The Case for Defence

Looking through Saturday's paper I am pleased it was not just me who noticed the absence of the "defence" word in The Autumn Statement.  At least Allister Heath, whilst discussing a new framework for Public Spending noted:

"Some limited ring-fencing may sadly need to remain, and various other requirements could be built-in (for example, stipulating that the armed forces need to be able to continue to adequately ensure the defence of the realm and this shouldn't be slashed too much)."

I normally warm to Allister Heath's point of view but in dismissing the importance of national defence to a tortuously constructed caveat, and in parenthesis at that, he has just forfeited his Christmas Card!

Let us be clear, as far as Whitehall in general and the bean-counters of the Treasury in particular are concerned, defence is no different from any of the other non ring fenced government departments. The future of the armed forces is being determined through spreadsheet negotiation and without proper reference expert and public debate about defence needs. Meantime, what may be promised by David Cameron and Phillip Hammond in sound-bites today will surely be removed by the Treasury tomorrow.

As a Conservative it shames me to conclude that the defence of the realm is not safe in the Conservative Party's hands.