Mick Hartley

Interesting take here.

But the problem runs deeper than defence spending. It runs to the question of what kind of person ends up in parliament, what professional formation shapes their instincts, and whose interests they are constitutionally equipped to represent.

Charity sector workers are trained to see the world through the lens of vulnerable groups, international obligations and institutional compassion. Political employees are trained to manage narratives and avoid uncomfortable truths. Communications and lobbying professionals are trained to advance the interests of whoever is paying them. Not one of those professional backgrounds prepares you for the question of how to defend a sovereign nation, manage a border, hold a foreign state accountable or protect a citizen from an Iranian proxy group that is firebombing Jewish ambulances on British streets.

The parliament that responded to the Golders Green firebombing by debating the language used to describe it is a parliament staffed by people whose entire professional lives have trained them to manage perception rather than confront reality. The government that rolled out an anti-Muslim hostility definition while twenty Iranian backed terrorist plots were being planned on British streets is a government whose instinct is accommodation rather than accountability…..