“we have very little to show for the repercussions of Sarah’s murder”

“You’d better start believing in Ghost-stories girlie – You’re in one!” Captain Barbossa, Pirates of the Caribbean (2003)

Poor Elizabeth Swann. Convinced in the hit film, that a pirate captain has spun her an elaborate and fantastical yarn, and whilst desperately sticking to her principles and the laws of nature she is forced to accept that reality really does seem to be arguing against everything she thinks and believes.

This morning that is how Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer should be feeling. But don’t count on it.

Number 10 will actually be pleased politically and domestically – because whatever the high moral tone from that ivory tower that has as much to do with the Prime Minister’s stance on Iran as international law – that Starmer has had his Hugh Grant, ‘Love Actually” moment, and shown himself to be able to say ‘no’ to the bad guy in the White House.

At present “we were not involved” in the strikes on Iran has echoes of Corbyn about it. Of course there is huge public concern about being dragged into an escalating war. I share them. But to return to the start, you’d better start believing in a middle eastern war – we’re in one.

I’ll return to this in a moment but there was always going to be a moment when our politics went through the looking glass. Yesterday was it.

In one version of reality the British economy has been stabilised to a point that all is now well, and Britain’s National Security is safe from both Iran and the wild and illegal activities of a dangerous American President and Prime Minister of Israel, all thanks to a determined and cautious Chancellor and the steely moral guardianship of Sir Keir Starmer.

It is a version of reality to which, objectively I cannot subscribe but also one many others, including the Conservative Party cannot either.

The Spring Statement was big on spin and not much else. When a hapless Treasury Minister defended it on Sky News by reaching for the  stale “we’ve had to tackle the problems Liz Truss left us with” you know they’re clutching their pearls and at straws.

I can leave the Shadow Chancellor to explain the Conservative position, on ConHome this morning. The reactions to the Spring Statement from many think tanks, finish the job off.

Lord Ashcroft’s most recent polling – that has over time had some hard truths within for the Tories – contained who is most trusted on the economy, a key metric he’s been tracking for the past 19 months. It’s the Conservatives.

“Asked who would do the better job running the economy, voters chose Kemi Badenoch and Mel Stride over Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves by a 4-point margin, with 40 per cent saying, “don’t know”. Only just over half of 2024 Labour voters named the Labour team; more than seven in ten 2024 Conservatives chose the Tory team.” Lord Ashcroft polls.

I’m going to stick to defence and the war.

Rachel Reeves made a small reference to the unfolding situation in the Middle East at the top of her speech, but therein lies – at times literally – their problem. Not only are the Government being accused of vacillation and dereliction of duty defending our assets and denying their use to a key ally, but they also can’t pay – and have ignored questions about how they’ll pay – to be able to do so.

Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked the Chancellor this very question about defence spending. Rachel Reeves seemed to suggest that they had overseen the largest defence spending increase in years, and that was why “we’re degrading the capability of Iran to continue these attacks”

That’s news to everybody, because we aren’t, and the money hasn’t been spent, just promised. Word on when we might actually reach the point where it materialises is not to be found. It risks turning up as much too little too late as a British Type-45 Daring class Destroyer to the Mediterranean.

Despite having roughly similar political clothing as our Labour party in government, Australia and Canada have signalled that they support the US in tackling Iran. Making it all about regime change has posed some serious questions. With reference to Iran that is a dubious wish for reasons I spelt out on Sunday. But it is clearly the only way you can tackle the far more historical motivation that we should all want to stop Iran’s progression to having nuclear weapons. The determination not to be involved which has irked the President so much is based on Starmer’s rigid adherence to international law even when it is flouted by the target, observing authoritarian regimes, and nuclear physicists in bunkers in Iran.

It seems odd, that having burnt up so much political and public credit to push forward a deal that was supposed to guarantee the use of the crucial strategic air base at Diego Garcia, for Britain and the US, at staggering cost, and under an over played threat of legal action, we have done so nonetheless, and immediately denied it’s use to our closest ally. One of the smartest foreign office officials I came across has just issued a scathing assessment of our prediliction for rigid adherence to law that has ceased to make sense or at best its modern contradictions need confronting.

You will note many a Starmer loyalist, often using the same phrases – or lines to take as the Downing Street spin doctors call them when they issue them – have said Trump did not tell allies about the immediate strikes, so of course the British PM is having to react to events not ahead of them.

Well as I say the war he doesn’t believe in, he’s already in.

The moment key gulf allies with British citizens in residence were targeted by Iranian drones, the moment RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was hit, he had no choice to act, or rather let others do it for him. The French are already ahead of defending our assets in the Med. What baffles me is how predictable this all was.

If a third of the US Navy has been amassing for weeks in the gulf, whilst negotiations brokered by the Omanis – note Prime Minister that their neutrality did not afford them protection from Iranian counter strikes, there is every reason to assess, what it was for, likely scenarios and why you might want a T-45 destroyer patrolling in the Med. Second year war studies students could have predicted that.

