Letter: National debate on defence policy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.National debate on defence policy
Sir: In a commendable effort to create a national consensus on defence and security policies, the Government has launched what Polly Toynbee accurately describes as "a remarkable exercise in open government". But it is difficult not to despair when a journalist as gifted as Ms Toynbee contributes to this exercise an article as prejudiced as "A Boy Scout motto: prepared for what?" (14 July).
Ms Toynbee's views on the priorities to be accorded to defence on the one hand, and social security, the NHS and education on the other, are well known. Those views may perhaps be correct - although I do not think so. But the point of the Government's national debate is to try to establish the balance of opinion on these priorities. It is disingenuous to pretend that expenditure on the realities as presented "in a magistrates' court" or during an Ofsted inspection self-evidently ought to enjoy greater public support than expenditure on the armed forces or other capabilities which may enable the UK to continue to play an effective international role.
What is worse about Ms Toynbee's article is the impression conveyed that the whole defence policy exercise is a Yes, Minister farce. It would be difficult to guess from Ms Toynbee that the debate at last Friday's seminar lasted six-and-a-half hours; that the great majority of participants were drawn from university faculties and institutions such as the Oxford Research Group and the Disarmament Intelligence Review; or that of some 40 substantive interventions, fewer than 10 were from official spokesmen.
Sir MICHAEL ALEXANDER
Chairman, Strategic Defence Review Seminar
Centre for Defence Studies
King's College
University of London
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments