"We have said that from day one of a future Conservative Government, a national security council, with the key ministers and defence chiefs, will sit as a war cabinet.
And I can announce today that if we win this year's election, I will invite leaders of the main opposition parties to attend the war cabinet on a regular basis so they can offer their advice and insights."
David Cameron, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, 2 January 2010
Apart from the obvious question, "Who, exactly, are we fighting?", I was most intrigued by young Dave's suggestion that Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown's replacement, whoever that might be, would be keen to rock up to a Conservative-led National Security Council meeting, and tell Dave and his mates how to run the campaign.
Firstly, this is not a World War, whereby politics is suspended in order to focus minds on the only important thing, saving the nation specifically, and peace generally. Indeed, Dave doesn't actually mention who the war is against. This country is not under sustained attack, and there is nobody trying to take our country from us. Second, if you accept the first point, what's in it for the Opposition, official or otherwise?
If we assume that it is accepted that we are fighting a war, and one must presume that this is against Al Qaeda, support for what we are doing is hardly deep and sustained. A majority of the public believe that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, and many believe that our current policies actually make us less safe, rather than more so. An outline of current Conservative thinking was given by Chris Grayling last month, which can be boiled down to "more of the same", staying the course in Afghanistan, maintaining the 'special relationship' with the United States, efficient intelligence sharing, supporting democratic forces in Pakistan. Hardly cause or justification for the creation of a 'war cabinet', is it?
As for the presence of Opposition figures, it would be difficult for them to attend unless they are planning to accept the core tenets of Conservative policy. Liberal Democrats have already expressed their doubts, and it seems unlikely that a dissenting voice around the table would have any more value inside the tent than outside of it, so why risk entanglement? And, if you agree with the strategy, why not use the platform of Parliamentary debate and the media to say so, why restrict your room for manoeuvre if circumstances change?
No, I'm not convinced that this is anything other than an illusion of pluralism on the part of someone who doesn't really have a big idea in terms of the actual issues of national security, but is quite good at spin. Sadly, spin wasn't a major factor in our military victories of the last century, and I'm not expecting it to factor much in this one either...
No comments:
Post a Comment