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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:13
‘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”.
Advertisement
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.
Image: 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.
Image: British troops in Afghanistan
Image: 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.
Image: British soldiers patrol Helmand province in Afghanistan. Pic: Reuters
Image: 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
1:16
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.”
Image: 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.
Image: 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.
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.
Image: 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.
Image: Ukrainian soldiers during an exchange of prisoners of war
Image: 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.
A care worker who reported the alleged abuse of an elderly care home resident, which triggered a criminal investigation, is facing destitution and potential removal from Britain after speaking up.
“Meera”, whose name we have changed to protect her identity, said she witnessed an elderly male resident being punched several times in the back by a carer at the home where she worked.
Sky News is unable to name the care home for legal reasons because of the ongoing police investigation.
“I was [a] whistleblower there,” said Meera, who came to the UK from India last year to work at the home.
“Instead of addressing things, they fired me… I told them everything and they made me feel like I am criminal. I am not criminal, I am saving lives,” she added.
Image: ‘Meera’ spoke up about abuse she said she witnessed in the care home where she worked
Like thousands of foreign care workers, Meera’s employer sponsored her visa. Unless she can find another sponsor, she now faces the prospect of removal from the country.
“I am in trouble right now and no one is trying to help me,” she said.
More on Migrant Crisis
Related Topics:
Meera said she reported the alleged abuse to her bosses, but was called to a meeting with a manager and told to “change your statement, otherwise we will dismiss you”.
She refused. The following month, she was sacked.
The care home claimed she failed to perform to the required standard in the job.
She went to the police to report the alleged abuse and since then, a number of people from the care home have been arrested. They remain under investigation.
‘Migrants recruited because many are too afraid to speak out’
The home has capacity for over 60 residents. It is unclear if the care home residents or their relatives know about the police investigation or claim of physical abuse.
Since the arrests, the regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), carried out an investigation at the home triggered by the concerns – but the home retained its ‘good’ rating.
Meera has had no reassurance from the authorities that she will be allowed to remain in Britain.
In order to stay, she’ll need to find another care home to sponsor her which she believes will be impossible without references from her previous employer.
She warned families: “I just want to know people in care homes like these… your person, your father, your parents, is not safe.”
She claimed some care homes have preferred to recruit migrants because many are too afraid to speak out.
“You hire local staff, they know the legal rights,” she said. “They can complain, they can work anywhere… they can raise [their] voice,” she said.
Image: Sky’s Becky Johnson spoke to ‘Meera’
Sky News has reported widespread exploitation of care visas and migrant care workers.
Currently migrants make up around a third of the adult social care workforce, with the majority here on visas that are sponsored by their employers.
As part of measures announced in April in the government’s immigration white paper, the care visa route will be closed, meaning care homes will no longer be able to recruit abroad.
‘Whole system is based on power imbalance’
But the chief executive of the Work Rights Centre, a charity that helps migrants with employment issues, is warning that little will change for the tens of thousands of foreign care workers already here.
“The whole system is based on power imbalance and the government announcement doesn’t change that,” Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol told Sky News.
She linked the conditions for workers to poor care for residents.
Image: Work Rights Centre CEO Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol
“I think the power that employers have over migrant workers’ visas really makes a terrible contribution to the quality of care,” she said.
Imran agrees. He came to the UK from Bangladesh, sponsored by a care company unrelated to the one Meera worked for. He says he frequently had to work 14-hour shifts with no break because there weren’t enough staff. He too believes vulnerable people are being put at risk by the working conditions of their carers.
Migrant workers ‘threatened’ over visas
“For four clients, there is [a] minimum requirement for two or three staff. I was doing [it] alone,” he said, in broken English.
“When I try to speak, they just directly threaten me about my visa,” he said.
“I knew two or three of my colleagues, they are facing the same issue like me. But they’re still afraid to speak up because of the visa.”
A government spokesperson called what happened to Imran and Meera “shocking”.
“No one should go to work in fear of their employer, and all employees have a right to speak up if they witness poor practice and care.”
James Bullion, from the CQC, told Sky News it acts on intelligence passed to it to ensure people stay safe in care settings.
Donald Trump may be denied the honour of addressing parliament on his state visit to the UK later this year, with no formal request yet submitted for him to be given that privilege.
Sky News has been told the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, hasn’t so far received a request to invite the US president to speak in parliament when he is expected to visit in September.
