No Votes in Defence

Iain Martin, writing in today's Sunday Telegraph, begins his article: "what is the point of the Conservative Party if it is not much interested in the defence of the realm?"

Quite!

The Budget

In the last meeting of our CPF Group before the election we decided to tell our respective MPs what we should like to see in the budget.  Not that we expected our submission to have any influence at this stage but we felt better about getting our viewpoint in print before the big day.  This is what we said:

"A budget genuinely looking to "Secure Britain's Future" would address such major economic challenges as low productivity, trade imbalances and insufficient investment, both public and private.  Sadly, we concluded that such imperatives would cut little ice with the majority of the electorate and that our best chance of securing Britain's long term future rested with, first, getting a Conservative Government elected and second hoping that, longer term, that Government would have the courage to do the right thing.  In essence, therefore, we believe the budget must lure voters with some jam today and even more (if you vote for us) tomorrow.  Our 5 priories for headlines in the popular press on Thursday 19 March are:

·        Increase the tax free allowance band to £12,000 paid for by a turnover tax on multi-national companies who are otherwise able to shelter their tax liability.

• Increase the 40% tax band threshold to a (meaningful) £50,000.  Timid and marginal improvements would not have the desired impact of ensuring we are serious about rewarding work and effort.  Probably a net gain to the Treasury.

• Continue to control the leviathan welfare expenditure - further tightening of the benefit cap, including a clamp-down on "hardship" top-ups, and measures to foil benefit and healthcare tourism.  In particular, announce a move to link benefits to contributions (thus circumventing an EU veto on other measures, previously floated). Net reduction for the Treasury

•  A statement on defence spending which reassures voters that we are properly funding the capabilities necessary to match out foreign policy goals and be prepared for unexpected world events.  Additional cost to the Treasury offset by a substantial dividend of increased trust in the Prime Minister (actually, probably, less distrust).

• A statement that recognises rising public expectation for public services; schools, hospitals, housing, transport etc, but does not cripple the public finances in provision.  In other words, giving hope that a future Conservative Government would break the cycle of rising public provision without earning enough to pay for it.  Neutral to the Treasury but a political minefield for opposition."

U Turn on Defence Looming?

The reluctance to even mention defence in the campaign literature we are sending out at the moment tells us either; "the long term economic plan" does not have room for the defence of the realm as a priority or would have us believe that the lack of a threat to our security permits us to lower our guard. Both propositions are dangerously mistaken. At a time of worrying geo-political instability, the prospect of further cuts to the armed forces budget and our contribution to NATO collective security is reckless and a dereliction of the duty of Government.

David Cameron believes, according to his polling, that there are no votes in defence. But wait, the steady drip of newspaper and television articles and intervention by our American allies appears to be softening us up for a change of heart.  Maybe there are some votes in defence after all?  Quick, do something eye-catching!  Unfortunately a few vote-grabbing headlines today can easily be undone by SDSR 2015 tomorrow.