Keeping the public informed on the risks to their safety and security is clearly sensible. If people are told what terrorist groups are operating in Britain, how strong they are and where they draw their support, they are less likely to be panicked by rumours or swayed by demagogues. The role of the Security Service will be better understood, and public acceptance of measures to prevent terrorism more likely. Other threats that have grown in importance can also be put into context: increased flooding, a flu pandemic, a nuclear catastrophe, organised crime and drug gangs. Publishing the previously secret national register of risks, as Gordon Brown intends to do, is the first obvious step in enhancing vigilance.

That, however, is only part of the newly unveiled national security strategy. This aims to identify both immediate and long-term threats to Britain, look at the resources available to deal with them and enhance national security by boosting counter-terrorism and regional intelligence units, which will feed into the Cabinet's National Security Committee, set up last year. The size of the Security Service - MI5 - which is responsible for surveillance and monitoring terrorist activities within Britain will be increased to 4,000 personnel, twice as many as in 2001. Funding for the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre will rise by 10 per cent. And new measures will be developed to combat cyber-crime.

Mr Brown has been influenced by finding, perhaps to his surprise, how central Britain's own intelligence services have become to almost every aspect of national policy. Almost no day passes without an official from MI5 or MI6 visiting Downing Street, sitting in on Cabinet committees or advising domestic and foreign policymakers. The Prime Minister has not yet proposed a British equivalent to the US National Security Adviser; but yesterday's report could pave the way.

He has also tried to incorporate the growing role of voluntarism and non-governmental organisations; he has clearly been swayed by the intangible, but still emotive, appeal of the “spirit of the Blitz”, which is sometimes invoked in times of crisis. As a result, he has tried to bring the fight against terror closer to the ordinary citizen. A national security forum, a new form of civil defence, will mobilise the expertise of thousands of civilians in dealing with emergencies. The regional intelligence units are to pick up what is going on in crucial urban areas such as the West Midlands. And the existing 1,000-strong civilian task force, to offer help to failing states abroad, is intended to yoke altruism to hard national interest.

Welcome as this recognition of the threats is, however, yesterday's long-heralded announcement seems something of a damp squib. There is precious little “strategy” in the national security strategy, and no indication of how priorities will be decided or what money will be available to implement the new co-ordination. The statement is more of an assessment of what the threats are than an overview of how they will be tackled. It is also weakened, rather than enhanced, by tacking on long-term issues amenable only to “soft” power: climate change, poverty and mass migration. All may one day pose a threat to this country, and conflict over water or migration is no less dangerous than the risk of nuclear proliferation. But these threats cannot be assessed with the focus needed to fight crime and terrorism. Without a sense of priorities or clearer allocation of resources, the new strategy raises fears but gives little idea how these should be answered.