Keir Starmer and then UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson in Washington, DC, February 2025 (PA Images / Alamy)

4 min read1 min

He was the third architect of New Labour. He was the first architect of New, New Labour. Arrogant and imperious, feared by colleagues more than he was liked, a man who, had he been born in 1450, would have outshone Niccolo Machiavelli in the dark arts of political diplomacy.

In 1997 he was lionised as the brains behind Excalibur, Labour’s rapid rebuttal computer. Today the protégéhe once got to feed data into Excalibur, and whom he tutored to become the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, is struggling to distance his new boss from his old.

No amount of waffle about “the process” was ever going to rescue him

Advertisement

But whoever rehearsed PMQs with Keir Starmer on Wednesday morning of 4 February was not as politically astute as the Dark Lord. Labour backbenchers squirmed as the PM wriggled to avoid the single most obvious question. It took three goes before Kemi Badenoch got the answer we all knew Keir had to give: “Yes.” Yes, he did know at the time he appointed Mandelson to the job that he had maintained relations with paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

No amount of waffle about “the process” was ever going to rescue him. Those morning PMQ prep sessions should have told him: blunt her attack by admitting straight up that you knew. At least that way the public won’t be thinking, “Typical politician – always dodging the question!”. If he’d done that, he could have switched from the prevarications about his own judgement to the substantive issues about Mandelson’s alleged sharing of confidential and market-sensitive information.

Had he conceded straight away that the Intelligence and Security Committee would decide on which documents to make public, rather than putting it in the hands of those who had appointed Mandelson in the first place (the Cabinet Secretary and his own chief of staff), the humiliation of the amendment to his own amendment could have been avoided.

The problem for the Prime Minister now is that there is no way to get the focus back on Mandelson and away from himself. All roads around him lead back to Mandelson. And that is simply a function of recent Labour history.

Back in 2017, Mandelson boasted that he worked every day to undermine the elected leadership of the party. What he did not reveal then was who he was working with.

The truth is that Starmer himself was meeting regularly with Mandelson’s protégé, Morgan McSweeney, in their project to discredit and, as they believed, rescue the Labour Party from the left. In an ironic inversion of the days of Militant’s entryism to the party in the 1980s, they kept their project secret and set up a structure to deliver the takeover. Transparency did not matter. Party democracy did not matter. And where Militant failed thanks to the guts of Neil Kinnock, they succeeded.

But at what price? Labour today is a narrower party, a less democratic party. It’s one where MPs are told they are merely the leadership’s ‘license to operate’, and open debate no longer leads to compromise and solidarity but to accusation and recrimination.

Too many of those who formed part of that revolutionary coterie now sit around the Cabinet table. They felt secure, in the precarious way that all barons do who owe their fealty to an unstable and irascible king. Were it not pathetic, it would be cause for mirth to see how some have rushed onto the airwaves to disavow friendship or spring clean their social media to erase all photos of themselves with their arms round “he who must not now be named”.

Starmer has been counselled to sack his chief of staff. But no single scalp will assuage this sense of decay. He and so many of the current ministerial crop are knitted together – once you begin to pull at what seems a loose thread, the whole begins to unravel. 

All of those people no doubt persuaded themselves that their pursuit of power was in the service of The Good. But they became a gilded elite who considered themselves untouchable. They may do well to reflect on Robert Bolt’s classic drama about political intrigue, A Man for All Seasons. In it, Thomas More asks Roper: “And when you have cut down all the laws in pursuit of the devil, and the devil turns round on you, where will you hide?”

Barry Gardiner is Labour MP for Brent West

With Sizewell C achieving a financial investment decision and Financial Close, the UK has reached an important milestone in its nuclear revival. Alongside continued progress at Hinkley Point C – Britain’s first new nuclear station built in a generation – the selection of a preferred bidder and site for the country’s first small modular reactors, and other exciting future nuclear projects at EDF’s former coal site at Cottam and its generating nuclear site at Hartlepool, nuclear power is experiencing a ‘renaissance’ in the UK.

That sense of optimism was reflected by panellists at a roundtable hosted by EDF during Nuclear Week in Parliament, a programme organised by the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) to promote the industry and the opportunities it has to offer.

