Adam Boulton: Tories trying to open election divide over defence, but Sir Keir Starmer says he is not Jeremy ‘Stop the War’ Corbyn
We have been warned. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pre-election pitch to voters this week was to place the nation on “war footing”.
On a lightning visit to Poland and Germany, countries redolent of bloody war in Europe, he announced “a completely funded plan” to raise annual UK defence spending to 2.5% of national income over the next five to six years.
Twenty-five years ago this week another UK prime minister also had war fighting on his mind.
Ukraine-Russia war latest: Kyiv moves US tanks away from frontlines after ‘hunter-killer drone’ attacks
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Fully funded’ defence plan
Tony Blair flew to the US to deliver one of the defining speeches of his 10 years in power. His immediate task was to persuade a reluctant President Bill Clinton to commit to NATO’s defence of Kosovo against Serbian aggression.
He set it in the context of a broader ideology which became known as “humanitarian” or “liberal interventionism”.
“We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not,” he told the Chicago Economic Club gathered in a dingy hotel ballroom – and a global TV audience. “We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure.”
The contrast in tone is stark between Mr Blair’s positive argument for the use of force in some circumstances and Mr Sunak’s urgent plea that “we must do more to defend our country, our interests and our values”.
The UK’s military options have darkened and narrowed since April 1999. A point encapsulated by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps when he observed our times have moved “from post-war to pre-war”.
Mr Blair was speaking during what some called the “unipolar moment” when the US was considered to be the only global superpower, 10 years before the Iron Curtain had come down, heralding the collapse of the Soviet Union.
China seemed to be anxious to join in the world order which had been established by the Western democracies since 1945. In what were essentially wars of choice, the UK had successfully projected its forces to liberate the Falkland Islands and Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces had been ejected from Kuwait.
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Pic: Reuters
Blair’s view not vindicated by subsequent events
Mr Blair’s Chicago speech celebrated that “our armed forces have been busier than ever – delivering humanitarian aid, deterring attacks on defenceless people, backing up UN resolutions and occasionally engaging in major wars”.
His view was shared by the then United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan who had suggested UN articles could be re-examined to permit more “interventions” in an interdependent world.
British troops in Afghanistan
British soldiers in Kuwait. Pics: PA
For many Mr Blair’s world view was not vindicated by subsequent events.
There was widespread support for the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks on America in 2001, but the UN did not endorse George W Bush and Mr Blair’s expansion of the war on terror to invade Iraq.
In both cases, the interventions did not achieve their long-term aims and left behind destabilised, undemocratic countries. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, British forces failed to fulfil the military objectives which had been set for them.
British soldiers patrol Helmand province in Afghanistan. Pic: Reuters
Tony Blair meets British troops in Basra, Iraq. Pic: PA
Scepticism about intervention
By 2010 there was no public support in the UK or US for “boots on the ground” when instability spread to Libya and Syria, although some aerial operations continued.
In 2013 scepticism about intervention was so great the House of Commons effectively vetoed a missile response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict.
When Mr Blair spoke in Chicago the so-called “peace dividend” had already been claimed.
Defence spending was down from the 4% of GNP (gross national product) it had been during the Falklands war and when the Berlin Wall fell. UK defence spending however was still comfortably above the 2% target expected of NATO members.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM: ‘We cannot be complacent’
Pessimism growing around UK’s ability to defend itself
Since the credit crunch of 2007/8, our defence spending has plunged close to that NATO minimum. Mr Sunak’s announcement would only increase defence spending to the level of the Blair years.
Overall since the year 2000, the number of people employed in the British military has been cut by 30%, heading from 134,000 to 72,000 next year. The army has not been this small since the Napoleonic Wars of the 1800s.
Pessimism has grown about the UK’s diminishing armed forces and our ability to defend ourselves.
In a major report this year MPs on the cross-party Defence and Security Committee reported: “The government risks being unable to build true warfighting and strategic readiness because of the sheer pace of operations, which could threaten the security of the UK. All three services have growing capability shortfalls.”
British troops take part in a NATO peacekeeping patrol along the Kosovo-Serbia border. Pic: Reuters
UK ‘no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force’
There was an outcry when the last defence secretary, Ben Wallace, revealed a senior US general told him this country “is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force”.
He and his deputy, the armed forces minister James Heappey, have endorsed Mr Sunak’s plan but they are both quitting politics and believe spending should go up further than 2.5%.
Top generals claim the army is becoming too small to fulfil its functions. A former head of the British Army, Sir Patrick Sanders, has called for a significant expansion of civilian “reserve” forces.
Manpower is not everything. Advanced technology cuts the numbers needed and can enhance fighting capacity.
The UK is 29th in the world for the size of its military but rated sixth for its firepower, behind only the US, Russia, China, India and South Korea. Either way personnel and weapons cost money.
Rishi Sunak and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Pic: PA
Tories trying to open up election divide
The Conservatives are trying to open up an election dividing line with Labour over defence spending.
But Sir Keir Starmer has repeatedly stressed his patriotism and his commitment to the defence of the realm. He is not Jeremy “Stop the War” Corbyn.
The Labour leadership have said “we all want 2.5%” spending but they are refusing to confirm how and when it would be paid for unless and until they are in government.
Meanwhile, Mr Sunak’s spending plan has not convinced independent experts.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies doubts he could find the extra money for defence while still cutting taxes and without deep cuts in other spending.
Campaigning promises are perhaps easier to make when polling suggests the Conservatives are unlikely to have to pick up the pieces after winning the election.
George W Bush and Tony Blair. Pic: PA
Middle East events justify government choices about using armed forces
Convincing the electorate of the need to spend more on defence may not be too difficult for either Mr Sunak or Sir Keir.
In Chicago, Mr Blair seemed almost to be making a hypothetical case when he said: “We have learnt twice before in this century that appeasement does not work. If we let an evil dictator range unchallenged, we will have to spill infinitely more blood and treasure to stop him later.”
Awful as subsequent events have been in the Middle East, with hindsight they did justify indisputably the choices which UK governments made about using their armed forces.
Ukrainian soldiers during an exchange of prisoners of war
Ukrainian soldiers fire a mortar. Pics: Reuters
Being involved no longer a matter of choice
Now war has arrived again on European soil. Russia has launched an unprovoked attack on Ukraine and is issuing vicious threats against Ukraine’s allies including the UK.
As yet NATO members are holding back from joining in the fighting. Even so, military aid for Ukraine has placed significant demands on UK defence spending. Being involved is no longer a matter of choice.
Public opinion is preparing for the worst.
This year a majority of those questioned in this country, 53%, told YouGov they expect there will be another world war in the next five to 10 years.
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
British Steel declined to comment.
UK
Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway