Dr Robert Seely MBE is author of ‘The New Total War’, ConservativeHome foreign affairs columnist and a former Conservative MP.
Is there still a belief amongst some MPs that foreign, defence and security are peripheral electoral issues? I ask as I occasionally hear rumours that some in the current Conservative Party leadership don’t believe there are votes in them.
I hope that’s not the case. It would be a significant misjudgement if so.
Given my own background: army, PhD on Russian strategy, a book on the Ukraine war, I clearly have an interest. But not only are they important, I believe there are also votes in them. They are political and they are becoming more so. They also tell an important story about a leader and a party. They are, more than ever, interlinked to the domestic.
An example: just last week Britain handed over £153 million in foreign aid money to Pakistan. Yet the week before, Pakistan not only refused to take back one of the leaders of Britain’s repugnant and notorious grooming gangs, Shabir Ahmed, but even blamed Britain for his crimes. They were mocking. Those that saw those reports would have been angered and judged Labour accordingly. Some would even link Labour’s weakness with the electoral need to keep the Pakistani block vote onside.
I am not going to exaggerate; elections are almost always won on ‘retail’ issues: the economy and tax, cost of living and the NHS, etc. But the next election will be the first arguably since the 1980s where our security and engagement with the world will be a major mainstream election issue (Brexit was, in my opinion, a very specific issue of domestic governance).
It’s clearly more complicated than people voting for simple policy positions. A minority will actively prioritise defence, foreign and security policies – I’ll call them DFS for short – but more widely there are strong positive and negative ‘vibe’ votes associated with these issues – Mrs Thatcher and the Falklands, Labour and nuclear disarmament. Those who remember will know how these issues helped Maggie – and helped destroy Labour for near 20 years.
There will also be votes linked to how we deal with deportations and remigration – see above for starters. Increasingly, there are sectarian and anti-Semitic votes as well, especially for the block Muslim votes in, sadly, a growing number of seats.
To reinforce the point, what was new Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s first significant foreign policy comment? It was on Palestine, to say Britain must pressure Israel more and ensure that, “no British bombs or bullets can be used by the IDF in Gaza or in the West Bank.” For the record, we export virtually nothing to Israel, and certainly no bombs or bullets. Israel, however, does make important parts for our tanks, missiles, artillery and warships. We are much more dependent on them than they are on us.
Despite the ill-informed nature of the comments, they show how Labour intends to crudely politicise foreign affairs issues for a domestic audience.
Anyway, I diverge; back to the main point.
What does the polling tell us? I’ll start with some recent Lord Ashcroft polling. It shows an increased prioritisation of DFS issues, but also an increasingly polarisation between voters on the left and right.
The Ukraine war, the Russian threat, concerns over the US and arguments over defence spending have pushed DFS higher up voter concerns. Additional evidence suggests that the more right-of-centre the voter, the greater the priority given to traditional ideas of DFS issues; size of armed forces, standing up to dictatorships, standing up for Britain and so on.
For Reform members, national security and defence was the second highest priority behind immigration and ahead of welfare. For Reform voters, it came in third after immigration and the cost of living.
For Conservative voters, it came in fifth, although I’d hazard a guess and suggest that amongst members it would also be higher.
Both these groups believe in higher defence spending at the cost of welfare. Therefore, Labour’s current perceived failure to fund defence – evidenced by John Healey’s June resignation as Secretary of State for Defence, matters. It tells a story of Government weakness.
The more leftwing, the less the stress and the different the emphasis. For Lib Dem and Labour voters, DFS issues are sixth and seventh respectively. But there are very different priorities, with the Lib Dems in particular supporting ‘international law’ – whatever that might be – and both prioritising European defence co-operation over the US.
Specific issues aggressively motivate individual ethnic/social groups in different constituencies. Gaza was a powerful factor in the Gorton and Denton by-election, as their depressingly performative MP showed. Wes Streeting and a host of other Labour bigwigs may well lose their seats to Palestine activists at the next election (‘every cloud’, and all that).
But over and above narrow choices over policy areas, DFS tells a wider story on ‘vibes’ and the perception of a leader’s strength.
For example, the Chagos debacle, whereby the Labour Government attempted to pay to give away UK sovereign territory, damaged Starmer and supported the impression of a weak leader who put everyone and everything before Britain. Burnham says he will continue with Starmer’s terrible Chagos plan – a perfect example of the continuity of failure. The Peter Mandelson scandal probably did more than anything to finish Starmer off in the end.
So, aside from major and much needed reform of the Foreign Office and defence, what might a flavour of some popular policies look like? Here are just a couple of examples.
On the issue of Pakistan, it would be to demand that Pakistan take not just one but all Pakistani Muslim grooming gang paedophiles and their dependents eligible for deportation. The same should apply to all foreign-born grooming gang members. Why should a single one remain in this country? Why should our people live in fear because politicians can’t grow a spine?
If Pakistan doesn’t play ball, and right now they are laughing at the Labour Government, how about blocking visas (we should end large-scale migration from Pakistan anyway)? Are there Pakistani assets in London that we can freeze? Why not make any aid dependent on taking back all their criminals? Why not re-block Pakistan Airlines to fly into Britain?
First, such a policy would be extremely popular amongst the majority of Britons. It would send a signal of strength. It would show Labour’s weakness and force them to try harder to get at least some of these people deported. It would reinforce a tough vibe. It would challenge Reform to do the same. A consensus on the right would develop.
Second, it would be deeply unpopular amongst clan-based Pakistani Muslim voters. However, those voters will be fought over by Labour and the Greens, both happy to trade policy for sectarian policies.
So yes, there are costs, but doing the right thing and advertising it will, on the electoral balance sheet, be an overwhelming win.
Whilst we are at it, we might bluntly state that all foreign-born criminals will be deported for any offence above parking fines (so including shoplifting, fair dodging, phone robbery, etc). We could also propose a ban on renouncing citizenship to prevent criminals coming here and forcing themselves on our country. A zero-tolerance approach would appeal to millions of Britons. It would reinforce an image of standing up for our country.
Here’s another example:
At the moment, the UK allows EU states’ citizens to use e-gates to enter the UK through electronic barriers. We, on the other hand, are forced to stand in queues for hours at a time. EU countries could easily allow British citizens to use e-gates. The only reason they don’t is to punish us for Brexit.
How about the next right-of-centre government telling European nations that they needed to treat us as we treat them. Give them a grace period of six months, and if they still insisted on forcing us to queue, then we would do the same. Let’s watch the French and the Poles queue for hours at our customs (and whilst we are at it, let’s reintroduce tax-free shopping for international visitors to tempt more back to London).
Finally, on vibes, it’s worth remembering that Mrs Thatcher’s decade in power was secured in large part because of Britain’s victory in the Falklands War, a test thousands of miles away in the South Atlantic. Before the war, she was trailing badly in polls. After the war, her image as the Iron Lady was assured. She and US President Ronald Reagan went on to win the Cold War for the West. She stood head and shoulders above her political rivals, in part thanks to her international standing.
So, there are votes in DFS. Add in immigration and aid – and bizarrely Burnham seemingly wants to spend billions more on overseas aid – and this mélange of issues arguably becomes one of the top three voting indicators – and that is without the possibility of war with Russia in eastern Europe in the next three years.
So MPs, showing that you understand defence and are willing to stick up for Britain is a vote winner, as Mrs Thatcher discovered.