The announcement included a new welfare package which builds on Labour’s legacy of investment in our Forces. We will, of course, examine the detail closely, but where there is agreement between Labour and the government we should acknowledge it. I hope this will mark the beginnings of a real change in the government’s approach to the Armed Forces.
The argument and campaign have been instructive about this government’s wider attitudes to politics and governance. There is an emotional deficit at the heart of the government, sometimes oblivious to the consequences of their decisions. Ministers argued relentlessly against an enshrined covenant in the face of counter arguments from Forces’ families, the Royal British Legion and thousands of members of the public. It was primarily parliamentary arithmetic, not principle, which made them change their minds.
David Cameron stood on the now-scrapped Ark Royal in June 2010 and pledged a military covenant ‘written in to the law of the land’. But he brought forward proposals that the Royal British Legion called ‘nonsense’ and defended them to the hilt. I do not doubt the sincerity of his words, but I do doubt the veracity of his actions. Liam Fox triumphantly presented the plan to enshrine the covenant to parliament, but we should remember that for months he argued the opposite position and that the coalition twice voted against it. In the face of amendments tabled and supported by their own side ministers performed a climbdown. Liam Fox proudly set out measures which ensured ‘all of society can fully pay the enormous debt they owe our Armed Forces’, but he was dragged there kicking and screaming. This was not an act of conviction, but an act of submission.
It is vital, in my view, that our society recognises the unique nature of a career in the Forces. For their sacrifices it is right that the nation guarantees certain services and standards and putting that reciprocity on a legal footing can only strengthen our society. The Royal British Legion and the families who campaigned did not seek a tactical win, they want real protection for the war widows and seriously injured facing year-on-year pension reductions, squaddies who have had their allowances cut and families who can’t understand why the government has abolished the independent Chief Coroner’s Office.
Instead of empathy and engagement, what we have seen from ministers has been high-handed dismissal of those who give so much to keep our country safe from threat and attack. Let’s be clear: had ministers said they had got their initial proposals wrong and were being rethought we would have welcomed the admission and perhaps politics would have been strengthened by their honesty. The insensitivity, the calculation and the arrogance we saw, however, are now becoming commonplace in an administration many feel uncomfortable about and struggle to relate to.
There is a deep sense of emotional disconnect from a government that gives every appearance of not understanding the misery their decisions are causing. Cuts to child benefit and EMA have gone ahead in spite of nationwide calls for a rethink and strong evidence of the damage this will do to families. Police are being removed from the streets leaving communities exposed while £100 million is being spent on new elected police commissioners, a policy which has virtually no support from experts. Youth unemployment is rising without any measures to stimulate private sector growth in a flatlining economy, but ministers are refusing to listen to calls for a Plan B to be drawn up. After pledging at the election that there would be no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS, which people voted for, David Cameron is now turning it upside-down in face of a national outcry. Too often, from the prime minister down, populism and politics are being prioritised above all else: figures before families, programmes before people.
David Cameron is undoubtedly a polished performer and he has made some bold decisions, notably on Libya, yet there is an underlying unease at his distance from the detail of big decisions and his disengagement with issues that really affect people’s lives. A recent poll for the Times prompted headlines about Labour and so few people will have noticed that 29 per cent of people thought David Cameron was arrogant and 28 per cent smug, the highest numbers of the three main leaders, while six per cent thought he shared their values and was down-to-earth, the lowest numbers among the three. They have not polled George Osborne or a dozen other out-of-touch cabinet ministers, but I would wager that they would elicit a similar response.
What is striking is that the emerging characteristics of this administration are not the characteristics of the Britain I know nor of the Britain I think we should become. If we want a society that nurtures entrepreneurialism, family and community it will depend on having a government that empathises with hard work and ambition but also togetherness and common understanding. If we want more responsibility in society, our politics should lead by example. The cold managerialism on show over the military covenant episode seems dramatically out of touch with contemporary sentiment. A prime minister keen to create distance and deniability from his administration’s decisions may seem smart politically, but emotionally it leaves people isolated and distrustful.
The most important outcome of Monday’s announcement on the covenant was that it was a real victory for our Forces, but it also said a lot about this government’s character.