00:00:04.520 - 00:00:24.220

So we're back for another Westminster Roundup. January is over, it's February, it's spring, the daffodils are coming out. It is snowing, but at least it's supposed to be spring. Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, it was sunny yesterday, so we're getting there. Well, Megan, look, it's been another busy month in Westminster. And what is your biggest story from the month?

00:00:24.780 - 00:00:43.100

My biggest story is all the updates that are going on around the Integrative Review, which is formerly known as the Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review. Rolls off the tongue. It does, really. But luckily for us, we just call it the Integrated Review. Much easier. It is. So as many of you will know, this is a five-yearly process in which the UK looks over

00:00:43.100 - 00:01:03.520

its defence and the different climates that are going on and how it's supposed to react to these new climates that are coming out. And so I think for this year's Security Review, we'll see two real big focuses. The first one will be on the UK's new role as it leaves the EU and starts building relationships outside of this union. And the second one will be the re-emergence of the

00:01:03.520 - 00:01:20.540

focus on great power competition that we've seen. So we've seen the shift away from the counter-terrorism of the last two decades and more of a focus on states like Russia and Iran, who are starting to be more perceived as a threat again. And in this year's Integrated Review, I would say that there are three things that we're really quite curious about and trying to find out

00:01:20.540 - 00:01:39.020

more about. So the first one is which personalities will come into play. Absolutely. So this is both in regards to people who are behind the scenes, but also people who are actually leading it more formally. So it was announced two days ago that Sir Alex Ellis will be leading on it from the Cabinet's office side. And I think it's quite telling that he's a Director General, or used to

00:01:39.020 - 00:01:57.820

be, of the Department for Exiting the EU. And I think it says quite a lot about where he's coming from. And then, of course, behind the scenes, we have Dominic Cummings, who is on everyone's mind at the moment, it seems, who has been very critical of defence spending. And he's promised to push quite a lot on this, on NOD spending. And it's quite interesting because I suppose

00:01:57.820 - 00:02:22.520

there's different viewpoints in the media about who's won in this tug of war between Cummings and other civil servants. But some articles were saying that Cummings had won, and then others were saying, well, no, Cummings had won because it's going to be a six-month review, isn't it? And it's going to be in time for the spending review, which is set for the autumn. But others

00:02:22.520 - 00:02:42.040

saying that, well, these personalities that have been brought in suggest that perhaps maybe he hasn't had his full way with certain things. So very interesting. Definitely. And I'd say the second question is on how fused this review will be. So again, we've seen this big effort in Whitehall to have more fusion between the different departments,

00:02:42.200 - 00:02:54.600

and try to really have more of a coordination between the UK's different components as it reacts to events in the world. And you've got to plug your latest report. Oh, we should. So we have a report on this called Fusion Doctrine in Five Steps, which you can find on our website.

00:02:54.840 - 00:03:15.380

Absolutely. It's a good read. And it actually, to Megan's point about needing to be more fused, it introduces and kind of provides the preliminary analysis on how effective fusion doctrine is being with a focus on, as you say, remote warfare operations in Africa. Absolutely. But in spite of these commitments to have more fusion, we've already seen there's been

00:03:15.380 - 00:03:32.260

quite a few rumours of competition between the different departments, but also within the departments. So for example, within the Ministry of Defence, we've heard that there's already competition between the different branches of the military trying to have enough focus on their own needs and resources. And that's already creating a few clashes here and there. So it's quite telling,

00:03:32.400 - 00:03:51.020

I think. And the final point that I think is quite interesting, especially to us, is how much they will actually bring in external feedback. So again, there's been a huge commitment to really have a lot of feedback from external actors in civil society. But it's quite unclear what form that will take and who will be asked to participate. And there's not much coming out from the government

00:03:51.020 - 00:04:10.340

about when that will start. So we're still just all kind of waiting for that process to begin. Even though we have quite a lot to say and quite a few findings from a report, for example. Yeah. And I mean, it's interesting because there's been a lot of talk about the Labour Party's strategic review in 1998, led by the Secretary of State for Defence, George Robertson, at the time,

00:04:10.440 - 00:04:33.700

which has kind of been described, at least in media reporting, that it's the blueprint to which the government is hoping to set the parameters and the approach to this review. And given that that review was known for quite wide consultation, perhaps, maybe relative to other reviews, perhaps, but still quite positive with engaging with civil society groups. And

00:04:33.700 - 00:04:54.500

actually also what the public thinks about defence. I think that was one of the key components of that review as well. Understanding what do the public really want the UK to be prioritising for national security. So yeah, I think there's some, I don't know if you agree, but I think there's some positive signs in the fact that they're hoping to be much more

00:04:55.600 - 00:05:11.720

consultative. And that in a way, they've responded to previous criticisms for not being as open to external input. So I think that's a good thing. I think it is very promising. And it's good to see that they prioritise that enough to make a commitment to have more external feedback. But it does

00:05:11.720 - 00:05:30.200

remain to be seen how much that's going to actually happen. I think that's very true as well. And I think, you know, the time limit on the review is, you know, puts a big question mark over how broad ranging this can be, because there's a time constraint. And also that while it makes sense to sort of to set the

00:05:30.200 - 00:05:46.240

priorities, national security priorities, and then think about how you can cost them, actually maybe pegging it to, or anchoring it to the spending review, actually means that it becomes again, just about money. Yeah, exactly.

00:05:46.620 - 00:05:56.080

You know, there is that risk. But yeah, there are positive signs. It looks good for now, at least. Yes. Yeah. So watch this space. Definitely. And Liam, what's your main story of this month?

00:05:56.180 - 00:06:20.400

Well, I don't want to repeat too much of what we talked about in the last podcast in January, but we did discuss the imminent reshuffle. And over the last month, we've seen this reshuffle. And I think most interesting from our perspective, putting aside obviously the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a very young MP from

00:06:20.400 - 00:06:42.020

Richmond now taking up that post, which I think will have implications for defence, and what that will mean with the spending review, and as part of the budget, which is happening on the 11th of March. But a particular interest, I think, is that we've seen more signs that this government under Boris Johnson may be a little more serious

00:06:42.020 - 00:07:12.080

than previous governments about looking at the relationship between the FCO and DFID. Now, it's also important to note that we have seen DexEU be closed down. It's been closed down, even though we're not quite out of the EU yet. But that department's gone. And it seems like we've seen quite a few ministers increase, or at least jump into roles in the FCO and DFID. For example,

00:07:12.320 - 00:07:34.880

James Dudridge, who was at DexEU, is now the Minister for Africa. And it should be noted, all these roles now between the FCO and DFID are joined, except for the most senior roles, the Secretary of State. Dominic Raab remains at the Foreign Office. But Lok Sharma, who was the Secretary of State for DFID, has now moved to business. He's the Business Secretary,

00:07:35.660 - 00:07:57.860

and also the guy that will be leading on COP26 plans. Lucky man, that's a big job. But we've also got this individual called Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who has actually risen quite quickly up the greasy pole over the last couple of years. She was elected in 2015. She's a passionate Brexiteer. She was part of the Vote Leave campaign and has been quite sceptical,

00:07:57.980 - 00:08:29.160

which is why it's very interesting, about the UK's aid spending. So these developments, although we haven't seen a sort of media speculation or suggesting a formal merger, we've definitely seen, I suppose, DFID and FCO take a step forward in perhaps looking at maybe greater collaboration with the Foreign Office, perhaps setting more clearly what the Department

00:08:29.160 - 00:08:49.900

of International Development will be doing. So I think for many different organisations, this will obviously be quite concerning, because I think DFID has got a very good reputation worldwide. We're very much known for our contribution to humanitarian issues overseas. But there have been developments over the last couple of years, for example,

00:08:49.900 - 00:09:13.940

changes to the way that ODA can be spent, Overseas Development and Aid, in terms of providing or at least allowing for this to look at elements that might be more security-related. And of course, there are concerns about the securitisation of aid spending. And maybe I'll just add there, we've been saying for a long time as well, there doesn't seem to be

00:09:13.940 - 00:09:33.140

a reason to merge the three departments of FCO, DFID and ODA. Because they do each bring something very specific and very different to the table. It's just about finding ways that those departments can work together and share language and share culture, and especially share planning processes as well. And so trying to have more of a system for collaboration rather than actually merging

00:09:33.140 - 00:09:53.680

seems to be the best way forward. I think you're right. And I think what perhaps many within the NGO sector and others would argue is that something that's quite unique about DFID is that, yes, of course, there are political drivers about how aid is spent. We've got obviously the CWSF, etc. But it hasn't always been driven by politics alone. It's about

00:09:53.680 - 00:10:19.020

reducing and addressing poverty internationally as well. And that's been a preeminent raison d'etre of DFID. So I think there is also concern that that will diminish with the shift. And I think you're absolutely right about what actually is the purpose of integrating or more integration with the FCO and DFID. What do we want to achieve? Because we've seen that the National

00:10:19.020 - 00:10:42.900

Security Council, since it was set up in 2010, formerly at least, under David Cameron, that has kind of set the strategic direction for government. And then it feeds down. Now, you've obviously in this recent report addressed the fact that this doesn't always work as well as it should. But if you're going to then allow for the FCO to be sort of the driver of the UK's international

00:10:42.900 - 00:11:08.900

foreign policy or international policy, then what does that mean for the NSC? And then you've got all this sort of unclear sort of relationship between these departments. So I think we've got to be careful about not only undermining the value that DFID brings, but also that by allowing the FCO, and of course, there's a debate about needing more money to be a diplomatic powerhouse for the

00:11:08.900 - 00:11:27.080

That's absolutely a valid argument. But in terms of saying the strategic direction for policy across government is empowering the FCO in that way, the right way to go forward when you've already got sort of the NSC itself at the top of government. Absolutely. I think it's very interesting. Yes. I think it's up for today as well. It is. Well, thank you very much for listening.

00:11:27.180 - 00:11:51.020

I hope you'll join us next month. And why don't you subscribe or even give us a comment or something. We'd really like to hear your feedback. And we've also been developing our tech here at the Polar Pop. We have got a pop shield. And we're looking to expand with some new technology to make it a little bit easier to listen to because I know we've had a bit of feedback. It's not always

00:11:51.020 - 00:12:01.480

the best quality of sound. So we're taking that on. And hopefully in the future, it will be easier to listen to and music to your ears in the future. Great. Thank you very much.