Sir Alex Chisholm, UK Chair of EDF, opened the event by celebrating what he described as “the best year that nuclear has had for as long as anyone can remember.” This was supported by the announcement on the day of the event that EDF have committed to a £1.2bn investment over the next three years to support reliable output from its five generating stations.

The success of nuclear, Chisholm told attendees, is based on partnership – not just between industry and government, but also with the public. He pointed to recent polling by EDF that found that 77 per cent of MPs on average are now favourable towards nuclear energy, which he believes reflects support from their constituents*. This has been driven by concerns around energy security and support for decarbonisation, but Chisholm also stressed the opportunity this has presented for communities across the UK to feel the benefits of nuclear in terms of significant spend with local businesses and skilled, well-paid local jobs.

Despite the current optimism in the industry, the panel shared the same concerns about the need to “seize the moment.” Until recently, nuclear was seen to be in decline in the UK. After decades of hesitation and delay by successive governments, the UK supply chain disappeared and vital skills were lost. Now, after a generation, our capabilities are finally being rebuilt. There was a sense in the room of a shared responsibility to make sure the mistakes of the past were not made again. Stuart Crooks, CEO of Hinkley Point C, urged panellists to utilise and build on this momentum and the work they have done at Hinkley: “My plea is: don’t wait too long, or it’ll be too late.”

Panellists agreed that seizing the moment would require not only political will and investment, but also regulatory reform to enable projects to move forward at pace, building on the momentum of the recent Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce recommendations.

Several speakers emphasised nuclear’s deep-rooted impact on place and identity. Jonathan Brash MP reflected on the experience of his constituency, which has been home to Hartlepool Power Station, operated by EDF, for over 40 years. He described how nuclear has provided rare examples of generational employment, embedding skilled jobs within the local community for generations. He argued that the industry has the power to “make places matter again” and reverse long-term economic decline – just as it had done in Hartlepool.

This effect is being felt across the country. Claire Ward, Mayor of the East Midlands, shared how “the region is now emerging as a national leader in clean energy technology generation, and whilst the entire clean energy sector is vital for our green transition, the greatest growth opportunity is in fusion and nuclear energy”. With five former coal-fired power stations and ambitions such as the Trent Supercluster, she argued that nuclear could inspire pride in communities while underpinning national growth and industrial renewal.

Ward also highlighted the role of nuclear in powering the next phase of the UK economy, particularly through energy-intensive technologies such as AI and advanced data centres. With secure, low-carbon and always-on power increasingly seen as a prerequisite for growth, she argued that nuclear could anchor future investment and enable regions like the East Midlands to compete globally.

As the nuclear industry enters its “golden era,” Crooks recognised the work that’s already happening in the UK and challenged the myth that we don’t make things in Britain anymore. He pointed to the UK’s “fantastic engineers, fantastic production facilities, and fantastic manufacturing facilities.” “The quality of work we do in the UK is second to none,” he said. “I can tell you, having been at Hinkley, the stuff we do here is outstanding.”

This would not be possible without its brilliant workforce, which Crooks described as “a family.” A powerful personal perspective came from Anabella Andison, a young apprentice at EDF. Although she was encouraged after school to consider more traditional routes, such as university, she chose instead to join the same EDF apprenticeship programme her father entered 25 years ago. In fact, her grandfather began his career at Hinkley Point A, her father still works at Hinkley B, and her brother is at Hinkley C. Together, their stories offered a striking example of the generational employment the industry can provide, a point previously highlighted by Jonathan Brash MP.

More than simply following a family legacy, Andison told the room: “I wanted to say that I made a difference in the community, and I want to actually help build something that’s going to make a difference to the future.”

The benefits of nuclear are felt far beyond the industry’s workforce. Panellists heard from David Crew, Managing Director of the Somerset Chamber of Commerce, who pointed to the transformative effect of Hinkley Point C on the regional economy. He highlighted the creation of a HPC supply chain programme through the Chamber which has supported over 4,600 businesses to access contract opportunities, with £5.3bn spent locally, and more than 14,000 people trained through Centres of Excellence. Many firms, he noted, have scaled significantly and are now pursuing opportunities beyond Hinkley – demonstrating the long-term economic legacy of nuclear investment and the strength of public-private partnership.

