Gordon Brown: National Security Strategy Statement

March 20, 2008 · Filed Under Politics · Comment 

The primary duty of government - our abiding obligation - is, and will always be, the safety of all British people and the protection of the British national interest.So following approval by the National Security Committee and the Cabinet, the Government is today publishing the first national security strategy.

It states that while our obligation to protect the British people and the British national interest is fixed and unwavering, the nature of the threats and the risks we face have - in recent decades - changed beyond recognition and confound all the old assumptions about national defence and international security.

As the strategy makes clear, new threats demand new approaches.

A radically updated and much more coordinated response is now required.

For most of the last half century the main threat was unmistakable: a Cold War adversary.

Today, the potential threats we face come from far less predictable sources: both state and non-state.

20 years ago the terrorist threat to Britain was principally that from the IRA.

Now it comes from loosely affiliated global networks that threaten us and other nations across continents.

Once, when there was instability in faraway regions or countries, we had a choice - to become involved or not.

Today, no country is in the old sense far away when the consequences of regional instability and terrorism - and then also climate change, poverty, mass population movements and even organised crime - reverberate quickly round the globe.

So to address these great insecurities: war, terrorism and now climate change, disease and poverty — threats which redefine national security not just as the protection of the state but as the protection of all people — we need to mobilise all the resources available to us: the hard power of our military, police, security and intelligence services; the persuasive force and reach of diplomacy and cultural connections; the authority of strengthened global institutions which, with our full support, can deploy both ‘hard’ and ’soft’ power; and not least, because arms and authority will never be enough, the power of ideas, of shared values and hopes that can win over hearts and minds — and can forge new partnerships for progress and tolerance, involving government, the private and voluntary sectors, community and faith organisations, and individuals.

Mr Speaker, the foundation of our approach is to maintain strong, balanced, flexible and deployable armed forces.

And I want to pay tribute to Britain’s servicemen and women - and those civilians deployed on operations - who every day face danger doing vital work in the service of our country — and in particular to remember today the sacrifices made for our country by all who have been injured or lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of war.

To raise recruitment and to improve retention we will match our new £2 million pound public information recruitment campaign launched this week with the Government’s first ever cross-departmental strategy for supporting our service personnel, their families and veterans, to be published shortly.

In the last two years we have raised general pay levels and introduced the first tax-free bonus of nearly £400 a month for those on operations, as well as a council tax refund.

And today the Secretary for Defence is announcing new retention incentives for our armed forces.

There will be increased commitment bonuses of up to £15,000 for longer serving personnel.

And starting with a new £20 million pound home purchase fund we will respond to the demand for more affordable home ownership.

Mr Speaker, I can also inform the House that to meet the threats ahead, after a trebling of its budget since 2001, the security service will rise in number to 4000, twice the level of 2001.

I can also inform the House that we will be increasing yet again, this time by 10 per cent, the resources for the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre - which brings together 16 departments including the police and intelligence agencies - and giving it a new focus on the longer-term challenge of investigating the path to violent extremism.

I can confirm that to meet future security needs we have set aside funds to modernise our interception capability; that at GCHQ and in the secret intelligence service we are developing new technical capabilities to root out terrorism; and that the new Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure set up last year will provide a higher level of protection against internet or cyber-based threats.

And the strategy published today will be backed up by a new approach to engage and inform the public.

Two years ago we removed from being classified as secret the information on threat levels for the UK.

We will now go much further.

Starting later this year, we will openly publish for the first time a national register of risks - information that was previously held confidentially within Government - so the British public can see at first hand the challenges we face and the levels of threat we have assessed.

To harness a much wider range of expertise and experience from outside government and help us plan for the future we are inviting business, academics, community organisations and military and security experts from outside government to join a new National Security Forum that will advise the recently constituted National Security Committee.

And having accepted the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee to separate the position of Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from policy adviser to the Government, and appointed Mr Alex Allan as Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, I can confirm that - as proposed by the Butler Review - his responsibility will be to provide ministers with security assessments formulated independently of the political process.

We will immediately go ahead to introduce a resolution of both Houses - in advance of any future legislation - that will enshrine an enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee.

This will lead to more Parliamentary debate on security matters, public hearings on the national security strategy, and - as promised - greater transparency over appointments to the Committee so that the Committee can not only review intelligence and security but also perform a public role - more akin to the practice of Select Committees - in reporting to and informing the country on security matters.

Mr Speaker, emerging from all the experience and lessons learnt of the last decade is the clear conclusion that we are strongest when we combine the resources of our military, police and security and intelligence services with effective diplomacy and when we work closely with international partners to confront the new global challenges and bring about change.

