Tom Tugendhat

Andrew Sabisky is a self-described superforecaster. As one of Philip Tetlock’s devotees he claims to have an elite sensitivity to seeing the future. It’s a rare skill, so I hope you will understand the caution with which I say that when it comes to China, he’s completely wrong. It’s true that the US and China are dominant in AI, and that India is a rising power, but the conclusion he chooses – to throw ourselves on the mercy of China – raises questions not just about the end but the signals he’s receiving. The argument goes, according to Sabisky, that the United States and India are inevitably hostile to the UK.

Families in the United Kingdom face a moment of crisis. It is becoming harder for people to simply get by. For so many of them, there is more month than there is pay. We face danger abroad, division in our politics, an economy saddled with debt and a creeping sense of despair about our collective future. This is a defining moment for us. It is a defining moment for our country. It is a defining moment for our party, and it is going to test the values for which we stand. I am going to talk about economic policy today: but for me - for conservatives - leading on the economy is not only a question of policy. It is a question of values - it is a question of mission - a question of our task and purpose.

Like many veterans, this last week has been one that has seen me struggle through anger, grief and rage. The feeling of abandonment, not just of a country but of the sacrifice that my friends made. I’ve been to funerals from Poole to Dunblane; I’ve watched good men go into the earth, taking with them a part of me and a part of us all. And this week has torn open those wounds, left them raw, left us all hurting. I know it’s not just soldiers. I know aid workers and diplomats who feel the same way. I know journalists who’ve been the witnesses to our country in its heroic effort to save people from the most horrific fates. This isn’t just about us. The mission in Afghanistan wasn’t a British mission, it was a Nato mission.

When British troops were on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan, we faced many enemies, from jihadis to press-ganged civilians. But for me, the most terrifying ones lay buried. Bullets usually miss. Improvised explosive devices – IEDs — don’t. They are frighteningly simple. Old munitions wired together or plastic bottles packed with fertiliser and ball-bearings could destroy a vehicle and kill its passengers. During my four years in Afghanistan I saw IEDs evolve: first came remote triggers, then pressure plates and then low-metal-content devices. Curiously, IEDs evolved in a similar way in Iraq. This should be no surprise, since the groups trying to kill British troops shared one common resource: Iranian support. For years, Tehran has armed insurgents.

The US Army's cuts are good for Britain. They will force our European allies to think about their own defence and re-evaluate their policies. This will highlight the benefits of NATO’s guarantees and put the focus in the EU on what matters. For over twenty years European members of NATO have had a free ride. They've enjoyed the protection of a shield on land and a fleet at sea wherever needed, and have prospered as a result. Insurance without premiums has been one hell of a gift. It has also led to what Sir Humphrey would call 'courageous' assumptions. Just think what hasn't happened. The Baltic States haven't been invaded, Poland hasn't been cowed like Ukraine or Belarus, Japan hasn't feared China, oil hasn't hit $300 a barrel and piracy has had little impact on world trade.