I have just been to an election hustings in my local parish church. There were six candidates on display, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SDP and an independent.
Had they hoped to change my vote they would have been disappointed because I have a postal one which went in the previous week.
Nigel Nelson previously wrote on Nigel’s provocative comment that Nato expansion ‘provoked’ Vladamir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine
PA/REUTERS
Predictably and depressingly they did not answer that question, preferring to pile into Nigel and Reform. There was not a cigarette paper between them in their agreement that his comments were outrageous and the defensive alliance was essential to keep Putin in his box.
I hoped the candidates might have addressed the nub of what I was asking. I do not dissent from their view, but the question was whether they thought the average Muscovite shares it.
Their replies did prove something though. We do not pause long enough to consider whether the West might appear threatening to other people. While we may see Nato as a shield to others it may look more like a spear.
We take for granted that Western democracy is something everyone must want if they are offered it. And justify bombing other countries – Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – in the self-justification we are bringing it about.
Should we not stop for a moment and wonder whether our brand of democracy is necessarily suitable for those with totally different histories and cultures?
Britain colonised vast swathes of the world and trumpeted it as a force for good because we were spreading Christianity. Nothing wrong with being a Christian – I’m one myself – but it’s the pinnacle of arrogance to automatically assume it’s right for everyone else.
Yet that is the assumption we make when designing international organisations. The United Nations is largely based on Christian values, which might not be shared by all of its 193 member states.
I don’t blame the candidates for taking the most direct line of attack. It is an election, after all. Rubbishing Reform is much easier than conceding there might be a point buried away somewhere in what Nigel said. And, anyway, they had other questions to answer.
Up until now, the Tories have been tiptoeing around Reform. Instead of ripping apart their policies, which are frankly simplistic and unworkable, they used the line that a vote for Reform would guarantee a Labour victory. Surely CCHQ could have done better than that if they’d put their back into it.
MORE AGENDA-SETTING OPINION:
Nigel Nelson: ‘We do not pause long enough to consider whether the West might appear threatening to other people’
Wikimedia Commons
Or maybe Tory tactical planners thought there was no need to bother. Whatever the truth behind Channel 4’s claim that the party harbours racists and homophobes, it’s the image that created which is so damaging.
It might not make much difference to their die-hard supporters, but wavering voters will be put off and may well now decide to return to wherever their previous political homes were.
The wrong image can be devastating at election time. Rishi Sunak could not have done much about the downpour which drenched him as he announced this election. But getting rinsed became a metaphor for it.
Bunking off D-Day commemorations early was a silly, unforced error and the Tory betting scandal only amplified the impression, which began with Boris Johnson and Partygate, that the Tories ignore rules which apply to the rest of us.
Keir Starmer may come across as a bit dull, but it enhances the message he is a serious politician for serious times. Not a bad image to leave the voters with before polling day.
Deep thought is not something to expect at a hustings or on the campaign trail. But the world is an increasingly dangerous place.
And the next Government is going to have to put its thinking cap on when dealing with it.