It might have been academic had the negotiations succeeded. However we learn that even after being offered a ‘lifetime supply of nuclear fuel’ from the US to power a purely domestic Iranian power generation plan the regime would not accept it. Then what did everyone think their uranium enrichment was really for?!

But the negotiations did not succeed. They haven’t, in various forms, for some time. Trump pulling out of the JPCOA agreement in his first term had much to do with that failure, but it’s no secret that he and Netanyahu had long decided if it can’t be agreement, it will be force. If a government functionary at my level knew all this two years ago, I’m damn sure the current incumbent of Downing Street does, or should.

Splashed across the papers today are Trumps brutal swipe at Starmer. It’s personal, because that’s how Trump views any international relationship, even though the so called ‘special relationship’ is between two nations and in multiple arenas and not just two men in their respective offices.

In one respect, and even given that Trump is no Roosevelt, or Truman who sanctioned the use of atomic weapons, Starmer is no Churchill:

Churchill fought a war having argued for years that Britain was economically and militarily unprepared.  Starmer is trying not to fight a war arguing via his Chancellor that never before has so much been promised for defence.

For so little return when it matters, it would seem.

Deri Hughes is a private investor and former parliamentary assistant.

The recent expiry of the New START treaty has generated a flurry of headlines and commentary. Granted, there is much else to ponder in the world at this time, but the treaty’s expiry is certainly worthy of some attention. 

 The more neurotic Western commentary has focussed on the apparent dangers of a “new arms race”. This is an echo of concerns that were expressed loudly during the Cold War, particularly in the 1980s. In truth, the arms race concept has been thoroughly over-egged for decades. Nevertheless, it lives on.  

 As was the case for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Russians are quite happy to stoke Western neurosis. The primary benefit, from their perspective, is that there is a Western tendency for fear of nuclear weapons to be channelled into advocacy for disarmament, and for a less robust stance against Russian interests. The secondary benefit, which is more recent, is that it gives the Russians something with which to bargain at Ukraine’s expense. That is not to say that such a gambit or opportunism will necessarily succeed; merely that the Russians are mindful of the potential benefits. 

 New START was the latest in a series of strategic weapons agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. For decades, they covered two states whose number of nuclear weapons greatly exceeded that of any other country. Accordingly, the treaties’ bilateral status was not much of a limitation. However, that has changed. 

 China has embarked upon a very ambitious nuclear weapons development and deployment programme, with particular emphasis upon the type of weapons covered by New START (not all nuclear weapons were included within its scope). China’s aim is not difficult to discern. It likely intends to achieve approximate strategic parity with the United States, thereby leaving it better placed to act upon its designs in the Pacific, should it choose to do so.  

 This explains the American reticence to replace New START on a like-for-like basis. The lack of limits on Chinese weapons numbers has left the United States in an unhappy position. The Americans must take into account the obvious risk that China and Russia might wage war against it in league. Keeping American and Russian weapons numbers static while the Chinese force grows briskly has weakened America’s position, and could ultimately have posed a serious threat.  

The stated American position is that only a multilateral treaty, particularly one covering China, would be an acceptable replacement for New START. Rather predictably, the Russians have reacted by insisting that any multilateral treaty should cover Britain and France. They appear not to be so keen to insist upon Chinese inclusion, although their private views are probably rather different; one of the few blessings of the current geopolitical position is that the Russian and Chinese regimes are mutually suspicious and xenophobic.  

 As it is, China appears to have no intention of placing itself under such restrictions. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a multilateral treaty will materialise in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the prospect is worthy of consideration in Britain. 

 The Russian reference to British and French nuclear weapons capabilities points to an obvious risk. The Soviets had form for proposing arms control agreements once they deemed that their own position had been strengthened relative to the Western one. The Russians are no different. They would seek to ensure that native British and French nuclear weapons capabilities are capped at a level markedly inferior to the Russian one.  

 For as long as the American commitment to European security is maintained, such a result would not necessarily be problematic. It would be little different from the current situation. It would also echo the position in the late 1970s and 1980s, when improved Soviet and Warsaw Pact nuclear weapons capabilities below the “strategic” level prompted the United States to strengthen Western Europe’s position in that respect.       

 However, it ought to be painfully apparent that the American commitment cannot be taken for granted. This applies at the grand strategic level, i.e. a formal alliance and strong shared interests, but also at a lower level, particularly the continued American deployment of “tactical” nuclear weapons in Europe. This includes the effective loan of American-made weapons to certain other NATO members. Neither element can necessarily be relied upon indefinitely, and both could be abandoned.  

 The most obvious risk is that an “America First” flavoured administration would do so, but a future left wing administration might act similarly. Both types could do so for various reasons, including a desire to make concessions on Europe’s behalf in pursuit of an agreement with Russia. Such an agreement could be in the context of multilateral arms control negotiations, but could equally be shaped by other motives, e.g. reaching a settlement following a war of conquest waged by the Russians.  

