An article on the Independent’s website prompted me to consider the pros and cons of defence as an issue in the public consciousness for the 6 May general election here in the UK.
That Labour’s serving Secretary of State for Defence would attack the Liberal Democrats’ position on the Trident nuclear deterrent is unsurprising, especially in light of the receptive response Clegg received post-debate. Whether or not it is good politics to engage on the issue is another question. In this ‘age of austerity’, does it benefit Labour to highlight the planned expense of the renewal of the programme when the UK electorate is evidently much more interested in immediate issues like whether a future government will be able to afford education, health and policing? The answer, of course, will emerge with the outcome of the election.
More broadly, there is the question of whether any of the major parties really want defence to be a point of debate for this election (UPDATE: the latest from the Independent). Certainly no politician wants to talk about something on which there is little disagreement between the parties. Elections are about choice, and if there is no discernible choice (at least between Labour and the Tories, arguably), the danger is that a voter who does care about defence might turn to one of the smaller parties or not bother to turn out at all on election day.
At another level, bringing up Trident now opens the wider question of what Britain’s place in the world ought to be. The London think tanks have certainly been asking this question and allowing the politicians and military to give their answers (RUSI; IISS - RAF, RN, BA; Chatham House). These venues, however, mean that the answers are targeted at those inherently interested in the question, rather than at the wider British public. Granted, there is some media coverage, but the result is most often preemptive damage control to ensure nothing said generates too large a headline in the following day’s papers. Does this in some way reflect a concern among the political classes that asking the public the question of their preference for the UK’s place in the world – by offering competing views from the political parties – might generate an answer they collectively don’t want to hear? Would the British public rather have a more modest (and affordable) European approach than an scaled down American one?
That question makes me wonder what British attitudes are about how their country’s service members’ sacrifice is (or is not) appreciated internationally. Does the American stance on the Falklands makes the British electorate wonder how it benefitted for standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan? This question seems especially important when considering how unconvincingly the strategic rationale for both has been conveyed to the voter (and there is plenty of truth to that statement across the pond, also).
The question to the readership is: Should defence feature more prominently in the political debates leading up to the general election in the UK? Are there drawbacks of defence becoming overly politicised?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }