Starmer is determined to let the sun set on Britain, regardless of what we think

In October last year I was trying not to cut myself shaving when Tony Blair's former Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, popped onto the radio to talk about the Chagos Islands and why the UK should surrender them to Mauritius. That is, just why the British taxpayer should pay billions to give their own territory away to a third country thousands of miles away from the strategic archipelago (not even its neighbour), and which – in all the complex and intriguing history of those islands – had never ruled over them for so much as half an hour.
Refashioned by the Blairite recycling facility as Keir Starmer's National Security Adviser, Powell had been appointed 'Special Envoy' to negotiate with the Mauritius Government: an ominous early warning from the Labour administration. With the world on fire, were there not more pressing matters to resolve in the foreign policy file?
Asked whether such a giveaway would make Britain 'smaller', Powell – the man responsible for advising on the United Kingdom's national security – replied with patrician disdain: 'These are very tiny islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean where no one actually goes, so I don't think we should be too worried about losing that bit of territory we're probably losing more to tidal erosion on the east coast'.
This most sophisticated of Starmer's political operatives had let the mask slip (not to mention my razor). That comment – and the Chagos giveaway in general – reveals the government's real agenda in foreign and defence policy: Starmer is determined to use his enormous power to shrink the UK's influence and global reach.
It's the same old self-limiting – even self-harming – policy all too often promoted by the British elite (of any party). Confusing our allies, and letting down those – like the Chagossians – who honestly seek British protection. How revealing that Powell chose coastal erosion as his metaphor. Isn't that precisely how Starmer and his ilk sees British power and influence: pre-destined to an endless, unstoppable erosion, like the disappearance of a coastal shelf? A Britain forever gradually shrinking in global affairs.
In a literal sense, of course, Powell was correct. These are a group of very tiny islands – but the most significant is Diego Garcia, which houses a joint US-UK military base – for the use of which we now must pay billions. A base bristling with vital surveillance equipment, a place to park bombers and submarines in range of the Indo-Pacific; until yesterday, a little piece of Britain in the most contested strategic domain on earth. Yes it's true that not many people actually go – you were very unlikely to have met anyone who had ever visited British Indian Ocean Territory – most of them are at the more secret end of the UK's armed forces. Wasn't that the point?
You could not visit the islands without a permit also because the territory was an almost unspoilt conservation zone, with one of the largest protected marine science areas in the world, unique stocks of coral reefs, and some very endangered turtles. Under the strict bylaws, drawn up by world-class ecological experts in the Foreign Office – you couldn't take so much as a can of fizzy drink onto one of the islands without properly accounting for it. Starmer has spoiled all that. Why?
No country thinks the value of its territory has anything to do with its size or population density. No Prime Minister approaches sovereignty according to the Powell doctrine. And notwithstanding the Government's vile treatment of the Chagossians – who have legitimate grievances but have been excluded from its process – I'm not sure it's really about that either. Starmer's deal is simply a deliberate choice to lessen the UK's global reach. Deep down, Starmer is not concerned with the intricacies of the Chagossian story, access to the electromagnetic spectrum, or the threat of international courts. He simply believes in creating a smaller, less globally assertive United Kingdom.
This deal is a signal to the closely watching world that under his leadership Britain is likely to pull out of its commitments – and can be forced out of deeply historic ones. It is a sign to every international negotiator that the British taxpayer can be taken to the cleaners, and to every international lawyer that they need only raise the threat of a spurious claim and Britain might blink. The only positive I can find is that younger British leaders coming through on the Right all hate it – and many of them are working on reversing the erosion.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Statesman​

30 minutes ago

• New Statesman​

Should Labour copy the Danish Social Democrats on migration?