 With that in mind, the Starmer government’s policy on the RAF’s future nuclear weapons capability ought to raise eyebrows. They have opted to join the American weapons lending arrangement, rather than returning to the condition whereby the RAF operated British-made nuclear gravity bombs. It is possible that capacity constraints at the AWE have made the development of a new British weapon unfeasible for the time being. If so, borrowing American weapons is a reasonable step, but it is not desirable in the long term; and if there are indeed capacity constraints at the AWE, they should be resolved at something better than a glacial pace. 

 A multilateral arms control process ought to be regarded with wariness in Britain. It is highly unlikely that an agreement that would satisfy Russia would be in Britain’s interests (or Europe’s, for that matter). British nuclear weapons capabilities are too modest as it is. A “minimum credible deterrent” is not appropriate under current conditions, and is likely to become even less appropriate in the coming years. Russia’s fondness for nuclear weapons is as strong as ever, and China is manifestly keen to start catching up with both America and Russia. 

 However, the British political class as a whole could not be relied upon to resist an adverse multilateral agreement. As usual, the CND tendency is alive and well in Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and in the newer gang of useful idiots, namely the Greens. Nevertheless, the greater danger likely lies in adoration of the totems of whatever qualifies as “international law”. That tendency is obviously very strong in the Starmer government, starting with the man himself. The Chagos Islands debacle is a standing reminder of that. 

 In contrast, the Conservatives have a strong track record on these matters, notwithstanding some unwise decisions made during the Coalition era (beware Lib Dems bearing influence). Conservatives ought to be vigilant, and should be mindful of the need to establish policy whilst in opposition. They might also teach Reform a few things as to how a natural party of government ought to think about such matters.

Sir Mel Stride is the Shadow Chancellor and MP for Central Devon.

There are moments in politics when what is not said matters more than what is. Yesterday’s Spring Statement was one of them. The country needed reassurance that there is a plan to fix our economy.

But what did we get? Silence. Shrugged shoulders. A Chancellor who seemed to believe that doing nothing counts as a plan.

Rachel Reeves stood at the despatch box and told the country that her plan is working – and therefore she does not need to do anything.

The trouble is, the facts stubbornly refuse to cooperate with the Chancellor’s narrative. The economy is slowing, businesses are shedding jobs, and households are feeling the squeeze. Yet the Chancellor chose denial over delivery.

Reeves talks endlessly about how she has brought stability. What planet is she on?

Under this Chancellor, we’ve seen tax rises, destroyed growth, vanished headroom, then yet more tax rises, and so it continues. A fiscal twister ripping through our economy.

On growth, her spin collapses entirely. The Bank of England have downgraded their growth forecasts for this year, and now the OBR have done the same. The Chancellor boasts about beating forecasts, yet last year’s growth came in at 1.3 per cent against an original forecast of 2 per cent. By any normal definition, that is failure – not success.

And then there is unemployment. The Chancellor barely mentioned it, perhaps because it now sits at its highest level since the pandemic. Under every Labour government in history, unemployment has risen. This one is no exception. Youth unemployment is now higher than the European average – the first time in a quarter of a century.

The Chancellor says our borrowing costs are falling. But does she not know that Britain’s cost of borrowing remains among the highest in the G7 – higher even than Greece? If debt were a government department, it would be the third biggest in Whitehall. That is money not going to schools, hospitals, or policing, but simply flushed away.

On borrowing itself, the truth is damning. At the election, the forecast for borrowing this year was £77bn. Yesterday the OBR said they now expect it will be £133bn.

And when it comes to bringing that deficit back down again, the numbers underpinning the government’s plans rely on implausible assumptions: deep spending squeezes and yet more tax rises in the run up to the next election, and households absorbing higher energy bills without complaint. Everyone knows it is unrealistic – surely even the Chancellor must privately recognise it. But realism requires backbone, and this government has none.

We have already seen it. Winter fuel payments: U-turn. Welfare reform: U-turn. The two-child benefit cap: U-turn. Farm taxes, family business taxes, pubs – all U-turns. Whenever pressure mounts, this weak government folds.

But despite the evidence of how much damage she has done, we saw no course correction from the Chancellor. Unless, of course, doing nothing is a convenient new way of avoiding the inevitable U-turns further down the line.

The Chancellor insists she is “creating the conditions for growth.” She’s like a dodgy estate agent standing in a crumbling building – roof gone, windows smashed, floors falling away – urging us to “just think of the potential!” But potential means nothing when the foundations have been wrecked by reckless borrowing and runaway spending.

Higher taxes, higher inflation, higher borrowing, higher welfare spending, higher unemployment. That is the record. And still, no apology. No contrition. No plan.

And despite recent events in the Middle East, the Chancellor offered nothing new on how she will fund a move to 3 per cent of GDP on defence spending. She boasts about spending billions on lifting the two child benefit cap – money going on welfare which could have gone towards strengthening our nation’s security.

It does not have to be this way. There is an alternative, as Kemi and I have set out. Control spending, reform welfare to reward work, cut taxes to unleash growth, lower energy costs and get the deficit down. A serious plan for our country.

What we saw yesterday was a government out of ideas, out of their depth, and rapidly running out of road. Britain deserves better – and the longer this Chancellor pretends otherwise, the higher the price we will all pay.

You can see Mel Stride’s response in the House of Commons here