We are heading towards a 1997-type defeat unless we make fundamental and radical changes to our machinery and to our policies.
A plurality clearly think that her charge against him of leaking National Security Council discussions is unproven – if not unjustified altogether.
I found an incredibly likeable person – but although he knuckled down and scored some successes, he was better placed as Chief Whip than Defence Secretary.
There are no certainties – at least, until it’s too late – so the UK should err on the side of caution.
What’s that you say? That what really matters is the Huawei decision itself? Quite so. And on that, we have an uncomfortable feeling that he’s right.
His friends say that the two clashed from the beginning of the Defence Secretary’s appointment – and suggest a vendetta.
The implication of the letter is that the former Defence Secretary withheld evidence from Mark Sedwill’s leak inquiry.
“I am confident that a thorough and full enquiry would have vindicated my position.”
“The Prime Minister’s decision has been informed by his conduct surrounding the investigation.”
He is perfectly entitled to crack down on leaks. But it’s worth bearing in mind that this one was scarcely unprecedented.
“If a 16 year old with Aspergers can break into US defence computers, what is to stop a Chinese company putting in trap doors that it can activate whenever it wants?
The visit should serve as a timely reminder that the last especially outlasts any individual President or Prime Minister.