We can be certain that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will oppose such a move, at which point Cameron and other senior Tories will claim that Corbyn is a threat to national security. It’s a phrase they have spun consistently in the month since Corbyn became leader and they will likely repeat it for as long as he remains so.

The claim stands no scrutiny of course, and is defamatory and an outrageous slur, but the Tories hope that if they say it often enough it will become accepted as fact. It is based on Corbyn’s opposition to renewing Trident, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, his questioning of our continued membership of NATO as that organisation is currently configured and confirmation that if he became Prime Minister he wouldn’t approve the use of nuclear weapons.

That Corbyn has entered into dialogue (for the purposes of conflict resolution) with paramilitary groups such as the IRA and Hamas (something that the British and Israeli governments respectively have done as well) is also used to justify the claim, one extended by Cameron at last week’s Conservative Party conference when he ranted that: “We cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.”

Corbyn is essentially a pacifist who believes that talking is preferable to fighting and that military engagement should be a last resort, used rarely and sparingly. To the likes of Cameron, to whom military intervention appears to be the first reaction to any conflict (he either supported or oversaw British military involvement in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Iraq again (2014), none of which could be deemed a success) pacifists are decidedly dangerous.

But recent history at least appears to be on Jeremy Corbyn’s side and he has for several months been calling for international talks involving all of the countries engaged in, or directly impacted by, the Syrian conflict. That a consensus around this position appears to be forming, led by Washington, suggests that the Prime Minister and his colleagues might do well to take Corbyn’s arguments on the matter seriously instead of belittling and insulting him.

The ‘Corbyn as threat’ claim is one of a slew of linguistic contortions the Conservatives are currently engaged in. They are central to Tory strategy, as important as any of their policies. Another is the claim that they are the ‘party of working people‘, preposterous given the government’s cutting of working tax credits, the forthcoming trade union legislation that plans to further restrict what are already arguably the most draconian labour laws in the western world, a readiness to surrender British employees’ rights as part of EU renegotiations, excluding under 21s from a raft of employment legislation, the rise of unpaid workplace internships, and the lack of employment protection legislation for the self-employed and amongst agency workers and those on zero hours contracts.

Perhaps then it is no surprise to learn that prior to becoming an MP Employment Secretary Pritti Patel was paid up to £167 per hour as a PR consultant by the tobacco industry to defend their paying wages of £5 per month to employees in Burma! A party for working people; more like a problem for working people!

Equally outlandish is the ‘One nation Conservatives’ mantra. ‘One percent of the nation Conservatives’ might be more accurate given the stratospheric increase in the gap between the super rich and the working poor since 2010, the wealth and quality of life gap only likely to increase as deeper public spending cuts and changes to the tax system designed to assist the already comfortably off take effect.

And if you happen to be amongst those being made redundant by the closure of Goodyear in Wolverhampton, SSI in Redcar or savage cuts to the police service, libraries, leisure centres and court system, or yet another shop or pub on your local High Street, then expect nothing but opprobrium from those large sections of society for whom sympathy will turn to Tory orchestrated anger the moment your first benefits claim is made.

Our skewed and deeply flawed electoral system may have given the Conservatives an overall majority on a mere 36% of votes cast, but it is a system and a result that masks how politically and economically divided Britain has become.

The notion of one nation Conservatism/Socialism/Liberalism is absurd; the ideological schisms are too raw, too pronounced. The Conservatives were rejected across large swathes of London, rejected in Birmingham, rejected in Manchester, in Liverpool, in Sheffield, in Nottingham, in Bradford, in Leeds, in the North East and obliterated in Scotland, with policies rooted in neo-liberalism and increasing international insularity (though dressed up with a rhetoric rooted in fantasy).

In such circumstances the Tories cannot legitimately claim to be governing for all any more than can Labour, who hold few seats across the south and in the shires.

At their party conference the Conservatives had nothing of worth to say about the housing crisis, nothing of any use to say about climate change and nothing at all to say about electoral reform or to young people. For them to accuse the man who baulks at obliterating millions of people and rendering vast swathes of land uninhabitable for centuries in the most violent man made act imaginable of being a threat to Britain’s security seems somewhat ironic.