Pledge-avoidance tactics
Fraser Nelson 5:32pm
I went along to the launch for Cameron’s Military Covenant Commission, aimed at renewing the obligations that are owed to the military. It’s a good idea and good box office – we had Falklands veteran Simon Weston and Frederick Forsyth (or “Freddie” as Cameron calls him) up in front of the cameras. Far better than the usual politicians. But Cameron faced the same line of questioning – if the military is his no1 priority, as he said, what will he do about spending?
Nick Robinson points out over at his blog that Cameron did not say the following words which had been scripted for him:
“Yet defence spending is at it lowest levels since the 1930s our troops are around 5,500 under strength and they are regularly sent into action without necessary equipment like night vision goggles and armoured vehicles.”
So why the omission? Cameron said, quick as a flash, that he cut himself short to give Weston and “Freddie” more time to speak. But a rather more obvious reason presents itself. If the Tories complain defence spending as a share of GDP is the lowest since the 30s, it’s a clear implication they’d raise it. But when repeatedly questioned, Cameron said – basically – that the Tories would decide the budget only after deciding missions. So its entirely plausible that defence spending as share of GDP could go even lower, perhaps lower than any point since the 19th century, under the next Tory government.
It’s a lot harder to shy away from spending since Lansley’s outburst last week where he said he envisages health spending rising from 8% to 11% of GDP - not 14% like Switzerland (typically for Lansley that’s factually incorrect, Switzerland is 11%). Interestingly, when I asked him if he agreed with Lansley, he said there had been no real target set and that Lansley was just referring to Wanless. A gaffe like that wont be airbrushed out that quickly. So now Cameron faces a recurring problem. Can he fly the flag without opening the nation’s wallet?
Previous
James Sproule
March 4th, 2008 5:49pm Report this commentThere is of course a cost free way to improve spending on the military. Buy kit from the Americans instead of going into expensive European consortium. It may be unpalatable to some, but my guess is the chaps on the front line just want more helicopters or heavy lift transport planes (or whatever), they really are not that bothered to be supporting a “distinct European defence capability”.
mike
March 4th, 2008 6:06pm Report this commentCameron is on the telly every day, he's doin' me head in. This guy makes more pledges and promises than Tone ever did, and we all know what happened to Tone now, don't we.
Verity
March 4th, 2008 6:24pm Report this comment"Can he fly the flag without opening the nation’s wallet?" And does he want to fly the flag? He is of the lineage of Edward Heath, Chris Patten, Ken Clark et al - a europhile and a man of the left. The lefties in the Tory party - after running off William Hague, IDS and Michael Clark (although he had already declined to stay on), have one of their own in at last. He's a socialist in toff's clothing and they are the most hazardous because of the treachery. As long as he's in charge of the party, I will not vote Tory again.
Madasafish
March 4th, 2008 6:54pm Report this commentAll he needs to do is stop fighting two edpensive wars. Saves about £4 Billion ... a year.
TGF UKIP
March 4th, 2008 8:01pm Report this commentOne of the many many reasons not to vote for the Cameron Tories is their pointblank refusal to undertake to properly fund the Armed Forces. Blue Labour really is no different from Real Labour - both just love to compete on throwing billions down the bottomless pit called the NHS. Every week that goes by without Liam Fox's resignation does his credibility more damage.
EyeSee
March 4th, 2008 11:13pm Report this commentWell this is real heir to Blair stuff; say really stupid things which you obviously don't believe in. Of course the breach of the military covenent is the public's fault! We after all equip and order the Army about, don't we? There is a massive scandal true enough, but Cameron seems to suggest, actually that he is fine with it. New Labour have knowingly and with malice aforethought sent military men to their deaths. No expense spared, no accomodation so mean for a politician. But soldiers? Are they so noble? What fare is fair for them? Why nothing! To a Socialist of no ideology (New Labour) any man who would put his own life in peril, cannot surely ask another to value it? And yet, curiously speaks Brown, these soldiers talk of honour! Yet WE are the honourable men, says he.
Fraser Nelson
March 5th, 2008 11:08am Report this commentGood point, Mike - a glut of policies right now. Too many for even political enthusiasts to take in, far less a disinterested public. I look at this in my pol col in tomorrow's mag.
Greg
March 7th, 2008 6:12pm Report this commentMr Cameron's 'No.1 priority' is whatever at the time Mr Cameron thinks is expedient : might enable him to advantageously highlight one of the many, many Labour flaws ; or, might appear good to the electorate for the short space of time it can maintain some interest. If he can manage it, he will say nothing that pins him down to actually doing something. Not that politicians' promises mean much anyway, so he needn't really bother at all.
JESSICA
March 7th, 2008 10:04pm Report this commentWHY CANT WE CUT OVERSEAS AID AND SPEND THAT ON THE MILITARY?
Back to top