Labour's 1997 historic majority led to Afghanistan and Iraq, but a war in Europe is a different cup of tea

 

Tony Blair / Prime Minister

Labour's historic majority in 1997 led straight to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Years later, we face the prospect of yet another war - although much more catastrophic if it ever happens.

In one of his initial appearances, Keir Starmer told the country and the world that he will allow the use of British weapons to attack the Russian Federation.

No interpretation needed. It is all too clear in which direction the wind is blowing.

And this is the same Labour Leader that opposed National Service. When conscription letters arrive telling young untrained men and women that they have to fight a war, I wonder what the public response will be.

Be assured that Keir Starmer will have no hesitation in terms of sending untrained British citizens to war, because reality tells that the British Armed Forces have been severely weaknened and do not have the manpower nor the equipment for any long term war.

It is not secret that Britain as well as other NATO countries expect that the USA will send young Americans to the slaughter house to defend European countries that have been entirely negligent when it comes to compliance of NATO Article 3 that demands that each member has to be able to defend itself.

Britain has done very little to beef up its Armed Forces. In fact, the now former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps could hardly explain why what he called an increase in defense expenditure was what actually a reduction in real terms. He couldn't because it was a reduction.

British morale is at an all time low affecting recruitment. Reports about more than 64% of those serving members of the Armed Forces living in substandard accommodation do not help. Let's see what Keir Starmer has to say about beefing up the Armed Forces because if he does not pay attention to the Armed Forces then we will know that all the rhetoric is based on thin air. 

Britain: What happens after the General Election? The package of promises falls apart when confronted with reality.

 

A few days ago came the news that life for 4 million people in the UK will turn into a nightmare if they don´t manage to regularize their visas turning paper visas into digital visas. 4 million people? How much can the state apparatus do from now until 31 December 2024? 

How many people are needed to locate and process 4 millon visas in such a short period? But this is a minute dot in terms of things that will need to be done. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has formally committed a new Labour government to increase salaries across the entire public sector and Unions are already on a war footing to keep the now Shadow Chacellor of the Exchequer accountable.

The promise about getting rid of Zero Hour Contracts might erode even more public services in an attempt to improve working conditions in the UK and the effect in the private sector must not be underestimated. Faced with the prospect of having to issue regular contracts with all legal requirements, both the public sector and the private sector will struggle.

Grant Shapps as Defence Secretary has been struggling to explain where he is going to find more than 70 billion Pound to beef up the Armed Forces. The same questions will be asked to a new Defense Secretary since Grant Shapps has publicly acknowledged that he believes that the Conservative Party will lose the General Election.

The clock is ticking and many of the faces we see today as symbols of power and decision making will vanish and probably soon to be forgotten. Should announcements made about critical issues be postponed until we know who is going to be in command? Whatever the present authorities say today could be absolutely irrelevant in a few days time. It is a tradition that a new Parliament is not bound to follow what the outgoing Parliament decides.

With a new Parliament, today´s points of reference will vanish. There will be a new political reality. Rachel Reeves has already announced that there will be a new relationship with the European Union. Does this mean the end of Brexit? Reform´s campaign might have a lot to do not with destroying the Conservative Party but with assurances regarding the present relationship with the European Union. the irony is that freedom from any budgetary restrictions gives Britain the necessary flexibility to increase public deficits. We known what happened with the ERM, precursor of the EURO. Will a government headed by Keir Starmer want to fall into the same trap John Major and his government were in before finally deciding to step out of the ERM? What did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown avoid joining the EURO? Precisely because of what happened with the ERM?  

  

Keir Starmer: Labour has changed. No rise of Income Tax or National Insurance?

 

There was a candidate in times past standing for election in Latin America. He said that he was going to build roads that could allow motorists to save money. The brilliant idea, he said, was to build one side of the roads going upwards and the other side of the roads going downwards.

Massive investment in salaries in the public sector and in Welfare without spending a penny? Somebody will have to pay for it.

'Read my lips', was the catch phrase of President George Bush Sr.

Monies for salaries and welfare will have come from somewhere - either from borrowing or from higher taxes or from both borrowing and higher taxes. There is no way out. Father Christmas promises will not do. Public budgets will have to be financed with sound economics or we will end up having Britain as the new Slough or the new Birmingham. What was the emergency measure approved for Bimingham? A rise of Council Tax to try to shore up a bankrupt authority that, in spite of tax rises, was forced to stop offering vital services.

We are at a crosswords. Grant Shapps made promises about defense that cannot be delivered - not even by cutting down other vital sectors of the administration. The fact remains that Britain is unfit for war because Britain does no longer have the industries that supported strong military capabilities. But things are a lot worse than that. In a country with more than 60 million people, the numbers of those serving in the Armed Forces are below 70,000 and those capable and fit enough for combat are far below than that. So the Conservative proposal in terms of bringing in National Service are not just a realistic solution, but the only solution available. Keir Starmer should be asked about how you can fight a war without Armed Forces.

 

War Readiness: Where is the money? Where is the infra-structure?

The debate in the House of Commons about Britain's readiness to go to war with few of the theoretical 650 MPs in attendance was quite elighhtening about the real state of the British Armed Forces. Britain is spending 2.1% of its budget in Defense and given the present situation in terms of being really and trully ready for any massive conflict, the amount to be spent would be not less than 15% and this includes cutting down the budget for health, education and other areas of the British budget. To put it mildly, it would be really and truly impossible.

So all the statements made by the British Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet are a lot of hot air, a pretense that is not based on real possibilities.

George Galloway and the SNP told things as they are. The total number of members of the Armed Forces could be put in Wembley Stadium. Britain has no real war industries. The Armed Forces are not only facing a recruitment crisis generated in part by British foreign policy, but also by the way Britain treats those who dare to become members of the Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, such a debate did not make headlines for the BBC, Sky News or any other mass media that keep broadcasting incessantly the pretense statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defense and others. Nobody is asking questions that should be asked in the country as whole. At times, it feels like very few people care about it. 

Grant Shapps: More white elephants instead of beefing up British Armed Forces

 

New white elephant projets announced while British Armed Forces suffer from lack basic investment and have a manpower crisis.

Systematically, one administration after another has been underinvesting in the British Armed Forces. On top of an endemic lack of manpower caused by recruitment issues, Britain has permanently underestimated the need to raise standards and support for the Armed Forces. Instead, Britain persists in its efforts to repeat the experiences of the Euro Fighter or facing ridiculous situations like the construction of aircraft carriers that had to go without aircraft or had to be returning to port because of technical defficiences. Britain does not have not even enough ships to protect its own territorial waters. Just a few weeks ago, the British Prime Minister had to announced that it was abandoning plans to deliver what was promised in terms of transport infra-structure.

The construction of stealth aircraft that will not be stealth aircraft produces headlines for people to congratulate themselves but it does not improve National Security.

Once again, huge amounts of money that will have to taken out of the public budget (or borrowed) will be thrown away. In the meantime, the country will be struggling to borrow at rising rates of interest. Fancy projects will not make Britain more safer.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt not standing as MP in 2024?

 

The political life of an administration is directly linked to two people: The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The role played by Jeremy Hunt in the Conservative administration is a major role. We are a few months away of a crucial General Election and the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as main actor when it comes to implement economic policy can make or break a government long before a General Election. When Jeremy Hunt indicates that he might leave the Cabinet even before the General Election and/or that he will not be standing as Member of Parliament in 2024 sends shockwaves. He is basically cutting the branch of the tree on which British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is standing. Jeremy Hunt's calculations about not wanting to end his career with an electoral defeat show how little he trusts his own position and most importantly shows that he does not believe that there is going to be a Conservative government after the General Election. This is devastating. 

It must be said that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has of recent spent a lot of time trying to fix the rest of the world and paying little attention to what is happening in Britain. Money is flocking away from Britain and when it came to a major project the word 'cancellation' was supposed to be countered with veiled announcement about hypothetical transport projects that have not even been considered. The Prime Minister cancelled a project that was already underway and all the work done at a cost of billions of Pound is therefore abandoned. All the monies already invested and all the jobs that were generated are going to be thrown into the bin to be classified as yet more waste. We tried to sweeten the pill by promising a Paradise made up of new transport projects that he knows that he will not be able to deliver because he might not be able to stay as Prime Minister beyond the next General Election. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put an end to something real and promised thin air in exchange.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has disarmed Britain by sending abroad equipment and resources that cannot be easily replaced. For many years, the British Armed Forces have been disadvantaged and even when it came to pay in the public budget the British Armed Force came last. On the one hand, you see speeches full of aggressive language and on the other hand you see the realities of the British Armed Forces. 

Education? Transport? Health? Public Safety? Immigration? When we should see improvements we see undeliverable promises and scandals of all sorts. 

