It seems that anything goes in this battle of the parties, fighting an ephemeral election, before it has been called, when the public have never been so apathetic and so terribly incensed at politics. The politicians seem to forget that decorum is the one thing that the public seeks in its representatives, and when it sees them, time and again, literally screaming at one another across the dispatch boxes, on the same subject, any faith is shattered, as the analogy the public gets is of schoolboys fighting in the cycle shed.
I accept, that matters of policy must be discussed, and open government is essential, but when something as delicate as the lives of our armed, fighting forces is at stake, I would have thought it was totally unnecessary to repeatedly go over the same ground, by every party, and every department, to justify themselves, and by the media in every quarter. I refer, obviously, to the debate concerning the quality and quantity of the provisions for security on the battle-ground. The bad taste in my view, is that those who have loved ones in the war zones, having to return repeatedly, and worse still, those who have lost their loved ones, are all having this matter repeatedly thrust at them, visually on TV, on the radio and in the press, not on a daily basis even, but hourly, imprints it miserably every time.
On a broader front, surely it would have been more logical, more constructive, for all the parties to get together to solve the problems that are paramount, as a unit, rather than carping on a daily basis. It worked in 1939 to 45 on a vast scale, surely it can work on the scale we are faced with today, have solutions found, agreed mutually and put into effect, more quietly, in a more dignified way, so that the sensitivities of the armed forces and their families can be more satisfied, and give relief that the best is being done for them, to the mutual approval of all the brains in the Civil Service and Parliament. Surely this is more logical, as it would also reduce the veiled electioneering.