Starmer can’t be forgiven for backing Corbyn for PM
The Labour leader is being robust on Ukraine, but his predecessor’s antics still embarrass the party
Whenever I begin to think positively about Sir Keir Starmer, I usually receive a jolt back into reality when I remember that he was only too happy to serve for three years as a leading light in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. Not only that, but he campaigned to make him prime minister.
We had a lucky escape. On Monday, Jezza rose from the backest of backbenches and appeared to intimate that the Ukraine crisis was all the West’s fault. More specifically, he asked Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, if Nato would withdraw troops “from the border” (of where?) if Russia did the same – as if Vladimir Putin’s demands were in any way justified.
Corbyn was rightly given short shrift by Wallace. Corbyn’s extremist position is the same as that adopted by the Stop the War Coalition, which he chairs. They seem to buy into the Nato encirclement myth propagated by the Kremlin. Even in the statement the group issued yesterday, which called on Russia to withdraw troops from eastern Ukraine, it couldn’t help but blame the conflict in part on “the expansion of Nato and US hegemony at the expense of other countries”. Britain, it said bizarrely, had played a “provocative role”.
The Stop the War Coalition may contain some people who are genuine pacifists, but many others, I suspect, are fellow-travelling Russian sympathisers. I call them Fifth Columnists.
Starmer has been robust on Ukraine, a fact noted even by Boris Johnson in the Commons yesterday. He is taking Labour back to its roots: we joined Nato under Attlee and Bevin and successive Labour leaders have been stalwart supporters of the alliance. But too many of Starmer’s MPS are far-left sympathisers of Corbyn’s ridiculous position. He needs to get rid of them, as they totally undermine any sensible words he has to say on defence policy.
One thing is certain. Corbyn will never be allowed back into the Parliamentary Labour Party. Just imagine if he’d won the 2019 general election and was now prime minister. He’d probably be offering logistical support to Russia. I jest. I think.
Another leader who has not had a
good crisis is Emmanuel Macron. I suspect I am not alone in thinking that the preening French president will be feeling somewhat humiliated by his treatment at Vladimir Putin’s hands.
He left his lengthy meeting with the Russian president clutching a piece of paper which read “Peace in our time”. Well, he might as well have done. He certainly seemed to believe that he was the man to bring Russia and the West together in a grand bargain to avert war – a bit like the Munich Agreement of 1938. What he didn’t seem to realise is that it is impossible to appease dictators. Worse, Macron’s “deal” had the effect of upsetting the Ukrainians, who were not party to the discussions and saw them as a threat to their sovereignty.
How ironic that the most meaningful statement on Ukraine has not been issued by Britain, France or Germany, but by Kenya, which is currently on the UN Security Council. The country’s representative, Martin Kimani, issued an extraordinarily clear-sighted message to Monday’s emergency meeting. He condemned the breach of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. He said the UN Charter was beginning to wilt “under the relentless assault of the powerful”. He pointed out that Kenya, like many other African countries, had had its borders drawn by European powers, but that they had chosen to accept them. But thanks to Putin’s modern-day imperialism, “multilateralism lies on its deathbed”.
It shouldn’t have to fall to Kenya to elucidate the principles that are at stake now. What we are witnessing is the dismantling of the international architecture that protected weak powers against the strong. This is what Macron was seemingly prepared to overlook in his dealings with Putin. France is a proud nation, but its president has brought shame on it, all in the aid of looking grand on the world stage, only weeks before a presidential election.
All governments should beware of
the monsters they create when they form new quangos, even when it’s done for the best of reasons. Before Tony Blair, electoral issues and processes were handled by the Home Office. It was one of the few things it did well. But in 2001, those functions were taken over by the Electoral Commission. It’s been a disaster. And now it has the cheek to complain that the Government’s reform plans could jeopardise its independence. That well known political sage, Hugh Grant, is terrified. He says the reforms represent “another nail in the coffin of British democracy”.
There are plenty of reasons to believe that the Electoral Commission is ripe for reform. The way it treated the Brexiteer Darren Grimes would be reason enough. Were there postal vote scandals before 2000? Rarely. Were there huge problems with the electoral register before 2000? There are now. If we are to have an independent body in charge of our elections, it needs to enjoy the confidence of all sides of the political spectrum. The unreformed Electoral Commission no longer does.