WAKEY, wakey, everybody! It’s time to rouse ourselves from our post-Cold War slumbers and face up to the chilly dawn of our new reality.
That’s precisely what Sir Keir Starmer attempted to do this week, with his announcement about a boost to defence spending and his trip to Washington DC to meet Donald Trump and discuss a security guarantee for Ukraine.
PAKeir Starmer’s deranged drive for Net Zero is threat to national security[/caption]
GettyIf the PM is serious about defending Britain’s interests, then he must drop the Net Zero madness[/caption]
The new reality is that the peace dividend we enjoyed since the fall of the Soviet Union has long been spent.
Now it’s time to count the true cost of running down our fighting forces as the likes of Russia, China, Iran, Islamic fundamentalists and more ramp up their military threats to the West.
It’s little wonder, then, almost everyone in Britain welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement that he would raise defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP up to 2.5 per cent by 2027 with a plan to hike it to three per cent from 2030 if Labour is re-elected, slashing foreign aid in favour of spending that cash on warships and guns instead.
The news was greeted warmly by the US and by our European allies alike as the PM insisted the age of “soft power” was over, and the age of “hard power” had begun.
It all sounded very promising. Finally, here was a British PM facing up to the “realpolitik” of the new world order and rebuilding our depleted defences.
The only trouble is that what Starmer pledged this week is far too little, comes far too late and will not ensure the defence of our realm.
That’s not just because Starmer over-egged the pudding by claiming he was boosting defence spending by £13.4billion when in fact the real increase (over what was already planned anyway) is actually only £6billion.
It’s not even because a big chunk of that £6billion is set to be paid to the Mauritian government to lease back the Diego Garcia military base after we inexplicably hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and their Chinese allies — something Starmer repeatedly refused to deny.
Lifeblood of growth
And it’s not even because an extra six billion quid a year is pocket change for the defence budget we really need and is just a sticking plaster on the open wound that is our current defence capability after years of cuts.
No, there is a much starker reason why Starmer’s defence boost will not, as he claims, ensure the safety of our country.
That’s because the security of our nation isn’t just about the soft power or hard power that the PM talked about.
Ultimately it comes down to one thing: Abundant power. No country on Earth can sustain its military strength without a strong economy.
GettyStarmer appointed eco-zealot Ed Miliband to the job of Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, even though you can’t have both energy security AND Net Zero[/caption]
That’s precisely why economic sanctions are a weapon on war.
And no modern nation can grow a strong economy without abundant, cheap, reliable and secure energy.
It is the very lifeblood of growth.
Nevertheless, Starmer appointed eco-zealot Ed Miliband to the job of Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, even though you can’t have both energy security AND Net Zero. They are mutually exclusive, it’s one or the other.
But Britain doesn’t just face a choice between Net Zero and energy security — the choice is between Net Zero and our national security.
Labour’s insistence on moving to expensive and unreliable renewable energy means we will become ever more reliant on imported energy, placing us at the mercy of other countries for our electricity, gas and home-grown production of vital goods, including the warships, fighter jets and guns we need to defend our national interests.
If the PM is serious about defending Britain’s interests, then he must drop the Net Zero madness and put the needs of the nation above his green ideology.
It’s all very well talking tough about boosting our armed forces to stand up to Vladimir Putin but, if he sticks with his Net Zero targets, Starmer is actually waving the white flag of surrender.
SMACK IN MOUTH FOR JUSTICE
EPAAfter ex-Labour MP Mike Amesbury’s successful appeal, a judge at Chester Crown Court suspended his jail sentence for repeatedly punching a constituent in the face[/caption]
IF anyone was still in any doubt about whether or not we have two-tier justice in this country, that illusion has been well and truly destroyed by the case of ex-Labour MP Mike Amesbury.
He had pleaded guilty to assault after he repeatedly punched a constituent in the face. This week, he was sentenced to ten weeks behind bars.
But, after his successful appeal, a judge at Chester Crown Court suspended the jail sentence and handed him a community sentence instead.
Yet he still remains an Independent MP and will be paid his £91,000-a-year salary unless, or until, he is ousted by a recall petition in his Runcorn and Helsby seat and a by-election is held.
But even that isn’t the real injustice here. Dozens of people who posted comments on social media in the wake of the Southport attacks last summer are currently serving lengthy prison terms simply for writing nasty words, while this MP walks free after punching a man to the ground.
I guess it’s a good thing Mike Amesbury didn’t write a hurty message on X about his constituent instead of punching him, or he’d be facing a couple of years in the slammer right now.
NONSENSE, GARY
HAS Gary Lineker ever been right about anything?
He’s a great football pundit but, apart from what happens on the pitch, has he ever offered any opinion on any topic that isn’t absurdly ill-informed, trite and just plain wrong? Anything at all?
Whether it’s his views on asylum seekers, Tory migrant policy, Rwanda, Brexit, the World Cup in Qatar, even sewage . . . our Gary has given his tuppence worth on everything. And he’s always wrong.
This week, Lineker joined forces with 500 other media luvvies from Artists for Palestine UK to criticise the BBC’s decision to pull a documentary about children’s lives in Gaza. This, they claim, was “censorship”. It isn’t, of course.
The BBC was forced to pull the film because it was exposed as outrageous Hamas propaganda, featuring the son of a Hamas official and filmed by a cameraman who celebrated the October 7 massacre.
Next time you’re wondering where you stand on a hot political topic, just take a look at the nonsense Gary Lineker has spouted on it and then think the opposite of that – and you’ll almost certainly be right.
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
