Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Labour will be judged on deeds not words

LABOUR PARTY

THE CHANCELLOR, Rachel Reeves, with a rictus smile glued to her face at the Labour Party conference this week has sought to change the government’s central message from one of unremitting gloom to one of hope.

After weeks of relentless negativity over alleged black holes, broken Britain and “tough decisions” ahead, the Chancellor has laid out her vision for the promised land to come.

No one could argue with most of it. Who wouldn’t want a fairer society, great public services, better schools, higher growth, and a strong economy? However, Ms Reeves offered no discernible strategy for achieving these admirable goals. Nor did she touch on the price we will all have to pay.

Many will be surprised to hear her say there would be “no return to austerity”.

For millions of pensioners stripped of their winter fuel allowance it has already arrived and the Budget on October 30 is expected to be an assault on the finances of middle Britain.

The Chancellor claims she will not raise taxes on “working people” but what does that mean? Does she include those who have worked all their lives but are now retired? Those whose efforts and talents put them in the higher tax brackets? Entrepreneurs? Savers?

More likely she will deliver selective austerity, in which the private sector will be fleeced to ratchet up the pay and pensions of state employees.

The process has already begun with inflation-busting wage increases across the public sector which, incidentally, account for around half of the £22billion black hole supposedly left by the previous Tory government.

There will be a crackdown on welfare, fraud, and worklessness. The Government has said it will make special provisions in law for the most vulnerable.

The Trade Unions, far from being grateful, are ravenous for more. RMT chief Mick Lynch is demanding nothing less than “the complete organisation of the UK economy by trade unions”.

Mr Lynch wants to sweep away the Thatcher reforms and make it easier to shutdown workplaces and even entire industries if employers fail to meet demands on pay and conditions. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Other unions are coming in hard and fast. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said the recent 5.5 per cent pay award for nurses in England was not enough and must be improved.

By giving train drivers 15 per cent and junior doctors south of the Border 22 per cent, Ms Reeves has begun a wage spiral which could strangle any hope of economic growth.

Hardened by years of industrial trench warfare with the Tories, union barons are not about to bow down to a weak and inexperienced Labour government. On the contrary, they believe they can control it.

The constant talking down of the economy is having baleful effects. It is now hard fact that UK businesses are freezing both vital investment and the hiring of staff ahead of the Budget. There is an alarming collapse in business confidence.

Ms Reeves has said this would be “the most pro-business government we have ever seen”. But with the constant negativity and parlous state of the UK economy why would anyone invest in a country when its Chancellor has been saying for weeks that it is effectively a basket case?

This speech was an attempt to inject some positivity into the Labour narrative, but she will be judged by her deeds, not her words.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Starmer needs to recalibrate the mood

LABOUR PARTY

ELECTED to office less than three months ago, the Labour Party has begun its annual conference – this year in Liverpool – already weighed down by incumbency: rows over gifts from wealthy party donors and tickets to football games as well as rifts about Keir Starmer’s chief of staff’s pay are feeding into the public disquiet. These come amidst the burden of government in difficult economic circumstances. Coupled with the low public trust and the needless surplus of gloom, the political honeymoon period for Labour is well and truly over. We knew change was high up on the political agenda for Labour, but since day one of government it has set out with the explicit objective of dampening expectations of how soon change might come. The gloom is palpable.

There is a degree of urgency for Starmer to recalibrate the mood with a sense of optimism and purpose. He needs to give the country reasons to be glad of a Labour government in ways that go beyond relief at no longer being governed by Tory rule. New governments often come to power blaming the last for what it has inherited. The PM has given the nation an unvarnished account of the dismal legacy left for Labour; a bleak audit that covers a record of political and financial maladministration.

Conservative ministers, driven by ideological fanaticism and self-serving cynicism, squandered energy and vital resources on ill-conceived, unworkable policies. Public services were starved of the means by which they could effectively operate. With that in mind, it is easy to see that Sir Keir has a difficult job because the country is in a dire mess. Putting things right will take time. Nevertheless, that morose message has been bitterly soured by a performance of fiscal discipline, delivered without a hint of uplifting accompaniment.

The prime minister says things will get worse before they get better. His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, cites “black holes” in the budget, withdraws winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners, and continually pledges that there is more pain to come. Ms Reeves’ argument is that government departments under the Conservatives overspent by £22bn in the budget and that deep cuts are needed to compensate. This is a self-imposed restriction that stems from ill-advised fiscal rules. The force of that constraint, and the zeal with which it is applied as austerity across Whitehall, is also a matter of political choice.

The government’s strategists argue that adherence to Tory spending limits was a “non-negotiable” condition of persuading the public that Labour could be trusted on the economy. Possibly, possibly not. There is no way to test the counterfactual scenario, where Ms Reeves could have fought the election with a wider range of tax-raising options still open. However, the decision to lean into unpopularity so hard, so fast, and without a countervailing narrative of hope looks like very poor strategic judgment.

Labour’s election manifesto contained plenty of reasons to expect a substantial departure from a grim status quo. A marked progressive shift was promised in the areas of workers’ rights, a robust commitment to net zero, improved relations with the rest of Europe and, perhaps most significantly, readiness to embrace a more interventionist model of economic management, including public ownership of utility companies.

The Starmerite script contains rather too much fiscal conservatism, but the hope on the left of the party is that there is a social democratic framework at its core. That would express the opposite of the Tory conviction that government’s main function is to facilitate market supremacy and then get out of the way. Many Labour MPs, activists, and Labour supporting people in the country will feel unsure which of the two strands – cringing continuity or bold departure – will dominate. Keir Starmer’s task is to answer in terms that give hope of meaningful change to come.

Standard
Britain, Government, Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Kyiv missile deal edges closer

STORM SHADOW

THE visit by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and his US counterpart Antony Blinken to battle-ravaged Ukraine in reaffirming their commitment was timely. The pair announced millions more in aid, which was welcomed, but if Ukraine is to stand any chance in defeating Putin, the West must still go further. 

It is now pressing to permit Kyiv to use US and British long-range missiles to pulverise targets deep inside Russian territory. This would allow it to strike air bases which are used to launch devastating and indiscriminate attacks against Ukraine.

The current restrictions on Ukraine using Western long-range missiles – imposed amid fears of provoking the Kremlin – are iniquitous and show timidity.

However, the mood is changing as both the US and UK have accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of escalating the war by seeking missiles from Iran.

Allowing Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles would mark a major step up in capability, as they have a range of more than 155 miles. By contrast, the US-supplied Himars missiles currently being used have a range of just 50 miles. A longer-range capability would enable Ukrainian pilots to remain further from the front lines, as missiles such as Storm Shadow would penetrate much deeper inside Russian territory.

Storm Shadow is a precision-guided cruise missile with a maximum range of up to 200 miles. It has a multi-stage warhead with the initial detonation used to destroy bunkers. The main warhead is controlled by a delayed fuse which destroys whatever is being protected inside a fortified position.

It is “air-launched” and can be released from a safe distance. It travels at a low altitude to avoid radar detection and uses an infra-red seeker to latch on to its target. In May 2023, the UK confirmed it had donated a number of the missiles to Ukraine – but with the proviso that they only be used on Russian targets on Ukrainian sovereign territory.

Ukraine’s president wants Storm Shadow to destroy airfields and command and control centres deep inside Russia. President Zelensky needs to eradicate the threat posed by Russian glide bombs; he wants to strike wherever the aircraft that carry them are based. An accurate, long-range missile arsenal could also directly target Russian supply lines into eastern Ukraine and through territory surrounding Kursk province, which Ukrainian soldiers have successfully penetrated and defended.

However, the view in Washington and, to a lesser extent in London, has been precautionary. Permitting Storm Shadow to be used against targets deep inside Russia could be perceived as escalatory. The US and UK would much prefer to encourage Ukraine and Russia to reach a negotiated settlement. They would prefer, too, for Ukraine to develop its own long-range missiles, thereby avoiding further potential Western fallout with the Kremlin.

Financial reasons are also a significant factor. At £2million each, Storm Shadows aren’t cheap. Supply of them is far from infinite and Ukraine would likely use up the missiles in a short time. Also, they contain highly sensitive technologies which, should the Russians obtain them, could reduce the strategic effectiveness of Storm Shadow in the future.

Mr Blinken has said the United States is adapting to change, including how conditions on the battlefield are changing. With Russia having acquired Iranian ballistic missiles, this must surely be justification for the US to lift its restrictions. Ukraine has the right to defend itself. Nonetheless, complicating matters is that the Biden presidency has only months to run, with Donald Trump making clear he will push for a settlement in days if he wins the November election. Any such deal would likely require Ukraine to concede territory.

So, Kyiv must hold on to as much ground as it can, including areas it occupies in southern Russia. It is now or never for Storm Shadow to make a difference.

Standard