It was confirmed to MPs who have raised concerns about the US president being allowed to address both houses.
Kate Osborne, Labour MP for Jarrow and Gateshead East, wrote to the speaker in April asking him to stop Mr Trump from addressing parliament, and tabled an early-day motion outlining her concerns.
“I was happy to see Macron here but feel very differently about Trump,” she said.
“Trump has made some very uncomfortable and worrying comments around the UK government, democracy, the Middle East, particularly around equalities and, of course, Ukraine.
“So, I think there are many reasons why, when we’re looking at a state visit, we should be looking at why they’re being afforded that privilege. Because, of course, it is a privilege for somebody to come and address both of the houses.”
But the timing of the visit may mean that any diplomatic sensitivities, or perceptions of a snub, could be avoided.
Image: France’s President Emmanuel Macron addressed parliament during his state visit this month
Lord Ricketts, a former UK ambassador to France, pointed out that parliament isn’t sitting for much of September, and that could help resolve the issue.
In 2017, he wrote a public letter questioning the decision to give Donald Trump his first state visit, saying it put Queen Elizabeth II in a “very difficult position”.
Parliament rises from 16 September until 13 October due to party conferences.
The dates for the state visit haven’t yet been confirmed by Buckingham Palace or the government.
However, they have not denied that it will take place in September, after Mr Trump appeared to confirm they were planning to hold the state visit that month. The palace confirmed this week that the formal planning for his arrival had begun.
With the King likely to still be in Scotland in early September for events such as the Braemar Gathering, and the anniversary of his accession and the death of Queen Elizabeth on the 8th September, it may be expected that the visit would take place sometime from mid to the end of September, also taking into consideration the dates of the Labour Party conference starting on the 28th September and possibly the Lib Dem’s conference from the 20th-23rd.
Image: Mr Trump has said he believes the trip to the UK will take place in September. Pic: Reuters
When asked about parliamentary recess potentially solving the issue, Ms Osborne said: “It may be a way of dealing with it in a very diplomatic way… I don’t know how much control we have over Trump’s diary.
“But if we can manoeuvre it in a way that means that the House isn’t sitting, then that seems like a good solution, maybe not perfect, because I’d actually like him to know that he’s not welcome.”
A message from the speaker’s office, seen by Sky News, says: “Formal addresses to both Houses of Parliament are not automatically included in the itinerary of such a state visit.
“Whether a foreign head of state addresses parliament, during a state visit or otherwise, is part of the planning decisions.”
Image: Mr Trump made his first state visit to the UK in June 2019 during his first presidency. File pic: Reuters
It’s understood that if the government agrees to a joint address to parliament, the Lord Chamberlain’s office writes to the two speakers, on behalf of the King, to ask them to host this.
It will be Mr Trump’s second state visit.
During his first, in 2019, he didn’t address parliament, despite the fact that his predecessor, Barack Obama, was asked to do so.
It was unclear if this was due to the fact John Bercow, the speaker at the time, made it clear he wasn’t welcome to do so.
However, it didn’t appear to dampen Mr Trump’s excitement about his time with the Royal Family.
Speaking earlier this year, he described his state visit as “a fest” adding “it’s an honour… I’m a friend of Charles, I have great respect for King Charles and the family, William; we have really just a great respect for the family. And I think they’re setting a date for September.”
It is expected that, like Mr Macron, the pageantry for his trip this time will revolve around Windsor, with refurbishment taking place at Buckingham Palace.
Liverpool have retired the number 20 shirt in honour of Diogo Jota – the first time it has made such a gesture.
The club said it was a “unique tribute to a uniquely wonderful person” and the decision was made in consultation with his wife and family.
The number 20 will be retired at all levels, including the men’s and women’s first teams and academy squads.
A statement said: “It was the number he wore with pride and distinction, leading us to countless victories in the process – and Diogo Jota will forever be Liverpool Football Club’s number 20.”
The club called it a “recognition of not only the immeasurable contribution our lad from Portugal made to the Reds’ on-pitch successes over the last five years, but also the profound personal impact he had on his teammates, colleagues and supporters and the everlasting connections he built with them”.
Image: Jota’s wife joined Liverpool players to view tributes at Anfield on Friday. Pic: Liverpool FC
Image: Pic: Liverpool FC
Newly-married Jota died alongside his brother when his Lamborghini crashed in northern Spain on 3 July.