and my driving licence – and kept on file. They appear to have no ability to see the last one that they copied and so the purpose is entirely unrelated to me or the service that they provide to me.

I have to say that I think this is a bit potty – and a considerable waste – a waste of time, resources, paper and even computer memory. The council tax record is something that the Council has anyway – so why not ask me for permission to check that record? If I give permission, no further copy of any document relating to the Council tax need be produced. Having shown my driving licence (which until very recently didn’t have my London address on it anyway), why not simply fill in a check box affirming that they have seen it? Having seen the receipt from the garage, would it not be simpler for them to fill in a checkbox confirming its existence and complete on screen, if really necessary, the name of the garage and the telephone number – where the log book has yet to arrive?

If this were changed, what loss would there be? In the application, I already confirm that I am telling the truth and that content of the form is true. It irritates me … as it rather demonstrates the Council’s refusal to trust me or their staff without evidence to back it up – and then only when it can be stored on paper and on computer. It seems to me that the purposes of the so-called ‘audit’ are overriding sense - bureaucracy over sense.

What of ‘commercial confidentiality’?

How many times, when we read about Government and other public contracts, do we read or are we told that the details of the contract have to remain secret for purposes of ‘commercial confidentiality’? This is the excuse deployed by the BBC for refusing to publish the details – even outline details – of the contracts it has with ‘talent’ and it is the usual reason that the Government will refuse to publish any details, other than in broadest of outline, of contracts for procurement.

Thinking about this for a moment, do you think that it allows us to get best ‘value for money’? Here’s a radical thought – what if the basic details of every contract for procurement were published – say the price obtained, the basic specification of what is being supplied, the time period over which the supply is produced, and such other basic information – enough to enable a competitor to assess the contract and assess whether it could supply the same or better for less? What pressure would such publication have on pricing?

I understand that people will be reluctant to go for publication – I understand the concerns about commercial confidentiality – but in public contracts should that confidentiality really mean that we have no information whatsoever about contracts between Government and suppliers? How is the Government to be held to account for its decisions about procurement?

Would a proposal like this achieve any saving for the public purse? What would the costs be? What do you think?

The battle of ideas - presentation and triangulation

It is often written that Gordon Brown likes to set out his policies and announcements in an attempt to place his opponents in the most difficult position – making announcements or policies that on the face of it appear to be unobjectionable or obviously sensible; ‘triangulation’ is the shorthand often used to describe this political tool.

In opposition, when you have no power or, it has to be said, actual responsibility, the use of this tool to wrong-foot your opponents is something that everyone can understand – and it has to be said that George Osborne appears to be able to use the same sort of tactic with some skill.

In Government, when you have both power and responsibility, the tool can still, history suggests, be used; although its benefits rapidly fall away as people examine in detail what is actually happening as a result of policy and announcement. This examination increases as the economy starts to fail or policy failure comes to the fore; in essence, the utility of the tool of triangulation decreases as things get worse.

And that, essentially, is what Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson et al appear to misunderstand. Whether it is because their use of the tool has become so entrenched that its abandonment would leave them feeling naked in the battle of ideas or whether it is simply that they have become so isolated from the thoughts and ideas of people outside the Westminster village or even the Downing Street bunker, the continuation of the presentation of policy and statements in a manner that is deliberately partisan and obviously intended to wrong-foot the opposition at a time when people want serious politicians to act and talk seriously about the problems facing them, appears almost childish in its approach.

All the other parties should also appear careful in this battle of presentation. We must never forget that in these difficult times, economically and politically, we need to be expressing ideas and policies in a manner that reflects as closely as possible the real concerns of voters around the UK, rather than in the manner that presents the Government and its ideas in the worst possible light.

Who are the members of the new ECR group?

In a recent post, I wrote that the attacks on the membership of the new group in the EU Parliament were ‘simplistic’ … the attacks continue. Many from Labour and the Liberal Democrats accuse those others of being ‘nutters’ or worse … presumably relying on the old adage that ‘if you throw enough mud …’

There are undoubtedly some peculiar statements made by individuals from the parties that have joined the ECR group … and I am not going to bother repeating them here as there are covered in more than adequate colour in other places and in press releases from the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats … and if these statements are repeated from within the group itself, I will be concerned about its future and viability: and similar concerns can be expressed about some of the policies adopted and implemented by one or two of the parties who have joined the new group.

Having said that, the group itself has, at its core, a set of principles that are both conservative (big and small ‘C’) and liberal – something that I applaud. The document containing the principles is called ‘the Prague Declaration’ and it can be found here.

The interesting thing about the critics critique of the membership of the new group is that they have not attacked the principles that all have signed up to … rather they have chosen, on the whole, to attack things said or done by members of the parties that have joined the group. In doing so, I think that they have rather overstated their case –and at the same time ignored or forgotten their own unfortunate connections.

The PES, which is the group to which the Labour Party is affiliated, includes within its membership individuals that include a man who admits to having been a member of the IRA, individuals who hark back to the ‘golden era’ of Stalin’s rule of the USSR, and a man who believes and spreads the poison that the twin towers were brought down by an Israeli/Jewish conspiracy! The EPP, from which the Conservative Party has retreated, includes Austrian and German individuals with dubious views about the Fascist past as well as a Spanish individual who appears to be nostalgic for Franco. Both of these groups as well as the ALDE contain people who have expressed views that have been described as ‘homophobic’ and ‘racist’.

My own view is that we should judge the groups by what they do … and that by personalising and overstating the case against the ECR, the critics have in fact reinforced many a voter’s view that the real concern of the critics is that for the first time there is a real opposition, in the EU Parliament, to the federal project … and that it is the concern about the potential popularity of that position that is at the heart of what is being said about the members of the ECR.