This approach emphasises the importance of strengthening our key diplomatic and military alliances - with the United States our strongest bilateral partner, NATO the cornerstone of our security, our central role at the heart of an outward-facing Europe - and our long lasting and deep commitment to the Commonwealth and to working through international institutions.

I can tell the House that Britain will be at the forefront of diplomatic action on nuclear weapons control and reduction, offering a new bargain to non-nuclear powers.

On the one hand we will help them and we have proposed the creation of a new international system to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need, including through a global enrichment bond —- and we are today inviting interested countries to an international conference on these themes later this year.

But in return we will seek agreement on tougher controls aimed at reducing weapons and preventing proliferation.

First, ending the stalemates on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Second, achieving after 2010 a more robust implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with the aim of accelerating disarmament among possessor states, preventing proliferation and ultimately freeing the world from nuclear weapons.

And as a new priority to meet the dangers both of proliferation to new states and of material falling into the hands of terrorists, tougher action not just against potential proliferators such as Iran but also new action against suppliers: seeking to strengthen export control regimes and build a more effective forensic nuclear capability in order to determine the true source of material employed in any nuclear device.

And having already reduced the numbers of our operationally available warheads by 20 per cent - and made our expertise available for the verifiable elimination of nuclear warheads - I can confirm that we, Britain, are ready to play our part.

As great a potential threat as nuclear weapons proliferation - and as demanding of a coordinated international response - is the threat from failing and unstable states.

Again the national security strategy proposes a new departure, again a lesson learnt from recent conflicts ranging from Rwanda and Bosnia to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia: to create a standby international civilian capability so that for fragile and failing states we can act quickly and comprehensively by combining the humanitarian, peacekeeping, stabilisation and reconstruction support they need.

So in the same way that we have military forces ready to respond to conflict, we must have civilian experts and professionals ready to deploy quickly to assist failing states and to help rebuild countries emerging from conflict, putting them on the road to economic and political recovery.

I can tell the House that Britain will start by making available a 1000-strong UK civilian standby capacity - that will include police, emergency service professionals, judges and trainers - for this work.

And I am calling on EU and NATO partners to set high and ambitious targets for their own contributions.

Between now and 2011 Britain is offering £600 million for conflict prevention, resolution and stabilisation work around the world, including in Israel and Palestine, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenya and the Balkans.

And as we assume our Presidency of the UN Security Council in May, we are proposing an appeal by the UN Secretary General for a coordinated crisis recovery fund to provide immediate support for reconstruction — and to which Britain will contribute.

Specifically, because we know the importance of peace in Darfur I am announcing today more help from Britain to train, equip and deploy African troops for the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping operation.

Because of the importance of peace in Somalia I can announce that Britain will help pay for 850 Burundian troops as part of the African Union peacekeeping force.

Because of the critical importance of economic and political reconstruction complementing military action as the elected Afghan Government face down the Taliban, an integrated civilian-military headquarters - headed by a civilian - will now be constituted in Helmand.

And in Iraq - where we have already brought electricity and water supplies to over one million citizens - we are stepping up our contribution to the work of long-term economic reconstruction by supporting the Basra Development Commission - led for the British by businessman Michael Wareing.

And in order to maximise our contribution to all the new challenges of peacekeeping, humanitarian work and stabilisation and reconstruction, my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary for Defence is also announcing this afternoon that - as part of a wider review - the Government will now examine how our reserve forces can more effectively help with stabilisation and economic reconstruction in post-conflict zones around the world.

And with this year the 100th anniversary of the Territorial Army, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the servicemen and women in our reserves who are such an essential element of our nation’s defence.

Mr Speaker, the security strategy published today also makes clear that, as well as being able to respond to crises as they develop, we need to be able to tackle the underlying drivers of conflict and instability —- in particular: Poverty, inequality and poor governance - where focusing also on areas where poverty breeds conflict we have quadrupled Britain’s aid budget from £2.1 billion in 1997 to nearly £9.1 by 2011, and are pushing for bold international action in 2008 to meet the Millennium Development Goals; Climate change and competition for natural resources - where we are leading the way in arguing for a post 2012 international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a new global fund to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change, including in the areas most under stress and therefore most likely to suffer instability as well as humanitarian disaster; and disease and global pandemics - where with the world health organisation the priority is to improve early warning systems, increase global vaccine supplies —– and to help put in place a more coordinated global response, Britain will bring together all interested parties to agree new international action.

And because of the importance of building stability and countering violent extremism in the Middle East and South Asia, we are increasing the number of Foreign Office staff in those regions by 30 per cent.

Mr Speaker, among all the security challenges to citizens of this country covered by this new strategy, the most serious and urgent remains the threat from international terrorism - with today Britain facing 30 known plots, and monitoring 200 networks and around 2000 individuals.

There have been 58 convictions for terrorism in just over a year.

And the Home Secretary is announcing today that we will now have four regional counter terrorism units and four regional intelligence units, significantly increasing anti-terrorism police capability in the regions.

Since the events of September 11th, on suspicion they are a threat to national security or fostering extremism, 300 people individuals have been prevented from entering the country.

Now, backing up our unified border agency, compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals and our proposals in the Counter Terrorism bill that in unique circumstances we can extend detention to ensure full investigation of terror threats, the Government will match stronger action against those we suspect of stirring up tensions with collaborative work with our European partners to strengthen the EU rules on deporting criminals —- a matter I will be discussing with President Sarkozy next week.

For action against terrorism and also organised crime it is important also to strengthen Europol and Eurojust, ensure rapid and secure exchange of information, and speed up both the extradition of criminals and the confiscation of their assets — where starting with the United Arab Emirates we are signing more agreements so that once the assets of a convicted criminal are seized in one country with the assistance of the other, both countries will get a share of the proceeds.

Mr Speaker, our new approach to security also means improved local resilience against emergencies, building and strengthening local capacity to respond effectively in a range of circumstances from floods to possible terrorism incidents —— not the old cold war idea of civil defence but a new form of civil protection that combines expert preparedness for potential emergencies with greater local engagement of individuals and families themselves.

And the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary will report next month on additional measures we propose for young people, in colleges and universities, and in prisons, and working with faith communities, to disrupt the promoters of violent extremism - all building upon the support of the vast majority of people, of all faiths and backgrounds, who condemn terrorists and their actions.

Mr Speaker, the national security strategy shows a Britain resolute in the face of an unstable and increasingly uncertain international security landscape and demonstrates the lessons we and other countries have learned in recent years — that we must: expand our policing, security and intelligence capacity, do more to prevent conflict including by more effective international control of arms, strengthen the effectiveness of international institutions to promote stability and reconstruction, and always be vigilant, never leaving ourselves vulnerable — supporting, and at all times and wherever necessary strengthening, as we do today, our defences and civilian support for national security.

And I commend this statement to the house.

Tags: , ,

Rich Seam Of New Labour Dross

March 12, 2008 · Filed Under Politics · Comment 

Is there anyone alive today who can remember what that funny, old fashioned Labour Party did?

There was something about helping the poor and acting as a safeguard against the ravages which the rich might inflict upon them if left to their own devices. It was a party which stood up for the weak and made the voices of ordinary people heard against the clamour of the rich and privileged.

None of that nonsense now applies, of course, in this rich and brave New Britain, where everyone is on the make and only wants to be given “opportunity” and “empowerment” to exploit their “talents” to make money, or so says John Hutton.

As far as he is concerned, the rich should have no obstacles placed in their path to amassing more and more money and if poor people get in the way, they can just be mown down by the onslaught to create more and more millionaires.

“Over the coming months and years, we must be enthusiastic - not pragmatic - about financial success.

“We are, for example, rightly renewing our historic pledge to eradicate child poverty in Britain. But tackling poverty is about bringing those at the bottom closer to those in the middle.

“It is statistically possible to have a society where no child lives in a family whose income is below the poverty line - 60 per cent of median average income - but where there are also people at the top who are very wealthy. In fact, not only is it statistically possible - it is positively a good thing.

“So rather than questioning whether high salaries are morally justified, we should celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country.

“Rather than placing a cap on that success, we should be questioning why it is not available to more people.”

To be enthusiastic, rather than pragmatic, sounds like a formula for idiocy, which is probably what John Hutton hopes will propel the rich to become richer. Pragmatic simply means guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory. The pragmatic experience of everyone trying to get rich quick is that the process tends to devastate both the body politic and the lives of the poor.

So, John Hutton, the one who has not heard that Thatcher’s wonderful world of market forces has been discredited, even amongst those foolish enough not to spot the gaping holes in the theory first time round.

Still, crazy guy, crazy, stupid ideas.

So, enjoy New Labour while you still can.

Come election time, it will not be coming to a town near you, but will be more forgotten than the old version is now.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Vince Cable LibDem Liverpool Conference 2008 Speech

March 8, 2008 · Filed Under Politics · Comment 

Full text of Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vincent Cable’s speech to the LibDem Spring Conference in Liverpool, 2008

I don’t want to overdo my Stalin joke. But I did, I think, capture the pathos of Gordon Brown’s sad decline: from ruthless to rudderless: bully to bumbler; from Brezhnev to Blackadder.

He genuinely saddens me. After Blair was obsessed by image and positioning. We hoped Brown would be a serious man with serious ideas and a serous commitment to social justice. No chance.

Within weeks he was dressing up in a Penguin suit to grovel to a Saudi king who presides over the execution of women for immorality and corruption which makes the late President Mobutu look like a small time pick pocket.

The nuclear power lobby, the airport expansion lobby, the arms dealers all know they have a true friend in Downing Street.

And, as for social justice, he stands ready to copy whatever regressive, badly thought out wheeze the Tories dream up on a boozy night out at the Bullingdon Club.

But the real issue is competence. Gordon Brown’s list of disasters is becoming as long as the list of Don Giovanni’s lovers: Northern Rock; lost data on 15 million families; mismanaged reforms to CGT and non-dom taxation;

Metronet and the disastrous London Underground PPP; tax credit overpayments; the QinetiQ sale; Railtrack;  IT mismanagement in HMRC; the collapse of occupational pensions; Equitable Life; Individual Learning Accounts; Film Tax Credit: U-turns on SIPPs and Company Incorporation and Operating and Financial Reviews.

That’s just for starters. In fact, the Conservatives should be benefiting more than they are from the government’s serial incompetence. They have a problem. Their own history. Black Monday. 15% interest rates. 3 million unemployed. Record repossessions.  All that.

Cameron and Osborne have an Alzheimer’s strategy: a fervent hope that the country will lose its collective memory of Conservative government.

These days the Tories simply don’t seem to know what they stand for. They don’t even seem to believe in tax cutting any more.

Or perhaps I am being a little unfair. They do have a programme of targeted tax cuts. Top priority target is a further inheritance tax cuts designed to favour dead millionaires. Dead millionaires are clearly at the heart of the Tory core vote strategy.

We, on the other hand, have been consistent and right in our analysis of the UK economy.

I warned Gordon Brown almost 5 years ago that there was a growing problem of personal debt, much of it secured against a dangerous bubble in the housing market.

Since then, inflation and house prices have reached levels, in relation to income, unsurpassed in our history and the highest in the western World.

The truth is that just as binge drinking has become one of Britain’s main recreational activities, binge lending has now become the mainstay of the economy.

Banks have become the financial equivalents of a Wetherspoons pub – but with even less of a sense of responsibility.

They make their money by getting people to borrow more than they can handle. The mess afterwards is someone else’s problem.

The binge in lending has fuelled the house price boom. Housing has become unaffordable for millions of young first time buyers. Borrowers are struggling to maintain their debts.

Too much unsustainably cheap credit created an unsustainable ratcheting up of house prices.

People have been duped into believing that acquiring property is better than saving and a more reliable store of value than a bank account, shares or a pension.

Yet this is a market that is, and always has been, dangerously volatile.  After the binge, there is inevitably a hangover. It is just starting. House prices are now falling month by month across the country.

Debt arrears are mounting. Repossession orders and repossessions are rising rapidly back towards levels last seen in the mid 1990’s. Negative equity is back.

Serious economic analysts worry that our home grown problem of asset deflation will interact lethally with the global credit crunch. And also global inflation in energy and food prices could combine to create a perfect economic storm.

If there is an economic storm the public will want to know that the ship is being steered by people who know what they are doing.

During the Northern Rock crisis the boat was drifting listlessly. Captain Brown was hiding in his cabin. And Midshipman Osborne was jumping excitedly in and out of a lifeboat.  We knew what had to be done.

But the Government only finally listened after months of indecision. The delay caused untold damage to Britain’s reputation and cost a fortune in legal and accountancy fees.

Now the Government has seen the benefits of listening to the Liberal Democrats perhaps they can make it a habit – to tackle the dangers of our slowing economy.

The Bank of England has to be freed up to use interest rates more aggressively by making sure that its inflation target reflects the fluctuations in house prices.

We cannot and should not try to stop lenders adjusting to higher standards of risk management. But the binge lenders have to accept some of the pain they happily inflict on their borrowers.

There will have to be a check on repossessions so that we do not have a massive fire sale of homes and a pandemic of homelessness.

No one should face repossession until there has been an opportunity for independent financial advice.

The bank must be required to offer a range of alternative properly regulated options, including shared ownership.

The vultures who are exploiting the situation must be brought within mortgage regulation. These are, necessarily, palliatives.

We also need to think ahead to a different model of growth. It should not depend on a debt financed, unsustainable, short term splurge in consumer spending.

