Across the pond

In a last minite desparate attempt to stem the LibDem tide, both Conservatives and Labour attempted to blow Nick Clegg out of the water by blasting his defence policy, and notably his clear statement in the television debates that he would not order a replacement for Trident, before considering other options,  out of the water. Both parties are trying to type Clegg as a naive peacenik, who who cannot be trusted with the defence of the realm.

The Conseravatives led the charge of this Heavy Brigade, with a carefully orchestrated Letter to The Times, from a not-random selection of retired defence chiefs and military intelligence experts. Thanks to its owner Rupert Murdoch, this particular reader’s letter, was deemed the main news story of the day, and took up nearly all of the Times front page.  Here is the headline and the first two pars.

Security chiefs condemn Lib Dem defence ‘gamble’

Nick Clegg’s credibility on national security is called into question today by senior defence and intelligence figures.

Writing to The Times, they said that Liberal Democrat policies risked leaving Britain exposed to terrorism and diminished on the world stage.

Not to be outdone, Labour propelled Lord Gilbert, a defence minister in the first Tony Blair government (helped into power by Rupert Murdoch, who embarced New Labour, but is now backing Tory Boy).

Gilbert, like the nation’s security chiefs, came out of retirement, aged 93,  to denounce the callow youth Clegg, for his ‘frivolous’ policies. This is the BBC report of what he said. (I heard it, but since I was eating my lunch at the time, I did not take notes!)

And Lord Gilbert, a former Labour defence minister, told BBC Radio 4′s World at One programme he was so concerned about the “frivolous” attitude of the Lib Dems to the “defence of the realm” he advocated tactical voting against them.

I don’t think there’s any doubt where their choice would fall. It would have to be the ConservativesLord Gilbert Labour peer

“It will be up to individual Labour voters to decide, if they are in constituencies where they think their vote is going to be wasted because the Labour party is in third place, I think they ought to vote for the party which, in their view, is going to be most responsible in terms of defence of the realm.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt where their choice would fall. It would have to be the Conservatives if the choice is purely between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.”

Expect more of this in the next two days from both parties. Clegg is a  decent honest chap, but he is naive, liable to be soft on the nuclear threat, soft on terrorism (amnesty for illegal immigrants!). Playing on the fears of the electorate.  Remember the election front page against Kinnoch in Murdoch’s Sun, ‘Will the last person to leave Britain please turn off the lights? ’

In the last TV debate both Cameron and Brown scored points off Clegg on Trident, and both of them managed to imply that Clegg was the newcomer to the political scene, who just did not understand the realities.

The plain fact is that none of the three party leaders is strong on the nuclear detterent, foreign policy or defence. They rely on their advisers. Brown’s adviser on nuclear proliferation has been Baroness Shirley Wiliams, which job she took on after she retired as leader of the LibDems in the House of Lords. (Shirley is 89, but far from retired. Amongst other things she sits on an august international commission, which is actually working to reduce the world’s stock of nuclear weapens.)  And, as I discovered today she is far better informed on US politics, 2010, than  Cameron or Brown or all those retired defence chiefs.

Because she moved to the US 22 years, to take up a post at Harvard, the US equivalent of Oxbridge, so she has first hand experience of the America of both Bushes, both Clintons and, most importantly, Barack Obama. By happenstance I was able to secure an ‘exclusive face to face interview’ with Williams today.

Which I will report on in my next blog tomorrow.