Analysis: National security's Tory tint
"Hard-headed and practical"
Find more Opinion Formers in this category:
Conservative divisions over Europe have done the government a "very great favour", Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant told Tory backbenchers yesterday evening. |  |
Related Analysis and Comment
The government's anxiety about its failure to win over the public on Afghanistan is far more advanced than many of us had realised. |  |
Friday, 15, Jan 2010 11:20
The Conservatives responsible for writing the party's national security strategy could have done so in their sleep. This is a document which writes itself.
By Alex Stevenson
2010 is a good time to be an opposition party focusing on national security.
The country is aching for a strategic defensive review, which will take place after the general election regardless of who wins. The military has come close to being overwhelmed in two wars totally unexpected at the turn of the century.
Worse, fast-paced change around the world has left the current government's arrangements quickly outdated. Security is about much more than just the armed forces. The Iraq inquiry, demonstrating the "silo" nature of Whitehall's departments, has shone a light on the weaknesses of the present way the government works.
Better integration is a must. The Conservatives have some bright ideas about how to get there.
The core, it should be noted, is broadly similar to what currently exists. An IPPR report published last year called for a strategic defence and security review. This is what the Tories are proposing.
On cybersecurity, the government has already promised to set up a cyber security operations centre. The Tories want to give its assessment function a "proactive" capability.
And then there's the emphasis on conflict prevention, a very straightforward piece of logic quickly gaining currency in Westminster circles.
Much of this is needed. But these proposals, in and of themselves, are not entirely partisan. The Tories are riding the backs of reform which everyone acknowledges is required.
It's what's at the edges which marks the Tories out from Labour.
On home affairs, for example, their approach is distinctly right-wing.
Chris Grayling focused on strengthened border controls as an area where Tory ministers could really find room to express themselves.
Forget Labour's "outdated state multiculturalism"; the instinctive trust in a hands-off approach shines through. "We will be safer, freer and more cohesive if we rely less on the state and more on each other," as security minister Pauline Neville-Jones put it.
Similarly, anti-European instincts are never far away. Liam Fox's antipathy towards an EU military force could not be more pervasive. His party backs Nato, despite that organisation's ongoing struggle to find a raison d'etre.
The uncompromising realist Fox embodies the kind of Conservatism described in today's paper: "hard-headed and practical".
Underpinning the obvious reforms, therefore, Tory instincts are clear enough.
It doesn't matter if their relevance is only peripheral. Their existence gives the Conservatives the leverage they need to politicise much of what is not necessarily political. It gives them the chance to say: "We can't go on like this."