David Cameron speaks at a Downing Street press conference earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Cameron echoes Blair on terrorism: western military action is not to blame

The PM declares that the "root cause" of terrorism is the "poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism". 

Rarely has David Cameron seemed more like the "heir to Blair" than at his Downing Street press conference this afternoon on the terrorist threat from ISIS. He emphasised in his opening statement that the "root cause" of the threat, which was raised today from "substantial" to "severe" (meaning an attack is considered "highly likely"), was not western foreign policy but the "poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism". He said: 

Let's be clear about the source of the threat that we face. The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war 10 years ago; it existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11, themselves some time before the Iraq war. This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over western foreign policy, nor it can be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship and instability in the region, as important as these things are.

The root cause of this threat to our security is quite clear: it is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders. It believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped worldview and to live in an almost medieval state. 

Cameron is right that the threat did not begin with western intervention and will not end with it, but it is worth noting that no less a figure than Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former director-general of MI5, concluded that the Iraq war had "increased the terrorist threat" and acted as "a distraction" from the pursuit of al-Qaeda. Cameron observed that it was broken states and civil wars that allowed jihadists to thrive, while seemingly ignoring that the 2003 invasion helped to create those conditions. He seemed unable or unwilling to recognise why so many previously peaceful Muslims are drawn to extremist ideologies. 

On new security powers, while emphasising that he wanted to avoid a "knee-jerk" response to the threat (think of Boris Johnon's call for the presumption of innocence to be abandoned for terrorist suspects), Cameron warned that there were "gaps in our armoury" and that "we need to strengthen them". He announced that he would make a statement in the Commons on Monday on further steps to stop people travelling to fight for ISIS, including new legislation to "make it easier to take people's passports away". 

But he added that the threat would only be fully tackled by challenging the "ideology of Islamist extremism head-on, at root, before it takes the form of violence and terror". It is language that will hearten those such as Michael Gove, who have long argued that the government needs to "drain the swamp" that leads non-violent Islamists towards jihadism and not wait for "the crocodiles to reach the boat" (the cause of his fierce disagreement with Theresa May earlier this year). Cameron referred back to his 2011 Munich speech, in which he attacked the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", and vowed to challenge groups that "push an extremist agenda".

It was notable that Cameron sounded cooler on the prospect of British military action in Iraq and Syria than before, emphasising the measures that would be taken on the domestic level. While No.10 has been careful not to rule out the possiblity of joining US-led air strikes (unlike the option of putting "boots on the grond"), it is clear that the last year's defeat over Syria, a war-weary public and the proximity of the general election all mean that Cameron is wary of any greater involvement. 

P.S. It's worth highlighting that Cameron, who rarely gives press conferences, took just four questions (three broadcast, one print) after his 10-minute statement. Given the severity of the threat, this seemed inadequate to many present. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.