The Conservative high command must surely have been reading campaign advice from the French commander at the First Battle of the Marne, who telegraphed in 1914: “Hard-pressed on my right, centre is yielding, impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent: am attacking.”
Rishi Sunak’s dive into security as a dividing line in the election race comes as his own room for manoeuvre tightens amid post-local election gloom defections and a widening dead-parrot mood among MPs.
The response was to open a new front and the message in Monday’s speech was that it was time to launch all-out Cold War on Keir Starmer and that Labour could not be trusted in the era of over-lapping crises — from the Middle East to migration streams fuelled by technology and intensifying conflict with Russia.
He was onto one big idea that will not go away: it is better to be prepared for things going awry than assuming we will muddle through at a time of troubles. Whether it is the latest espionage arrests against London-based officials accused of spying for China or demonstrators being beaten on the streets of Tbilisi, distant countries’ problems have a habit of becoming the West’s business.
Sunak does not relish the thought of disappearing at the next election without a fight
The PM’s intended target, however, was not really nasty dictators doing bad stuff, but a resurgent Labour Party. Asked by the BBC after the speech whether he really thought we would be less safe under a Starmer government, an unusually pithy Sunak replied: “Yes.” In truth, there is little factual difference between the parties on major issues roiling the world. So Sunak’s broadside was really a psy-ops move — namely that Labour is a bit dodgy on deterrence and has too much CND in its DNA to be reassuring, while Conservatives secure home and hearth.
It is a sign of the more bruising side of Sunak we will see more of as the election war begins — he does not relish the thought of disappearing without a fight and wants more weapons at his disposal than a mild economic recovery and inflation reduction in his arsenal. “Rishi,” says one approving ally consulted about the speech, “is not as nice as he looks — thankfully.”
In crude targeting terms, he has a point: geopolitics at the sharp end and military matters in general still feel like the Opposition leader’s B-game, which is why Sunak had ventured so bluntly into reactive territory. Put aside the fact that both parties are unsure how full frontal to be in opposition to China (and that it was his own Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron who presided over an era of over-hopeful ties with Beijing as PM) and Gaza, where real differences are minimal, and you come to a different dividing line — which is an attack on Labour’s recent past and some meandering views on Starmer’s leadership team on the nuclear deterrent.
David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, voted against Trident renewal in 2016, only to suggest a change of heart after the Corbyn era, while not (yet) explaining the switch. Angela Rayner also voted against the renewal (albeit with more distant prospects of playing a prominent Nat Sec role). Sunak might not wholly carry off the defender-of-the-nation mantle and was stingy with the armed forces as Chancellor, but he is also directing attention to questions Starmer would rather not have to answer about a residual CND vibe across his front bench and Labour’s wobbly defence spending commitments.
For Sunak, this is “dry powder” in his version of the General Foch military campaign — something to talk about when not much else is going his way. One ally notes that he “comes to life better on the stump than at a lectern” and relishes the chance to tour the country and “take the fight to Starmer, very personally”.
Reality check: neither of them are barnstormers when it comes to the performative repertoire of campaigns and both labour under shadows of predecessors, respectively Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, in this.
Sunak does not have to be right about the unlikely scenarios of red peril of a Labour government to have touched a sore spot — namely that in a world which throws up challenging events with some regularity and with high costs attached, voters hanker for purpose from a government. Asked if “better the devil you know” was an up-sum of his views, Sunak didn’t disagree. Voters will likely conclude that they know the bewildering range of Tory old devils all too well. For Labour though, there is a warning of remaining overly vague: it too has weaknesses and contradictions. Last-ditch Sunak is not going to let the Starmer army — or us — forget it.
