Parties on a war footing – but what are they fighting for?

New Year, old sabre-rattling. Gordon Brown and David Cameron are parading their leadership credentials, with a view to capturing an entire nation – the UK, that is.

David Cameron made a speech (transcript here) in Oxfordshire today saying that the country needs a change of direction and a new leadership:

“We can’t go on in these difficult times with a weak prime minister and a divided government.”

[See the BBC website for a video clip]

You can almost hear the Tory munitions factory roar as they forge this, strengthen that and defeat the other.

And here’s Gordon Brown on New Year’s Eve:

“The Detroit plot thankfully failed. But it has been a wake-up call for the ongoing battles we must wage not just for security against terror but for the hearts and minds of a generation.”

It’s a common political (and journalistic, and marketing) technique to play to people’s fears, but what next in the Prime Ministerial arms race – Brown and Cameron appearing on the decks of rival aircraft carriers, squeezed into military uniform à la George Bush?

Neither leader, for all their fighting talk, seems to have heard of liberty.

Contrast with Nick Clegg’s non-scaremongering approach, in an article for the Times more than two years ago: “Defeating terror the British way”:

“As the national debate on terrorism matures, our aim should remain steadfast and simple: to protect both our lives and our liberties, and to refuse to accept that one requires the sacrifice of the other.”

And what of this dispiriting headline on ConservativeHome today? –

70% of Tory members back ethnic screening of air travellers.

Making arbitrary judgements about a person based on identifiers such as race or place is a bit like reading a book’s index and saying you’ve appreciated the sweeping narrative and nuanced characters. Rather than nailing the plot, the Tories have lost it.

Both Cameron and Brown are using the political rhetoric of uniting against a common enemy – but who? Johnny Foreigner? Party politics? Privacy? Whatever the threat, just all come and join Labour/the Tories. Fall in, little people. You need a strong leader, who will save you from yourselves.

Trouble is, I don’t want to be a hostage in their big tent:

Going commando doesn’t work – Ian Roberts pointed out (as only Ian Roberts can);

Airport patdowns don’t work;

ID cards (another wartime throwback) don’t work;

Body scanning doesn’t work;

Owning people’s bodies doesn’t work;

Owning people’s thoughts doesn’t work.

Wars, terrorist attacks and other man (or woman) -made disasters don’t just happen because of a single slip-up or security breach but because of a multiple systems failure in culture and communications.

Stephen Glenn has blogged:

“Ok surely by having a war cabinet you are admitting dividing lines with someone else. Do they really exist? Surely if you are taking one approach domestically and another internationally you are all messed up. If you are trying to ignore some dividing lines yet not seeking to understand others, either across Europe, with fundamentalist Muslims, or whomever, what is it you are trying to achieve?

How about a national peace cabinet? To look for solutions. Or is that too far out there for the Tories?”

Darrell Goodliffe exposes the “lunacy” of ethnic screening.

And Liberal Revolution wonders whether Cameron’s speech could well be the opening salvo in the General election air war proper.

The Conservatives don’t want to change the system that has served them so well. The “Spirit of Unity” passage in Cameron’s speech is a bait and switch:

“I will invite leaders of the main opposition parties to attend the war cabinet”, he says.

“When a nation is at war, it needs to pull together,” he says.

From Cameron’s speech one can only conclude: who can be the enemy but – anyone who’s against change. “Change” as a battle cry is a seductive one. After all, only unreasonable people could possibly be against change itself , why that would be, well, conservatism.

But Cameron’s hardly going to declare a war on that, is he?

Read more by or more about , , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.

One Comment

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 25th Jan - 11:38pm
    Given some of the comments about Dr Lee I wonder why he is bothering. We hear much about spiteful Tories and brutal Labour. It would...
  • User AvatarHugh 25th Jan - 10:36pm
    As someone who has had to stand on trains from the Midlands to London I agree more capacity is needed. But, HS2 in its present...
  • User AvatarInnocent Bystander 25th Jan - 9:51pm
    I didn't understand. What would the LibDem Lords support have to do with the business case? That's arithmetic not politics and it's someone else's money...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 25th Jan - 9:37pm
    @ David Evershed "The increasing estimates of the cost of HS2 and the reducing estimates of the benefits mean there is no busines case for...
  • User AvatarSiv white 25th Jan - 9:33pm
    Well done
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 25th Jan - 7:48pm
    @ expats If you built 200,000 homes for £100 billion then, by my arithmetic, they'd cost £500k each which is probably not that affordable for...