Technology Overload

If anyone is any doubt that this world seems to be getting quicker, take a look at this video, which we are told was played last year at a conference organised by Sony. One word...WOW!

George Osborne’s second Budget - by Nick Wood

March will bring us George Osborne's second Budget. It will also bring the 30th anniversary of one of the most pivotal moments in Britain's recent political history - the day that 364 economists wrote a letter to The Times warning that Margaret Thatcher's policies of cutting spending and borrowing at a time of rising unemployment and inflation would spell national ruin.

But it was not just economists battering on the doors of Downing Street and the Treasury. Their views were shared across industry, the trade unions, the media, the Labour Party and much of the Tory Party as well.

Critics derided Thatcher's policies as sado-monetarism. It seemed only a matter of time before the advent of the obligatory U-turn back to more spending and more borrowing. But it never came and the practitioners of the dismal science were proved spectacularly wrong.

Three decades later, is history about to repeat itself? In the face of much liberal left caterwauling, spending and borrowing are again being cut and at least one economist, Mr Ed Balls, is writing to The Times in protest. Chancellor George Osborne already feels the need to go on TV to announce he will not change course.

Bolstered by the shock 0.5 per cent drop in GDP in the last quarter, Balls is licking his lips. Every scrap of economic bad news will be gobbled up by this carnivore of a Shadow Minister to press his case that the Cameron/Osborne fiscal squeeze will condemn the economy to the dustbin. And today's liberal left, perhaps less potent and ideological than the past but still numerous, will pile in behind him in the hope of shaking the nerve of the Coalition.

In the Commons 30 years ago, Margaret Thatcher was asked to name two economists who agreed with her. Alan Walters and Patrick Minford, she replied. And alongside them was the steadiness of "Dead Sheep" Sir Geoffrey Howe, her Chancellor, and the advocacy of a small band of monetarist politicians and intellectuals.

The Iron Lady eventually saw off her critics as the economy turned. Cameron and Osborne will need to find similar steel to see through their age of austerity.

But they won't be able to do it alone. Like Thatcher they will need to find a band of disciples ready and willing to fight their corner.

New Media Intelligence Partners Website

MIP today unveils its new website, reflecting the company's progress in becoming one of Westminster's leading PR and political consultancies.

Our new look also reflects our success in attracting some of the top political, business and communications talent to our team. Mike Magan, former White House aide to President George W Bush, Jonathan Haslam, former Downing Street press secretary, and Arpana Gandhi, from the world of fashion, commerce and show-business, are all playing key roles at MIP.

Whether you are a thought-leader, trend-setter, campaigner, business chief - at home or abroad - MIP can steer you through the media and political minefield.

www.mippr.co

The Strategic Defence and Security Review was not strategic and has not increased our security - by Alistair Thompson

Today I will be attending the decommissioning ceremony of HMS Ark Royal. As this proud symbol of British Maritime power is consigned to history I worry that we might have botched the Strategic Defence and Security Review, which could have consequences long into the future.

Last year, in an attempt to clear up the mess left by the previous Government, the Coalition undertook the SDSR. The Ministry’s budget, under Labour stewardship, had been managed so disastrously that on an annual operating budget of about £13 billion, commitments on equipment and overspends totalled £36 billion, or nearly three years worth of funding.

This could have possibly been justified if our armed forces were the best equipped soldiers, sailors and airmen in the world, but they are not. Vital equipment was all too often simply not available to the men on the ground. While US soldiers travelled around in heavily armoured trucks, our boys and girls had to make do with Snatch Land Rovers designed for the streets of Belfast, not IEDs in Helmand.

There has also been wide reporting of helicopter shortages, body armour and other items (that should have been in plentiful supply) forcing our troops to make do with what is available and sometimes relying on clothing sent from concerned family members. Is it any wonder that our US allies refer to the army as "the borrowers"?

And because of the political tinkering and interfering with projects, this has led to an average 5-year delay of the in-service date of the equipment the MOD has ordered.
On top of these inherited problems the Government also wanted a reduction of eight per cent in the MOD’s budget. Set against this back drop the Government had a near impossible job of conducting our first SDSR for 13 years. Don’t get me wrong, I had hoped that the resulting report would meet all of these competing demands, but it has not.

In broad terms the Government’s policy agenda could be summed up by the phrase ‘Advancing UK Interests’ and in military terms this has two clear policy implications:

1.Defending current UK interests, territory, trade/goods and citizens. This could be defined as everything we do currently, or own.
2.Secondly a more proactive or even offensive capability, which allows our Government and armed forces to exploit opportunities. This in simple terms means having the ability to respond to situations and crises.

Our armed forces have always played important roles in both, which was why I was disappointed at a number of the proposed cuts which were announced. So let me explain why the current round of cuts have removed our ability in the short to medium term to carry out these two functions.

One of the most immediate and visual cuts was the loss of both the Invincible Class aircraft carriers and sea harriers that flew off of them. These allowed the UK to project its power, quickly fulfilling the second role of the military and in enough of a concentration to act as a deterrent to most nations fulfilling the primary role. And before this statement is dismissed by those cynics out there, we only have to look at their vital roles in recent conflicts including those in the Middle East and their pivotal role in 1982 in the Falklands War.

Then there is the decision to axe Nimrod. To many unfamiliar with the work of these planes there loss will mean little, but this aircraft has, in various forms, served with distinction since the early 1970s. It was originally designed to combat the threat of submarines from the USSR, but also had vital secondary roles of maritime surveillance and surface warfare.

More recently the RAF has used the Nimrod R1 variant to gather ‘electronic intelligence’ through a vast array of classified gadgetry. This has allowed our forces to target and deal with enemy radar and missile sites and other key enemy electronic networks. This greatly speeds up that all important goal of air superiority and its loss make us massively dependent on the US, or other NATO allies.

I will not write at length about the contract clauses which mean that we, the taxpayer, are going to spend a further £200 million on not building the nine new nimrods the previous Government ordered. This is on top of the three and half billion we have already spent on building them.

Finally there are the cuts in the numbers of personnel. While I have no problems with cutting the numbers of pencil pushers flying desks in Whitehall, cutting the number of sailors, soldiers and airmen only stores up massive problems. Our forces are already over stretched and until such time as the number of commitments are reduced we simply cannot cope with fewer personnel, unless when the next conflict happens, or a hurricane hits the Caribbean, we simply say "not our problem."

Do not get me wrong; I applaud some of the other elements of the SDSR, including greater resources to combat the threat of cyber-warfare and attack from an EMP, but some of these cuts seem to be driven by the Treasury and not by strategic need.

I do not mean to be overly critical of the coalition as in many areas their work is vital, and the policies they are putting forward both progressive and radical. But I wonder if in hindsight the history books may well compare some of the decisions made in the SDSR with the decision to remove the Royal Navy’s only presence in the Falklands in 1981. A decision that was as short sighted as it was wrong.

Orignally posted on ConservativeHome 22nd January 2011

Clegg lurches to the left after Oldham East and Saddleworth By-election

Isn’t it interesting that DPM Nick Clegg chose his first outing following the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election to endorse the left-wing think tank Demo’s report on families.

The report unsurprisingly dismisses the important role of marriage and concluded by saying, “The Conservative Party’s current emphasis on incentivising marriage is a distraction from the real challenge, which should be to ensure that children grow up in stable and nurturing environments that support their social and emotional development.”

But the DPM went even further than the report saying that the Government’s role was to ‘empower’ parents rather than impose ‘prescriptive’ solutions.

And he is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying there is, “No magic wand solutions. No preaching. Just some help, because we understand the pressures you are under - finding a job, giving your child a good education, making your relationship work. We will do whatever we can to make things easier. The rest – the decisions, the choices, the lifestyle – is up to you.” (Read the more in the Daily Mail by clicking here.)

But Mr Clegg and Demos have fallen into the trap of saying only family process matters when family structure is also important. 48 per cent of all children born today will see their parents separate before they are 16. If we are to tackle our enormous problems of family breakdown we have to do it in the holistic way we propose in our work – with official recognition of marriage and better relationship support.

Research by the highly respected Centre for Social Justice challenges the conclusion of the Demos report that it is the quality of their parents’ relationships and not their structure that matters to children. These two things are inextricably linked because of the importance an explicit commitment makes both to the stability of that relationship but also to its quality. When couples envisage a shared future together it changes the emotional landscape of the relationship. It makes it more likely that they will sacrifice for each other (husbands as well as wives) because there is far less risk entailed in such an investment – everyone knows where they stand. Tax breaks for married couples not only signal the kind of family formation that is most likely to produce good outcomes for children but they also recognise and reward that investment.

And they say that “Tax breaks are a clear way for government to back the pattern of family formation that makes it most likely that children will live with both of their biological parents throughout their minority. 97 per cent of couples still intact by the time their child is 15 are married, only 3 per cent are cohabiting. The notion that this small but important signal will keep highly conflicted parents together has no substance. A signal from government that marriage and therefore stability matters will however make it more likely that couples will work at their relationships and access support and counselling.”

I wonder does this clear slap in the face to David Cameron and the Tory Right have more to do with appeasing his own restless back benchers who are alarmed that the Lib Dem’s vote in the by-election only held up by because thousands of Conservatives voted tactically in an attempt to oust Labour. Were it not for this tactical voting, the Lib Dem candidate could well have finished a disastrous third?

Channel 4 launches series of short films on euthanasia

Channel 4 will be running a series of short films on euthanasia.

4thought.tv encourages constructive debates about religious and ethical issues in our society.

Each week they look at a different theme, and next week they will be exploring attitudes towards euthanasia, and asking whether it should be legalised in Britain.

The 90 second films will be airing after the news every evening on Channel 4 (around 7:55pm). Viewers can then share their own thoughts and feelings about euthanasia, respond to individual films and reply to other viewer comments on our website www.4thought.tv

The outline running order is:

Monday 17th January, 7:55pm – Lesley Close
Lesley Close’s brother John had Motor Neurone Disease. In 2003 Lesley accompanied him to a suicide clinic in Switzerland where she witnessed his “dignified and amazing” death.

Monday 17th January, 7:58pm – Sarah Meagher
Christian Sarah Meagher’s husband died of cancer four years ago. Sarah believes that only God has the right to take a life and neither she nor her husband would have wanted his death to be hastened in any way.

Tuesday 18th January, 7:55pm – Martin Amis
Author Martin Amis believes that euthanasia is an evolutionary inevitability. Martin recently caused controversy by putting forward the idea of suicide booths on street corners and thinks that future generations will look back at how we have abandoned people to their longevity as “barbaric”.

Wednesday 19th January, 7:55pm – Michael Wenham
Christian Michael Wenham was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease nine years ago. He believes his life is now richer than it was before his illness and that euthanasia is a selfish act that fails to take account of the feelings of those who are left behind.

Thursday 20th January, 7:55pm – Dr Michael Irwin
Dr Michael Irwin believes that it is a doctor’s duty to ease a patient’s suffering and wants to see a change in the law that would allow doctor-assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill. He has personally accompanied patients to the Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland to help them end their lives.

Friday 21st January, 7:25pm – Kevin Fitzpatrick
Kevin Fitzpatrick believes that legalising euthanasia in Britain would be a terrible mistake and that many more disabled people would die as a result. Kevin believes that we should put our energies into improving palliative care services rather than trying to make it easier for people to hasten their deaths.

Saturday 22nd January, 6:55pm – Dr Ann McPherson
Dr Ann McPherson has terminal cancer. She will almost certainly die within the next six to twelve months. Ann hopes that, when the time comes, she will be able to have the option of an assisted death in Britain.

Sunday 23rd January, 7:55pm – (anti euthanasia doctor)

All of the films are available to watch online immediately after they are broadcast, and for the next 6 months, here www.4thought.tv/euthanasia

Julian Assange is not a journalist. He's not even a campaigner.

Over the last couple of weeks we have all enjoyed a rare glimpse through the lens of international diplomacy. We've enjoyed looking at candid descriptions of political figures and some of the revelations are pretty interesting. For example, we now know that NATO has contingency plans for a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe. But beyond the news and gossip elements of the Wikileaks dump, there lies a more uncomfortable agenda.

Certain quarters of the media have positively revelled in the unravelling of American statecraft. The tone of Assange's preferred outlet, The Guardian, seems to imply that for a nation state to have any secrets at all is evidence of that country being somehow wicked, too powerful or arrogant. It is the ease with which America is targeted that we should find uncomfortable. Julian Assange is not an investigative journalist. He is the beneficiary and handler of leaked information, nothing more. None of us should be comfortable marching to the tune of a one man self-appointed "truth campaigner." Indeed, if you need any evidence of Assange's state of mind you only need read the Q&A he did with.....you guessed it, The Guardian, last week. One of the questions posed was from a former British diplomat, and it is worth reading his point in full, HERE. I'll quote an extract from him:

"In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate."

His main question is simple: "why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function?"

Assange's reply is illuminating: "If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention."

Extraordinary. Julian Assange, who just dumped 250,000 sensitive files on to the internet, asks a valid questioner to "trim down" his point....and then doesn't answer it. The reason I shared this exchange is because it highlights the underlying principles of Wikileaks; it claims to be "holding governments to account" (though nobody has asked them to do this) and yet Assange is wholly averse to being held to account himself.

Assange, who was today arrested on suspicion of rape, is not an investigative journalist. He is not even a campaigner. He is an irresponsible, most likely criminal, arrogant individual who seems to have no interest beyond undermining America and the West. What happens to him next is anyone's guess. Al Capone was finally brought down for tax evasion. Maybe this "e-terrorist" will be brought down for failing to understand that "no means no."