May’s ‘strong and stable’ mantra looks weak in the face of an MI5 review
Quite unexpectedly, the general election has become dominated by questions about Britain’s security. Even more surprisingly, the Conservatives’ usual appeal as the party of law and order does not appear to be working.
In the immediate aftermath of the terror attack in Manchester last week, the political parties rightly paused their campaigns as families mourned their lost relatives and the police launched a huge investigation. Now, though, attention is moving to broader questions – not only about how the suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was able to carry out his crime despite having previously been known to security agencies, but also about whether Britain’s foreign and domestic policy has increased the terror threat.
The announcement of an inquiry by MI5 into its past actions towards Abedi is welcome and necessary. On two occasions, it seems, acquaintances at the college he attended raised concerns to police via an antiterrorism hotline. He is believed to have fought, at the age of just 16, against Colonel Gaddafi’s forces during the Libyan civil war. He had returned to Libya again recently, before carrying out his murderous assault on defenceless concert-goers.
Whichever way you look at it, this is an unhappy set of facts for Britain’s security agencies. By extension it is problematic for the Government. Theresa May’s “strong and stable” mantra, which was inane before the Manchester massacre, now sounds hollow. No wonder voters are starting to wonder what substance there is behind the Prime Minister’s rhetoric.
Of course it is always easy to be wise after the event. MI5, which has a staff of about 4,000 and is recruiting more, is said to be actively monitoring 3,000 terror suspects in tandem with specialist police officers; 20,000 more are known to the authorities but are not under constant watch. In recent years, numerous plots by extremists have been successfully foiled. When considering potential failures by our security forces it is as well to remember their triumphs too.
Nevertheless, when warnings about attackers have been missed, it is hard to conclude that enough has been done. The question then is: what more is there to do?
The Conservatives have for some time focused on the dangers posed by extremist material online, and on the ability of terrorists to communicate securely via social media apps. There is probably something in this, although there are no easy answers. Not only is there the risk of clamping down on all sorts of legitimate activity in the pursuit of the illegitimate, but there is the simple reality that the firms which the Government has in its sights – Google, Facebook, Twitter – are not the internet in its entirety. Clamp down on one encryption service, or reduce the availability of extremist material on one forum, and others will soon pop up in their place.
What about community-based intelligence? The Government’s Prevent strategy is controversial to say the least; Labour promises a review. That is surely right in respect of a programme which is reviled by many Muslims. However, Prevent has realised helpful intelligence and the requirement that public officials, including teachers, report any suspicions they might have about potential radicalisation ought to be no more than any sensible citizen’s duty. Those who argue that Prevent itself is responsible for terrorism are either willfully disingenuous or are missing the point.
Similarly, Labour’s attempts to link British involvement in wars abroad with terror attacks at home may have some basis, but it doesn’t provide much help in terms of preventing future incidents. Nor does it give due weight to the moral imperative that lies behind any decision about action by the UK’s armed forces overseas – not only insofar as Britain’s immediate defence interests are concerned but also in respect of protecting the vulnerable abroad. It is a claim that is easier to make in opposition.
The other plank of Jeremy Corbyn’s criticism of existing policy is at once more prosaic, more practical and more plausible, concerning as it does the cuts to police numbers that we have seen during this decade. The bald statistics show there are 19,000 fewer officers now than there were in 2010, with the total standing at just under 123,000. Frontline officers regularly claim the service is understaffed. Even putting aside investigations into possible terror plots, the knife epidemic witnessed in London and other major British cities highlights the problem of resources. While MI5 may be better staffed than ever, it is widely said to
be over-stretched too.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd says that policing cuts were not to blame for the Manchester attack. And she is right that we must be wary of drawing simplistic conclusions – and of diverting responsibility from Abedi and any accomplices he had. Yet after nearly a decade of austerity it is hard not to feel that the British public is restless, increasingly unconvinced by politicians who argue that cuts are not to blame for the problems that are manifest in our society: lengthening NHS waiting times; inadequate social care; potholes in our road; increasing use of food banks; knife crime and the threat posed by terrorists.
The same forces which convinced many that Brexit was an answer to their disconnect with modern Britain are all of a sudden working in favour of a politician who, until recently, seemed as detached to modernity as anyone. The question that remains is whether, come 9 June, Jeremy Corbyn will find himself more connected to power than most of us would ever have anticipated.