But one has to be fair and in fairness he could not do more because of the realities of the Conservative Party that ended up with a Prime Minister that was not elected by the Electorate and was not even elected by voting members of the Conservative Party. He couldn't possibly be a strong Prime Minister because he has no power base apart from the support he got as Member of Parliament. The fact that none other than his own Chancellor of the Exchequer is throwing the towel tells you that it is game over. In the end, where are the heavyweights of the Conservative Party?

We have got a Secretary for Defence - Grant Shapps - that believes that being the descendant of people who suffered persecution in Europe 70 or so years ago is a crucially important qualification to be Secretary for Defence. Never mind if he does not possess any specific qualification for the post as man in charge of dealing with the defense of the Realm. Where are the heavyweights? The real knower - Ben Wallace MP - not only resigned his post as Secretary for Defence. Ben Wallace MP also announced that he will not be standing for re-election in 2024.

We see cancellations, resignations and lack of expertise that blended with a profound lack of self-confidence are a perfect recipe for disaster.

   

United Kingdom: Prime Minister, what are you doing to prepare Britain for war?

 

Prime Minister, what are you doing to prepare Britain for war?

Never mind the speeches and the reschuffles. Never mind the change of faces in the Cabinet. What is the British Prime Minister actually doing to prepare Britain for war?

All we hear is about filling up Royal Air Force bases with illegal migrants caught in the Channel or setting up barges that might be a fire hazard.

All we hear is about sending equipment of dubious military value to a theatre of war that might be the Sarajevo of the Twenty-First Century. The last we heard from the British government was a minimal salary increase of about 5% for those serving in the British Armed Forces. We also heard about a Tank Project that resulted in failure after failure.

Rishi Sunak is an accountant. He is no war leader. He is not even a politician as he dropped into politics coming from the world of high finances without any military background or the capacity to understand what it means to lead a country at war. His counterpart, Keir Starmer, is no war leader either. He is a man who came from a legal background without any military background whatsoever. So even the presumed replacement does not know how to lead a country at war.

All we hear is bla, bla, bla at NATO meetings that are no more than social gatherings including some failed Secretaries of State ie Ursula von der Leyen, the enemy of the German Armed Forces. As Defense Secretary she was atrocious to the point that many in Germany celebrated the fact that she was appointed President of the European Commission. 

The one man that knew something about war left the Cabinet. Ben Wallace MP was a military man with a military career and he knew what he was talking about, but he was dismissed by an old man with diminishing intellectual capabilities called Joe Biden. In fact, when there was talk about considering possible candidates, Joe Biden personally dismissed Ben Wallace MP and he did not want him not even as a possible candidate. Who replaced Ben Wallace MP. Grant Shapps MP, a man whose profund knowledge can be summarized as 'my family escaped from National Socialist Germany'. Being the descendant of people persecuted by National Socialist Germany is no proven skill in military matters that involve preparing a country for war.

UK: In the midst of a crisis, Britain replaces Defence Secretary

In the midst of crisis, a man with a solid military career and proven record is out and a man with little or no knowledge of military matters steps in. Just a few weeks ago when there was talk about a new NATO Secretary General, the then British Secretary for Defense Ben Wallace MP was rejected outright by President Joe Biden that vetoed him pushing him out of the selection process for NATO Secretary General even before the process started.

At this point, a exchange of words between Ben Wallace and Volodomir Zelensky was made public. Ben Wallace told the Ukrainian President that 'Britain is no Amazon'. Not many hours passed when Ben Wallace himself stated that if there was a reshuffle he would not remain as member of the Cabinet and that he would not be standing for re-election at the next General Election. Now, as the reshuffle went ahead, Ben Wallace resigned to be replaced by Grant Shapps, a man with no military career, no rapport within the military and little knowledge of what being Secretary for Defense implies.  

Grant Shapps

And all this is happening, when US nuclear weapons are returning to the United Kingdom to be placed in various RAF locations and work is well underway since the Pentagon was given the monies for such a huge and dangerous endeavour. Let us remember that the American government has now less overseeing of where the monies go and that budget controls have been 'relaxed'. In the military there is an expression: fire at will. 

Ben Wallace

Ben Wallace is not a 'Yes' man. Perhaps this was the reason for his demise. Grant Shapps might be more maleable. There is another English expression: 'Ignorance is bliss'. Don't see, don't talk, don't listen. If the situation gets worse on the battefront, the present British govenrment will find itself with more that it can chew. The British Armed Forces are literally no existing. For decades, they have been downgraded both in terms of equipment and of manpower. A politician might end up asking the Armed Forces to do more than they can actually do and Britain as whole will be in jeopardy.