by David Steven | Jan 25, 2009 | UK
David Cameron thinks an IMF bailout for the UK is on the cards:
If we continue on Labour’s path of fiscal irresponsibility, at some point – and it could be very soon – the money will run out. Then you will see the return of what happened under Labour in the 1970s, including emergency cuts to many of the public services on which a progressive society depends.
Ken Clarke, his new minister, thinks such talk is unrealistic and irresponsible:
ANDREW MARR: So let’s return to the main matter then: the economy. Is it possible that this country would go bankrupt, would actually be back in the 1970s position of having to go cap in hand to the IMF?
KENNETH CLARKE: I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility, though I mean I’m as gloomy as most people. I just think 2009 is going to be a dreadful year. And actually I don’t want it to be. I think it’s very important to realise the constraints of a responsible Opposition.
Personally, I think the chances that the IMF will have any money left to rescue the UK are vanishingly small. Jules has much much more on this…
by Alex Evans | Jan 13, 2009 | Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development, Global Dashboard, UK
As everyone waits to see what Obama plans to do about reforming foreign assistance in the US, back here in Britain change is in the air too: the Conservatives are coming clean about what they really think about DFID, the Department for International Development.
For a while now, there have been whispers that the Tories don’t really buy into the idea of an independent DFID – and that perhaps (gasp!) they might be considering merging it back into the Foreign Office, where it resided until 1997. Well, following last week’s Independent interview with Conservative aid spokesman Andrew Mitchell, we can put that notion to rest: “We are very committed to DFID continuing as an independent department of state”, says he.
So, a ringing endorsement of DFID, then? Er, not quite. Here’s the full context:
The shadow International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said DFID had begun to encroach on the work of other departments and to come “perilously close” to setting its own foreign policy, a role he said should be reserved for the Foreign Office. He said the Foreign Office will be given much greater influence over the use of overseas aid should the Tories win the next election …
“There are times when DFID comes perilously close to pursuing its own foreign policy and that is not right,” Mr Mitchell said. “Foreign policy is decided by the government and the Cabinet, led by the Foreign Office, and DFID should not be an alternative to this. We are very committed to DFID continuing as an independent department of state. But we would make it more of a specialised development department and a little less like an aid agency,” he said.
That left me wondering just which specific instances Mitchell was thinking of in arguing that DFID was coming close to having its own foreign policy. Iraq? Afghanistan? Climate change? (Thinking that Paul Wolfowitz might not be such a great idea for President of the World Bank?) Sadly, we don’t know. Earlier today I called his office to ask him to elaborate, but he declined to say more.
This is a shame, on two counts. First, because it’s a cop out. For the Opposition front bench spokesman on international development to argue that the Department he shadows has come ‘close to pursuing its own foreign policy’ is a serious claim – and one which he ought to be prepared to substantiate. To fail to do so leaves him open to accusations of offering soundbites rather than reasoned argument.
More fundamentally, though, it’s a shame that Andrew Mitchell wouldn’t elaborate because this debate needs to be had. (more…)
by Daniel Korski | Dec 5, 2008 | Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Global Dashboard, North America, UK
As President Elect Obama and his new foreign policy team contemplate how to deal with the growing number of security challenges that will confront them on Inauguration Day, a bi-partisan group of experts has tabled a series of thought-provoking ideas for how to reform the U.S government.
The report from the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) shows the U.S national security establishment at its finest – willing to think far into the future, push creative ideas and suggest the reorganization of vast swathes of government. (Full disclosure: I served pro bono as an adviser to the team). It stands in sharp contrast to Gordon Brown’s timid reforms, outlined a few months ago in the now-forgotten National Security Strategy. In fact, the report is veritable smorgasbord of ideas that any up-and-coming Tory security specialist should pick from.
The first recommendation, which a Conservative Party ought to consider when they take office – and legislate to repeat with every new Parliament — a National Security Review, which should prioritize objectives, establish risk management criteria, specify roles and responsibilities for priority missions, assess required capabilities, and identify capability gaps. This would go well beyond both the traditional Defence Reviews, as it would take in all of governments, and leave the National Security Strategy to elaborate on strategy and policies rather than being the hotchpotch of policies and reform proposals that it currently is.
To implement this, the U.S report suggests National Security Planning Guidance, to be issued annually, in order to provide guidance to departments based on the results of the National Security Review. This, too, would make sense in Britain where the National Security Strategy has not been able to force any change in the way departments operate because it never moved into specific requirements.
In Britain, such a document would have to be tied to the Budget and preferably the Comprehensive Spending Review. But with a National Security Planning Guidance, the Treasury and other Departments will be able to draft multi-year resource plans for each department and ensure consistency with the National Security Review. Perhaps a part of a future Comprehensive Spending Review would by a National Security Resource Document, which could contain which presents the government integrated, rolling six-year national security resource strategy proposals.
The report suggests that a Presidential Security Council replace the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, thus removing an artificial divide. In many ways, the Brown government foresaw this development with the creation of a Cabinet Committee on National Security, International Relations and Development. But the establishment of a cross-government committee was not accompanied by reforms of the Cabinet Office and so did not create anything resembling the U.S set-up. In fact, the last couple of years have seen a well-reported hallowing out of the Cabinet Office.
Adapting from the U.S report, the Conservative Party should look at ways to adapt the idea of a Director for National Security, who would work to the National Security Adviser and manage the Whitehall decision-making process. This would allow the Prime Minister to appoint a political National Security Adviser –- like Pauline Neville-Jones -– but have a Civil Servant manage the bureaucratic work. The Cabinet Office would have to be considerably expanded with permanent staff covering key countries and issues. Decision-making would still have to lie with Ministers and Cabinet, but the fact that modern policy-making require a stronger center is recognized by everyone except the current officials in the Cabinet Office.
I would add the idea of having Prime Ministerial Regional Envoys or in the cases where Britain has a large-scale, multi-departmental commitment, like Afghanistan, Resident Ministers, such as Harold Macmillan’s role in Austria, Duff Coooper’s in Singapore and Oliver Lyttelton’s in Cairo during World War II. These individuals would have the clout to manage all departmental interests, have a direct link to Parliament (and so could keep the arguments for interventions alive) and ensure the necessary delegation of authority. Their constituency duties could be dealt with like the Speaker’s. Now that I’m thinking about the subject, I’d add the previously-floated ideas of upgrading the UK military representative in the U.S to a Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff akin to John Dill’s role during WW II.
To get the right kind of people supporting missions, the report recommends a National Security Professional Corps and a National Security Strategic Human Capital Plan to identify and secure the human capital capabilities necessary. Here too the Conservative Party should take note. Though there are Arabists in the Foreign Office and micros-finance specialists in DfiD, Britain does not really have a cadre of national security professionals. And why not? National security work is, after all, the most imrpotant kind of work and now cuts across all departments so it makes sense to create a career-path and incentives for people.
As changes cannot only happen in the Executive branch. The report therefore recommends the establishment of Select Committees on National Security in the Senate and House of Representatives. This, too, makes sense in Britain where the various Select Committees tread on each others toes, and fail to provide oversight of cross-department issues. A Lords/House Select Committee on National Security seems like a good idea.
The next election will not be fought on defence policy and few have been won on the strength of bureaucratic reforms. But the Tories will need to have serious ideas ready if they hope to change the country’s foreign and security policy. This U.S report shows how it can be done.
by Charlie Edwards | Sep 22, 2008 | UK
Picture the scene: It’s Labour Party Conference 2008, Geoff Hoon is busy in interviews saying the Cabinet is totally united. While James Purnell argues that the party needs a vision on BBC 2, Hazel Blears talks to the BBC about her belief that the Conservatives will stand on the sidelines during economic difficulties. And then Paul Waugh, Political Editor of the Evening Standard, is handed a note by one Blairite conspirator with a list of names that would make up David Miliband’s first Cabinet.*
Prime Minister – David Miliband
Foreign Secretary – James Purnell
Chancellor – John Hutton
Home Secretary – Alan Johnson
Health Sec – Andy Burnham
Education Sec – Jacqui Smith
Business Secretary – Ed Balls
Defence – Jack Straw
Justice – Liam Byrne
DIUS – Jim Murphy
Work and Pensions – Mike O’Brien
Chief Sec to Treasury – Kitty Ussher
Transport Sec – Yvette Cooper
Environment – Caroline Flint
Cabinet Office – Hazel Blears
DCLG – Ed Miliband
Commons – Harriet Harman
Int Devpmt – Pat McFadden
Culture – Ben Bradshaw
Chief Whip -Tony McNulty
Let the stirring commence.
*Quite a good list – no?
by David Steven | Aug 27, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
Uniting the Republican Party and John McCain on climate change is a fiendishly difficult task, as a fascinating article by Stephen Spruiell shows.
By the time you’re done, you’ve scratched through so many lines and penciled in so many revisions that the document is barely legible. I wish I could show you my copy of the energy section of the 2008 Republican Platform’s working draft. You wouldn’t be able to read it, but you’d see what I mean.
The original draft accepted the reality of climate change and argued for ‘measured and reasonable’ action, while cautioning against “the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government.”
But it has proved contentious in committee. So what were the rows about?
Firstly, and most strangely, the word ‘global warming’ has proved controversial. Of course, experts tend not to use the term and prefer climate change (which helps “to convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.”)
But Republicans are nervous about the warming word for another reason. They are unconvinced the world is getting hotter. The phrase “increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth” has therefore been excised from the draft platform. And climate change has been used in preference to global warming throughout.
Compromise was also necessary to keep the door ajar for McCain’s preferred policy of cap and trade:
The working draft purposefully left McCain enough room to continue his support for an artificial ceiling on carbon emissions. The subcommittee improved the working draft by specifying that any proposals “should not harm the economy,” but it did not add anything that explicitly precludes McCain from supporting cap-and-trade. McCain is still free to argue that a cap-and-trade regime wouldn’t inhibit economic growth, and conservatives are still free to disagree.
Any cap and trade scheme must have no economic downside, in other words. (Or could any downside be balanced against the economic impact of unchecked warming?) Policy responses must be ‘global in nature’ as well, which would probably translate into a tough policy on China.
But this may not be enough for base. To sample its thinking, head over to the Republican Party site that solicits grassroots opinion on the platform. Here are extracts from the five most recent contributions that mention global warming:
Do NOT add “global warming” to the GOP platform. Do not fall for this nonsense. Its a fraud.
Under no circumstance should the platform even mention global warming, unless its a statement to acknowledge the evidence that we aren’t causing it.
I just saw on Drudge that there is to be a plank for global warming. If the Republicans fall for this false science, I have no one left to vote for and our economy will be ruined. Read what Senator James Imhof has to say about it all. He knows.
I cannot believe that the GOP is adding global warming to its platform. How can I respect my party if it can’t even come up with its own scams to increase the size and power of government, but has to adopt scams from the like of Al Gore.
Global Warming is a hoax! Why would we get on Al Gore’s bandwagon?
I would say there’s 80% agreement with the statement: “Man Made global warming is the biggest lie ever sold to the U.S. and the world.” For McCain as President – or for any President who bought a treaty home for ratification – there’s a long struggle ahead.
