Defending the homeland from terrorist and other threats is a first duty of the state.
“We live in an individualistic society and one in which people take many liberties – economic, social, sexual – absolutely for granted. But it is wrong to extrapolate from this that liberty is the voters' touchstone on all issues. When it comes to the handling of the post-9/11 terrorist threat, I doubt that the public consensus is remotely libertarian: quite the opposite, in fact. Just as the voters expect noisy neighbours to be dealt with sternly, and the right to tackle intruders in their homes without the fear of prosecution, so they expect the State to put the prevention of terrorism before – well, just about everything else, to be honest.”
- Matthew d’Ancona, 27th February 2005.
Matthew d’Ancona, lead political columnist for The Sunday Telegraph, is not known for an authoritarian streak. In fact he was something of a cheerleader for Michael Portillo’s Tory leadership bid and for the social liberalism that that bid embodied. So Mr D’Ancona deserves to be listened to when he highlights the state’s duty to combat terror and attacks posturing on civil liberties. YouGov surveys have confirmed his understanding of public attitudes.
The first duty of government
Margaret Thatcher would agree with these sentiments. She declared that “the first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people against external aggression.” Today’s most deadly threat is an unholy alliance of suicidal terrorists (most of them driven by a militant interpretation of Islam) and the rogue regimes that feed and harbour them. Huge numbers of al-Qaeda operatives may have been jailed and terrorist-supporting regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq toppled, but there are many other sources of worry. Iran, Syria and North Korea are but three.
National security issues will come to dominate politics for the foreseeable future. Tony Blair, for his many serious faults, understands this. On the comment pages of The Daily Telegraph, he wrote:
“The fact that there has not been a major terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 is not by accident or want of trying by the fanatics. It is because of the superb work of our security services.”
It is almost inevitable that terrorists will eventually strike Britain on a scale that will overshadow the IRA’s worst outrages. The strike will probably not be of existential proportions but a dirty nuclear bomb or the assassination of a leading public figure – perhaps by suicide bomb – will have a profound impact on every Briton’s sense of security. If Mr d’Ancona is right and the British people already regard protection from terrorism as a top priority they will be even more security-conscious after being attacked. Will Britain’s Tories be ready for that national mood?
The Conservative Party and national security
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the Tories appeared to understand the importance of national security. They supported Labour in acting against Taliban Afghanistan and Ba’athist Iraq. Without Tory votes Parliament may not have authorised pre-emptive action against Saddam. Iain Duncan Smith’s suggestion of a Cabinet minister for homeland security even put Her Majesty’s Opposition ahead of Labour. All that has been put at risk in more recent times, however.
Instead of focusing – very legitimately - on the mishandled occupation of Iraq, muddled Conservatives have sometimes appeared to question the case for regime change in Baghdad. They have adopted an uncertain position on identity cards and have appeared to place excessive emphasis on civil liberties in what should always be seen as a war on terror.
The Sun has been critical of Conservatives for this uncertain positioning and a terrible rift has been caused between British Tories and the Bush White House.
The One Big Thing
This website does not agree with what conservative commentator Mark Steyn* has concluded from all of this, but his following words should awaken any conservative to the dangers of haziness on homeland security issues:
“If I lived in Britain, I’d vote for Tony Blair’s Labour Party. Yes, yes, I know he’s a nanny-state control-freak and you can hardly pull your pants on in the morning without filling in the form for the Public Trouser Usage Permit and undergoing inspection from the Gusset Regulatory Authority. But on the One Big Thing – the great issue of the age – he’s right, and he’s reliable. And, sad to say, the British Conservative Party aren’t. Their leader, Michael Howard, has been a cheesy opportunist on the war, supporting it at the time, backtracking later, his constantly evolving position twisting itself into a knot of contortions even John Kerry* might find over-nuanced. Most other Tory heavyweights – ex-Thatcher cabinet ministers like Lord Hurd and Sir Malcolm Rifkind – are more straightforward: They’re agin the war. They’d have no time for his frightful American clothes or his ghastly hamburger diet, but, social distaste aside, they’re Michael Moore conservatives.”
Mark Steyn is so right. Blair's stance on the war against terror is faultless to a tee. No lies or opportunism. No convenient murders required to silence critics who expose the lies that never occurred.
In fact Steyn himself is clearly a genius with such clear perception of truth, that no one else stands a chance of being able to see as well as he.
Why is there no location made available for people to go and consult him, or even to praise this genius of our age?
Posted by: GENIUS OVERLOOKED | December 28, 2005 at 09:58 PM