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. Photo by Omer Messinger / Getty Images Years before Keir Starmer's 'Nation of Strangers' speech I found myself on the doors at Labour's ill-fated Hartlepool By-Election campaign. A front row seat to the new leader's Labour Party and its floundering first steps in pro-Brexit Britain. Joining a slim team (made up entirely of Labour Party staff bussed in from the North West) I marched around the kind of council estates that were once reliable Labour strongholds. An inexplicably cold Spring afternoon with a colder welcome waiting behind each door. A series of hairdryer-strength rants about how the party had abandoned Hartlepudlians. Bafflement about taking the knee for Black Lives Matter. In an attempt to sell a changed Labour to one resident, a middle aged man in an England shirt. Whether he liked the new, patriotic flag-toting leaflets we were handing out. He mimed spitting on the floor in front of me, then spoke about how the Labour council had closed the local police station. The vacuity of Labour's new offer was palpable then, with Starmer still speaking mostly to Westminster press corps about how he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn. Little to say about the economic system that had left Hartlepool as one of Britain's child poverty hotspots. It was that teachable moment, encountering the pure disdain for Labour in one of Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods, that led me to wonder whether the left really was completely doomed, or whether another left wing party had turned the dire situation faced by Labour around. Enter Mette Fredriksen. In Denmark, Fredrikson's Social Democratic Party (SDP) was celebrated for leading her party back to government after beating the populist, hardcore anti-immigration Danish People's Party (DPP) – a rough analogue to Reform. By the mid 2010s, DPP were the second largest party in Denmark, largely drawing their support from rural, manual workers and pensioners. Stymying this flow of voters and returning them to the left is a miracle of European politics. A case for left-wing beatification. Denmark has become the laboratory for any left politician wondering how to win back the type of voter that used to be their most loyal. Frederikson's party has returned, aggressively, to the traditions of the social democratic covenant. In everything they do there's an emphasis that trust and integration are paramount; a prerequisite for any redistributive politics to exist. This pathos would be familiar to anyone who had knocked a voter's door in one of the post-industrial red wall towns, like Hartlepool, that have emerged as globalisation's marked losers in the winnowed field of British life. In these areas there is a longing for the sense of being knitted together by societal norms, values and friendships that has gone missing. In their place; a country where the state seems to exist as a mechanism to help someone else – someone that you feel little sense of shared endeavour with – first, if it ever gets around to helping you. Frederikson's gambit has been to restore the legitimacy of left politics through forced assimilation: either the population becomes more incontestably Danish or the social democratic tradition dies like an unwatered plant. In the front page of the SDP's 2018 strategy pamphlet Just and Realistic she appears above a quote reading 'You are not a bad person because you do not want to see your country fundamentally changed. And you are not naive because you want to help other people live a better life.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This last chance saloon mentality led to dramatic policy shifts – significantly more coercive than any in the recent Labour tradition – paired with a language of morality and a sense of self-belief that contrasts the more apologetic tone and secrecy of Starmer's Labour. The Danes do not try to debate immigration with their working class voters. They spend their political capital at elections on arguing successfully for traditional left policy – increasing public spending in a society where 88 percent of voters are happy paying some of the highest taxes in the world. Could Frederiksen's example help Labour's least popular Prime Minister in generations? Could it help him win again in those white majority, working class areas the party is currently projected to lose to Reform in 2029? Where Labour needs to be careful is not to re-enact the same decade-long mistake it made with the wholesale adoption of the identity politics of America – without checking its relevance to Britain. The Danish political debate on immigration and multiculturalism orbits around the 'Ghetto Package' of 2018. Introduced by the right, Frederiksen's winning coalition of 2019 continued the policy with few adjustments, save it being renamed the 'Parallel Society Act.' The Act empowers the government to designate areas 'vulnerable' where they exhibit a mix of factors related to a lack of education, low incomes and higher than average crime rates. People that might in a less PC-era have been referred to as 'the poor'. There's a further factor common to all the 'vulnerable' areas – most of their residents are officially designated as 'Non-Western'. This group includes migrants from South America, Asia and Africa and their children. A cynic might argue that 'South America' is included in the list in order to muddy the waters on whether the policy is ethnically-targeted and discriminatory, something the European Court of Justice will decide later this year. When an estate receives the 'vulnerable residential area' designation, sanctions are enacted. The owning housing association or municipality must reduce the number of social housing units in its stock to 40 percent. Participation in crime becomes collectively and more harshly punished, with an entire family liable to be evicted for a crime committed by a relative. Since the act came into effect thousands of social homes have been lost. While thousands were sold to private investment firms, multiples more have simply been demolished. Thousands of families have been evicted, 11,000 are expected to be moved on by the time of the programme's end in 2030. The effect on Denmark's overall stock of social housing is small and the 'ghetto laws' apply to a comparatively small amount of that population, less than 1 percent. However, it is hard not to see these punitive measures mostly as a means to make an example of communities based on their ethnic heritage. The accompanying, much-maligned policy of taking assets from refugees had only ever been applied in four recorded cases by 2022. These are policies designed to make an example in rhetoric more than they are designed to make progress with integration into Danish values. What could Labour learn from Frederiksen's success? Could the party create its own equivalent vision equivalent to 'Just and Realistic'? Not a 'Nation of Strangers' but a more positive and hopeful proposition, that showed a belief in Danish society's ability to absorb and overcome its issues, so long as everyone feels a sense of shared purpose? Any leader of the left today must be able to face up to the collapsing consensus of the liberal political era, acknowledge the difficult reality between the politically convenient myths, as Denmark did. Among those myths; most parties of the Left in the Western World are parties of the working class. They aren't. Most have spent a generation haemorrhaging working class support and members. Further, after a rate of migration outpacing the rate of housebuilding for a parliament, the majority of the public thinks immigration levels are too high. Especially so those in the left-behind areas that notionally left wing parties should feel a natural compassion and solidarity toward. Another myth is that a multicultural society leads to integration by default. We are beginning to see parallel societies in England – as evidenced by the exceptionally poor levels of English spoken in places like Leicester, a recipe for pariah status. Alongside this, the emergence of a form of politics that votes along ethnic, racial and religious lines more so than by ideology. It is difficult to imagine the kind of cultural chauvinism whereby Danes see their society as superior taking root in Britain, but it's exactly this that leads to both their approval of high taxation, high trust and to their unforgiving focus on integration. But just like we are not America, we are not Denmark. Danish ghettos are a result of the country's quietly unacknowledged, decades long, nativist approach to housing. In the supposedly liberal nordic countries, Asian and African migrants and asylum seekers have been pushed into conurbations of undesirable housing and became second-class citizens. The Danish Left has been more forthcoming than Britain about the effects of this ghettoisation, phlegmatic when it comes to publishing the racial details of criminality and working backwards from the numbers. But Britain, by contrast, has not developed a culture of sublimating morality to statistics and that is a strength – Britain loves a triumph over the odds, we give second chances. At no point in history was there a working class life that wouldn't be doomed by quick statistical contextual rundown. Britain has done significantly better, historically, in creating a country where migrants contribute and become part of the country's social fabric. Contrary to the dominant liberal left view of Britain as an avowedly racist country that has barely moved on from the 50s, the most diverse areas of Britain are the most socially mobile. Almost every ethnic group out-performs white working class children at school. We have fewer 'ghettos'. Our housing policies have largely mixed social tenants with private tenants in the same estates. It's almost certain that Britain would never tolerate a racialised idea of a person as 'non-western'. If applied as in Denmark, this label would encompass the former Prime Minister, celebrities like Mo Farah, Linford Christie, Idris Elba, Bernadine Evaristo and the Reform chairman Zia Yusuf. Most of all, it would be an enormous mistake to interpret the SDP's success as solely oriented around issues of immigration. By 2022 the issue had largely fallen away from Danish political debate, with only the rump of Danish Democrats (the DPP successor party) still citing it as one of their main political motivations. Frederiksen had succeeded in neutralising the issue, but she had won on a platform of reducing cuts to social welfare and maintaining taxes much higher than in Britain. Her voters in 2022 placed welfare as their highest priority. Labour, boxed in by fiscal rules and an unwillingness to make the case for taxation, is about to enact the biggest cuts to social security since the coalition. Where Frederiksen did truly excel was in leading her party openly and authentically into this new era. Starmer has so far chosen to hold this conversation in the back offices of Labour HQ, ignoring his party's members, winning consent to lead with a fake mandate. Now, trailing in the polls, time has run out for back room meddling. Labour needs its own reckoning. Related

