hat is the point of the Conservative Party if it is not much interested in the defence of the realm? That this should be a valid question, only eight weeks from a general election, illustrates that the Tory high command has got itself into a terrible mess of its own making.

Tory MPs who are very interested in the Armed Forces are asking for answers. What the hell, they ask, is the Conservative leadership playing at? Why won’t David Cameron and George Osborne commit to spending at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence in the next parliament? What they have heard in response from the Foreign Secretary, Philip “there are no votes in defence” Hammond, and the Chancellor’s team, baffles and appals MPs in equal measure.

Somehow the Conservatives even managed to get themselves outflanked on defence by the Green Party last week. A spokesman for the Greens said that apart from opposing the renewal of Trident, the knit-yourown-yoghurt brigade would protect conventional forces from further cuts.

Simultaneously, the union of former generals and affiliated retired admirals has launched its latest assault on ministers. They are demanding that the Tories and Labour lay out in their manifestos in a few weeks’ time what they propose to spend on defence. Ahead of the Budget, a sceptical Chancellor is under pressure to offer guarantees.

Of course, this growing row was not in the carefully crafted CCHQ script. In the run-up to the election, the aim was for a remorseless concentration on the party’s “long-term economic plan” and the weaknesses of Ed Miliband. Underneath that there would be other announcements, on extending free schools and on house building, but these were to be secondary themes adding a limited splash of variety. Everything was to be subordinated to the clear message crafted by the Australian strategist Lynton Crosby. Talking about defence was not on the agenda. Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, hitherto one of the Government’s best media performers, has been quietly going about his business. He was in Washington last week for a discreet visit.

It might be considered unfair to criticise Mr Cameron’s approach too harshly. In 2010 the Tory campaign was an Eton mess, a pudding without a theme in which the only vaguely discernible idea was the confusing Big Society (a good policy badly marketed). Other than that, there was no distinct message. It was as though the Conservative leadership assumed that by turning up, and looking like fresh-faced agents of change, the country would see that it was their turn to govern.

That being the case, perhaps it is unfair for those of us who accused Mr Cameron of presiding over a shambles of a campaign five years ago to say that the flaw this time is an excess of Tory discipline, order and structure.

However, political campaigning, like life, is unfair. While it is important in war and electioneering to have a solid plan and to stick to it when possible, a successful commander must remain adaptable in case circumstances change, and alert for opportunities to take the initiative on the field of battle.

There is no sign – yet – of any such strategic flexibility. If the Chancellor is considering offering a last-minute pledge on defence spending, then no one has told the Ministry of Defence, where the expectation is that the position will remain unchanged throughout the campaign on the orders of Mr Crosby. The policy is that as of today the government is spending 2 per cent of GDP annually on defence, but there can be no guarantee it will continue. If the Tories win the election then there will be a discussion ahead of the next Spending Review.

But the problem surely goes beyond short-term arguments about the order of priorities in an election campaign. Playing down defence because polls say – at a given moment – that the public does not rank it highly as a subject, only confirms public perceptions that the modern Tories are about winning (narrowly) but not enough else. The contempt in which the electorate holds the parties can be attributed in part to voters sensing that politics is now too much of a game that the participants enjoy playing for its own sake. Playing that game involves asking voters what they want to hear.

In contrast, it’s inconceivable that Margaret Thatcher would have said, let alone thought, that there are no votes in defence. Votes weren’t the point. Votes were what you collected, if you were lucky, for doing what is right.

Tories should not need a focus group to tell them that defending the country properly, that most basic of duties of government, is right. If they require a spreadsheet to guide them on this stuff then they should consider a career change.

On that basis, Mr Hammond is in the wrong job as Foreign Secretary and he was in the wrong job previously as secretary of state for defence, as even his supporters acknowledge. “He is a numbers man. He should be at the Treasury,” says a friend. Perhaps a Foreign Secretary and former defence secretary who takes a beancounter’s view of the nation’s security should not be in any job. Perhaps he should get the sack.

But Mr Hammond is only reflecting the dominant strain of thinking at the top of the Tory party. He is trusted by Mr Cameron precisely because he does not challenge that view as a great foreign secretary would.

One can see easily how this generation of Tory leaders landed themselves here, so far away from a principled position. Back when they were planning their campaign, the public mood was different. The Commons had voted against British involvement in Syria and the Libyan adventure was going badly wrong.

After Afghanistan and Iraq, voters were weary of war and wary of Britain entangling itself in more conflicts that cost the lives of our young men and women, who pay the price for the follies of their leaders. Steeled by listening to the complaints of generals throughout a difficult defence review, Mr Cameron also hardened his heart on spending and decided to stick to a planning grid which made no mention of defence.

Unfortunately, no one supplied the Russians or Isil with a copy of this Tory grid not mentioning defence, and they continue to make the world a more dangerous place than it has been at any time since 9/11. A party which is traditionally the party of defence, and is now so lackadaisical on these matters, should be ashamed.