It should instead draw on long term investment in this country’s human resources of skill and science, respecting environmental limits and repairing a fractured sense of social solidarity.

But the truth is that in the immediate future there are hard times ahead.

There will be financial casualties. Neither I nor anyone else can offer a pain free solution as the excesses of the last few years are purged from the system.

What we must insist on however is that everyone contributes according to their means.  We cannot tolerate a two nation society divided between the tax payers and the tax dodgers.

The extent of tax avoidance amongst many rich people has become a national scandal. The super rich are complaining because our spineless government decided to tinker with capital gains tax.

But they will still pay far less than their cleaners – 18% versus 20% plus 10% NICs. They will still pay less than half the tax rate they paid under Mrs Thatcher and Nigel Lawson. But all we hear is a whine of self pity.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with people making serious money through hard work building businesses and creating jobs. There have to be realistic incentives in a market economy.

But the idea that the super rich should be elevated above taxation is immoral and deeply insulting to those on modest incomes who pay their full whack of tax.

Then we have the so called non-doms. These are people who, on the strength of having no more overseas connection that a foreign father, can choose not to pay any tax on their overseas income and capital.

And they can avail themselves of a battery of off-shore tax loopholes which enable them to avoid tax on UK income and capital. Probably 5 million people – many in this room – are eligible.

Growing numbers are taking advantage. After ten years of dithering Gordon Brown has decided to act.

As a veteran of the struggle against Mrs Thatcher’s poll tax, he has decided – you’ve guessed already – to introduce a poll tax. Billionaire Lakshmi Mittal is to pay the same tax as a non-dom shopkeeper.

Not surprisingly, the Tories agree that this is fair, indeed, they claim to have thought of it first.

Yet there has been an almost hysterical reaction from the City. How dare British politicians query the tax privileges of the rich? If we are not careful, they say, Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs living in £80 million houses will no longer feel welcome.

They might go somewhere else. That’s tough. Let them go. We say that foreign expatriates are welcome to live and work in Britain. But when they have been here seven years, they pay British tax like the rest of us.

Pay up or pack up. And it isn’t just rich individuals who dodge tax. Companies are at it as well. There are only two reasons for British companies to operate from Caribbean tax havens: secrecy and tax.

I salute the journalists who are running the gauntlet of libel lawyers by exposing the tax affairs of leading British companies who use Caribbean bolt holes to avoid tax.

Tesco admitted last week that it had organised itself to avoid £250 million in stamp duty this way, £10 for every UK taxpayer.

While the super rich and corporate Britain uses every dodge in the book to avoid paying tax, those on low pay face higher taxes.

The one certainty about next week’s Budget – because a commitment was made last year – is that 23 million workers and pensioners will pay 20% on their first slab of taxable income, instead of 10%. 5.3 million people will pay more tax.

The Lib Dems don’t want higher overall levels of tax. We want to see fairer taxes making sure that the tax dodgers are brought to book.

It means that the very well off pay a bit more in capital gains and income tax so that low and middle income families get a tax cut – 4p in the pound of national income tax.

We also believe that tax can be used, albeit carefully, to change behaviour.

That is why we argue for green taxes, particularly on polluting aircraft, raising revenue for our package of tax cuts elsewhere. The evidence, from the Government’s Climate Change Levy, is that environmental taxes do change behaviour.

And they raise revenue – which we would use to cut taxes in a progressive way. We should also be using taxes to discourage binge drinking.  There is massive evidence of the damaging effects of alcohol on health and crime.

Yet the Government has cut taxes in real terms on highly alcoholic beverages. Many will wonder why a government which has raised income taxes on the low paid and Council Tax on pensioners is helping to promote cut price Bacardi Breezers and vodka shots.

Tax should be raised on drinks with high alcohol content – raising £225 million. We would use the money to cut VAT on healthy, 100% fruit juice from 17.5% to 5%.

This will complete the transformation of the Lib Dems from being the party of beards and sandals to the party of Smoothies.

If I were to be self critical, I would say that we haven’t been radical enough. I would like to see a much stronger commitment to cutting the taxes of low and middle income families.

And I would like to see a much tougher approach to the windfalls on property and land values enjoyed by the super rich.

Liberal Democrats represent the millions of families ignored by this Government. Yes we believe in enterprise. Yes we believe in an open economy. But we don’t have to go down on our knees to the rich and powerful.

We will stand up for fair taxes. We will stand up for green taxes.

And we will fight for a more equal Britain.

Tags: , , , , ,

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Bad Behavior has blocked 224 access attempts in the last 7 days.