Nothing To Say

There are a couple of interesting stories in the International Herald Tribune this week, both connected, although it is probably not apparent on initial reading. The first is a report that "Britain’s involvement in the war has come under the fiercest criticism yet at home as a result of a steep increase in British casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers in the past 10 days".

Interestingly, the article massively exaggerates the effectiveness of the British education system, putting the growing criticism partly down to "Britain’s 19th-century history of catastrophic military ventures in Afghanistan, when it sought to secure the outer defenses of British imperial rule in India".

As a consequence, "the government faces an uphill task in rallying public opinion to the current conflict". Hence defences of the "war" coming down both from the Foreign Secretary and Gordon Brown, both of whom have assured us that the current strategy is the right one and continued involvement is necessary to "not allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for al-Qaeda".

We also saw an intervention earlier this week from Nick Clegg, an intervention covered extensively by more knowledgeful commentators. They point out that the errors in Clegg's discourse prove that he, more than likely, simply being opportunistic.

But at least he's made an effort. At least he's seen the opportunity. The IHT informs us that the "criticism has come from the opposition leaders in Parliament". Has David Cameron actually talked about it? So far as I'm aware, he's been busy apologising for Section 28 and apologising to gay voters.

Which brings us onto the second interesting story, from midweek, which attempts to answer the question, "Can David Cameron redefine Britain’s Tory Party?" The writer moreorless concludes that he can and is. But 'redefine' is a contentious word. It implies removing one definition and replacing it with another. In dragging his party to the fuzzy, blurry 'centre-ground', he has certainly acted on the first part of the process.

The problem is that he hasn't really given the Conservatives anything to stand for afterwards. A real opposition party should be have set and strong principles that it builds a political strategy out of. So far as we're aware, all David Cameron wants to do, in the style of the post-war Conservatives, is to manage the current system slightly better.

As a result, some people have tended to superimpose onto the party their own ideas about what it should stand for and believe it to be true. No one has any idea where it stands on so many issues. Once in a while we get the odd speech about specific things, but it's always half-hearted, unconvincing, and usually contradicted by another speech from someone else, on everything from the EU Constitution to spending on education.

So far as we're aware, David Cameron does not have a foreign policy. He does not have a defence policy. He doesn't seem to have a lot to say about anything really important. And even as public concern and interest begins to grow about Afghanistan after so many years of relative indifference, Cameron and the Conservatives still have very little, if not nothing, to say.