Rick Perry stumbles on Pakistan question

Republican frontrunner struggles to answer question on Pakistan and nuclear weapons.

Last night's Republican debate in Orlando was most notable for Rick Perry's inept response to a question on Pakistan. Asked how he would respond if he received a phone call at 3am telling him that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination mumbled something about building a "relationship in the region" before criticising the US for not selling more arms to Pakistan's nuclear rival India:

"When we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16s we chose not to do that. We did the same thing with Taiwain. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them. Today we don't have those allies in that region".

In fact, as rival candidate Rick Santorum said: "Working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure the problem is defused". Just as embarrassing was Perry's reference to Pakistan as "the Pakistani country".

True, the question was a hypothetical one but this was an issue on which the Texas governor needed to display some heft. And he failed to do so. Kansas governor Sam Brownback, a Perry supporter, later told the Weekly Standard: "I thought the initial response was accurate ... You gotta have a relationship to know what's going on. I've worked with the Pakistanis, and particularly in Pakistan you need a relationship, because the country's a pretty unstable place, and it's run by the army. You gotta know the guy that's the head of the place."

So that's all clear then.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.