Spectator

43 minutes ago

• Spectator

Is Britain ready to defend itself against Iranian reprisals?

Operation Midnight Hammer, America's air and missile strikes against Iran at the weekend, did not involve the United Kingdom. Although the Prime Minister was informed of the military action in advance, there was not, so far as we know, any request from the United States for British approval, participation or support, and Sir Keir Starmer continues to call for a de-escalation of the conflict. There had been a great deal of suggestion that the UK might be drawn into action against Iran. The most likely scenario was thought to be a request from Washington to use Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, the maritime and air base America leases from Britain in the Chagos Islands, for the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers which struck the nuclear facility at Fordow. In the end, the aircraft conducted their attack from their usual home at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri – but this is not an irrefutable alibi which will be accepted by the régime in Tehran. We should not imagine that such a 'crisis or conflict' is in the far-distant future Decades of standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the Middle East with the United States means that Britain is seen as America's close and almost inevitable ally in the region. Our participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 set the pattern in that regard. For Iran's leadership, however, Britain has a special and outsized villainy: it has not been forgotten that the United Kingdom was the driving force behind what it called Operation Boot and the CIA referred to as TP-AJAX, the overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in August 1953 to protect the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This means that when Iran now threatens retaliation for the US strikes at the weekend, Britain and British interests are effectively on the front line. The Defence Secretary, John Healey, announced on social media on Sunday that: The safety of UK personnel and bases is my top priority. Force protection is at its highest level, and we deployed additional jets this week. There is no shortage of British targets in the Middle East for Iran to strike at. The UK naval support facility in Bahrain is the base for Operation Kipion, the long-standing air and maritime security mission in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, the UK joint logistics support base in Oman has a dry dock large enough to accommodate the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and the Omani-British joint training area provides the British Army with a base for expeditionary warfare. There are also RAF units stationed at Al Udeid air base in Qatar and growing facilities at Donnelly Lines at Al Minhad air base in the United Arab Emirates. Slightly further afield, British Forces Cyprus, more than 10,000 military and civilian personnel, occupy sites across the UK sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus; since the current crisis between Israel and Iran began nearly two weeks ago, additional assets have been deployed so that there are now 14 Typhoon aircraft based at RAF Akrotiri. The government must think wider still. Last week's attack by Palestine Action agitators at RAF Brize Norton has proved that military installations in the UK are not immune from international events. There is also the threat of potential Russian espionage against sites in Britain where Ukrainian military personnel were being trained. Iran is a much diminished military power, but we must still regard its reach as global: Saturday's protest march in London by supporters of the blood-drenched Tehran theocracy proved that the Islamic Republic finds no shortage of useful idiots. What the activities of Palestine Action at RAF Brize Norton also demonstrated was that the security of military facilities is inadequate. The recent Strategic Defence Review warned of 'attacks on the Armed Forces in the UK and on overseas bases' and advised that the Ministry of Defence must 'have additional capabilities for the protection of bases and CNI [critical national infrastructure] in the event of crisis or conflict'. We should not imagine that such a 'crisis or conflict' is in the far-distant future; indeed, it may already have arrived. Last week anti-Israel activists were able to breach the perimeter at Brize Norton, ride electric scooters across the runway and damage two of the RAF's 14 Voyager tanker aircraft at a potential cost of £30 million, in addition to compromising the immediate capability of the armed forces. The government has ordered a review of security, and that must be urgent and comprehensive. The UK is vulnerable. This is not news, or should not be, but we have preferred to ignore it until recently. The likelihood of Iran seeking to retaliate against the United States and its allies merely focuses the mind. The government needs to establish what additional protection military bases at home and abroad reqrequire and how it can be provided – and then it must get on and do it. This cannot wait for quieter times. The front line is everywhere.

Wales Online

an hour ago

• Wales Online

UK nationals told to prepare for emergency flights home

UK nationals told to prepare for emergency flights home People are being told to make contact with the government to make sure they are registered UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer The Prime Minister has urged British nationals in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to make contact with the Foreign Office as it prepares for an evacuation flight. It comes after the US attacked three nuclear sites in Iran overnight and Tehran then launched a ballistic missile barrage against Israel. Speaking to Sky News, Sir Keir Starmer said: 'I urge all citizens to make contact with the Foreign Office so that we can facilitate whatever support is needed.' He added that the Government will help evacuate British citizens on charter flights 'as soon as we can'. ‌ Sir Keir said: 'Well for British citizens, we've been saying for some time to register their presence. And so far as Israel is concerned, just as soon as we can get charter flights off, we will do so.' ‌ The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has continued to urge British nationals to register their details and interest in evacuation flights, the first of which it said will take off early next week. It said further flights 'will be considered depending on demand and the latest security situation'. According to the Israeli Government, some 22,000 tourists are seeking to board evacuation flights. It is unclear how many of these are UK citizens. British nationals who have already registered will automatically be contacted and provided with a link to the booking portal, the FCDO said. Those eligible for the flight will be expected to pay for their seat – and payment will be taken on registration on the flight booking form. The FCDO added that those with 'greatest need' will be prioritised, and British nationals plus their non-British immediate family members travelling with them are eligible. Article continues below All passengers must hold a valid travel document, and those non-British immediate family members will require valid visas/permission to enter or remain that was granted for more than six months, the FCDO said. The UK has been working on charter flights for Britons in Israel but none have so far taken off as the country's airspace has been closed. Business Secretary Jonathon Reynolds told Sky News on Sunday morning: 'We are in active conversations about chartering aircraft to get people out.' Asked if that will happen imminently, Mr Reynolds said: 'I believe our intention would be to do that as soon as possible… hours, not days.' ‌ Meanwhile, shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel told Times Radio the UK 'must not be behind the curve' in evacuating its nationals. "The Government's got to start moving fast now in terms of British nationals in Israel,' Dame Priti said. 'They've been talking about this for days… Israeli airspace is shut down. The Americans are ready to evacuate 25,000 US nationals — we must not be behind the curve.' On Sunday evening, Ireland's deputy premier Simon Harris said 15 Irish citizens had been evacuated from Israel. He said the group will arrive in Ireland in the coming days after being evacuated with the help of the Austrian government. The FCDO has warned British nationals not to make their way to the airport unless they are contacted. ‌ A spokesperson said: 'This is a perilous and volatile moment for the Middle East. The safety of British nationals in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories continues to be our utmost priority – that's why the UK Government is preparing flights to help those wanting to leave. 'Working closely with the Israeli authorities, our staff are continuing to work at pace to assist British nationals on the ground and ensure they receive the support they need.' Commercial flights remain in operation from Egypt and Jordan to the UK, and international land border crossings to these countries remain open. The FCDO said the situation 'remains volatile' and the Government's ability to run flights out of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 'could change at short notice'. Article continues below The portal to register presence in Israel as a Briton is available at: