Senior Lecturer | @warstudies @kingscollegelon | Politics & Security | Views mine.
London
Joined September 2012
- Tweets1.7K
- Following6.2K
- Followers3.4K
- Likes15.7K
Pinned Tweet
Research Handbook on #Cyberwarfare is out today! | Edited by @tcstvns & me, with 23 chapters from an outstanding group of contributors, covering the theory, practice, governance, actors & institutions involved in #cyberwarfare @warstudies @ElgarPublishing elgaronline.com/edcollbook/b…
If you spend time scrolling parliamentary answers about Powell's tenure/meetings as special envoy, you definitely find one or two of them drafted in a somewhat oblique way. But the key issue really is whether correct processes were followed & there's little to suggest otherwise.
Jonathan Powell was not vetted before being appointed National Security Adviser, we can report.
spectator.com/article/reveal…
The government arguably doesn't help itself, it could be clearer in some of these statements. But it ought to have been possible to effect a smooth transition into post, DV pending, without too much trouble, & with no compromised equities.
Joe Devanny retweeted
What a comeback.
We will need time to properly understand it. But I think this was a 20th century politician who, at the very last possible moment, figured out how to run a 21st century campaign. After his first round loss, Lula started carrying a smartphone for the first time in his life, brought in younger aides who knew how to run a real digital operation, and finally was able to create some excitement in one of the world’s most terminally online countries. The net result was 3 million more people who turned out to vote, fewer spoiled ballots, votes from third-party candidates, and some repented bolsonaristas as well.
Flávio Bolsonaro challenged the results, but he faces an extremely difficult battle. The margin of victory, more than 4 million votes, was too large to be explained by the delay in polling stations closing or any other abnormalities. Big Brazilian power brokers, including the so-called Centrão, are dutifully accepting the result. The Bolsonaros will ask the White House for support, but it’s important that the vast majority of Latin American leaders, including those on the right like Keiko Fujimori and José Antonio Kast, quickly recognized Lula’s victory. They concluded this is over, and the Trump administration may do the same.
For Lula, the good news is that he won, and the bad news is that he won. He ran up a big bill to help make this happen: More than $60 billion in extra spending, welfare payments, debt forgiveness and other fiscal largesse. This in a country with real interest rates above 8% and a debt burden forecast to reach 83% of GDP this year, up a whopping 12 percentage points in Lula’s term. Markets are hemorrhaging in the hours after his victory, and they may get worse until Lula details his plans to cut spending. Lula also faces the most conservative Congress on record, a skeptical business community, and consumers who are struggling under huge debts as well.
But look, Lula would rather deal with those problems than the alternative. He will be the man who defined an entire half-century of Brazilian history, from the metalworkers’ strike he led as a labor union leader in 1979 to the end of his fourth term in 2030. A truly epic story that is still being written, and may yet bring more surprises.
--
For more, including reactions from @DaniCamp0 and Alessandra Ribeiro:
americasquarterly.org/articl…
On Lula’s win: an outstanding achievement of popular mobilisation, but this will be his toughest term yet. And the project of generational transition in leadership of Brazil’s left is (still) extremely urgent.
I understand the reason for this, but it raises big questions about how the government is communicating, what it prioritises and what it doesn’t, and, while the ‘whole of society’ resilience mantra is fine as far it goes, what about adequately funding wider structural resilience?
💥 NEW: Prepare for food shortages and disruption, Wes Streeting warns, on day one of three year campaign to make the public more resilient.
Britons should have enough food, water, cash and medical supplies to last three days. Make a "grab bag" in case you have to leave home and keep essentials in the car boot.
If you have a baby, make sure you have enough baby formula and nappies.
Dan Jarvis, the security minister, says: "Those who can flow this advice should"
thetimes.com/article/5971929…
A fair challenge here re: what a plausible eco-populist/eco-socialist electoral strategy might look like during a Burnham premiership. Starmer was definitely a case of Greens playing on easy mode, but parties can only situate themselves against the actual competition.
This is apparent in @russellwarfield’s The Green Socialist, where in the final pages he reflects on the implications of what then was the Burnham premiership to come, the strategy of which was always likely to include squeezing the space left of Labour.
Some very big ifs here re: efficiencies and service quality. Also, they’re the politicians, but this doesn’t feel like an election winning spending strategy.
Departments including health and education have already saved billions, but Emma Reynolds, chief secretary to the Treasury, tells The Times more can be done thetimes.com/uk/politics/art…
Joe Devanny retweeted
Join @freeman_air for an online discussion with Dr Alice Bunn and Rebecca Evernden, Co-Directors of the UK Space Agency to explore the UK's new Space Strategy ambitions and investment plans through to 2030.
📅 3 November
⏲️ 14:30 - 15:30 GMT
Register🔗 kcl.ac.uk/events/a-conversat…
I’m still doubtful we will see really major uplift in defence spending before the next election, or a Labour manifesto that pledges to reach 3.5% in the next parliament. It would so damage their ability to pursue a wider agenda that I can’t see it making political sense.
The head of the army has told hundreds of his soldiers that the country will need them to fight in a war given the “extreme jeopardy in the world at the moment”.
General Sir Roly Walker, chief of the general staff, said the “business of soldiering” had returned to the national psyche and that the country’s days of not having to think about conflict were over.
The former special forces commander, who survived a Taliban bomb, warned that “very soon” political leaders would have a “frank conversation” with ordinary citizens about how they needed to get ready.
thetimes.com/uk/defence/arti…
I enjoy reading pieces like this, to see what people afforded a reasonable degree of anonymity are willing to say about UK policy and the performance of specific ministers/the PM. But it's worth noting that the source selection helps advance a particular argument.
National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell telling friends he might quit - which would be pretty huge. He’s the collective memory on the political side and one of the few with good contacts in Washington and the Middle East spectator.com/article/does-a…
And re: interplay between domestic factors & UK foreign policy, arguably couldn't you ascribe this apparent difference largely to the Burnham premiership having a keener sense than Starmer's of how to stitch together its domestic political interests and its foreign policy?
So far, I think Burnham's foreign policy is unfolding largely as you would have expected. At least, I think the judgements I made about it back in July still stand up relatively well. politicsandsecurity.substack…
These are not contradictory statements.
This is a good report on the NCID announcement by @AlexMartin, with quotes from Sophie Williams-Dunning (@RUSI_org) and me (@warstudies). I’d generally be in favour of making existing arrangements work better, not pulling the MoG change lever, but it will be interesting to watch.
The United Kingdom will create a new national center "to detect, attribute and disrupt” hostile state disinformation, Prime Minister Andy Burnham told the UN General Assembly therecord.media/uk-disinform…
I’d want to know more about what the government thinks isn’t working, & why, in existing arrangements, before judging the need for a new centre for information defence. It’s announceable, which is something, but is it the best way to improve outcomes?
Security chiefs to set up new national centre to tackle disinformation and deepfakes from hostile states like Russia - with Andy Burnham saying government has a duty to “stem the poisonous tide” from damaging British interests.
National Centre for Information Defence will “detect, attribute and disrupt” info attacks by foreign powers by bringing together intelligence agencies, law enforcement & social media companies.
It will boost UK’s defensive capability to combat information warfare and build national resilience by helping communities combat disinfo, preventing “distorted & untrue” narrative about UK.
theguardian.com/technology/2…
“Let’s have a new centre” can mean a lot of different things, from largely rebadging existing effort, to a significant rethink of your approach, & devoting new resources to match. Unclear where on the spectrum this will sit, & whether these details are already worked out.