The roundtable discussion broadened to the systemic enablers of nuclear growth, including the role of regulation in enabling delivery at pace. Contributions from regulators, such as Beatrice Filkin from Ofgem, underlined a shared commitment to delivering projects that benefit consumers, support national growth, and maintain appropriate standards of safety, security and safeguards.

Paul Dicks, Director of Regulation of New Reactors at the Office for Nuclear Regulation, welcomed the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce as a critical catalyst for reform. He emphasised that regulatory reform must focus on outcomes rather than process, enabling innovation and faster decision-making without compromising safety.

Reflecting on his experience of working in the industry for over thirty years, he told the room: “I’ve never, ever seen anything like this in my life. Let’s grab these opportunities as a whole community, as a whole ecosystem.” If we do this, he says, we will be a country at the front of the nuclear renaissance.

Britain is once again embracing nuclear. And it is already translating into tangible economic, social and regional benefits. The event closed with a shared recognition that nuclear’s contribution to the UK goes far beyond getting energy on the grid. It has a role to play in solving the challenges and opportunities we face as a nation – from energy security and decarbonisation, powering AI and data centres, to regional regeneration and national pride.

As Alex Chisholm emphasised when he opened the event, “there is nothing that any individual organisation, or any individual person, however impressive and dynamic, can achieve on their own.” As EDF continues to strongly invest in the UK’s current operating fleet, the morning’s discussion highlighted that the UK’s nuclear future lies in partnership. The parliamentarians, regional leaders, industry, regulators, academia and the next generation of nuclear talent in the room are all ready to play their part – to ensure that the current renaissance delivers lasting benefits.

The optimism in the industry is clear. “There’s not many things we get to do in our working lives where you’re shaping what will make a difference to four generations away,” Chisholm concluded. “That is very exciting.”

* Polling from Savanta commissioned on behalf of EDF.

“Will there ever be a normal news week?” one LOTO adviser messaged yesterday. It has been quite a week in Westminster – and one in which Kemi Badenoch has succeeded in carving out the agenda.

Sir Keir Starmer, meanwhile, is on the ropes. Questions over his judgement in appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador – despite knowing of his links to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein – have sent Labour into open turmoil. Some MPs are now privately calling for his resignation; others are opnely briefing against him. Only a handful of loyalists remain. “It feels like the end of days,” one Labour MP tells me.

And they now have the option for an unholy alliance as Badenoch yesterday – in a speech that was whipped up within 24 hours – made them an offer to join forces: “Let’s talk seriously about a vote of no confidence.”

A Tory shadow cabinet member adds: “You know things are bad when their MPs are telling me – a Conservative shadow secretary of state – just how awful it is.”

Each Conservative intervention has only made matters worse for the Prime Minister. At PMQs prep earlier this week, things felt routine enough. “We did the prep and asked the questions,” one person involved tells me. “The effect was where it all came down.” By forcing Starmer, on the third attempt, to admit that he knew Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after his conviction, Badenoch played a blinder.

“She did well to force Keir’s hand,” a shadow cabinet minister says. “Not only blocking his attempt to stitch up the release of documents, but also making him admit he knew about Mandelson’s Epstein connection before appointing him.”

“You could hear everyone gasp and see the Labour benches droop in despair. It was a genuinely shocking moment.”

A Tory adviser adds: “The last thing we expected was that Starmer would finally confess he’d known about Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein, at which point Kemi’s PMQs request for all documents to go to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) became the only real option for the government.” That was despite Starmer dismissing that very option at PMQs.

Inside Tory HQ, they knew they had spotted a moment of “massive weakness” when Starmer gave in to an opposition humble address (a clever bit of Parliamentary procedure) on his own appointment – the same one he had said he had “full confidence” in when Badenoch challenged him back in September. The deliberately broad wording extends the scope well beyond Mandelson’s appointment to include electronic communications and minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, officials and special advisers during his tenure as ambassador.

That could include messages between the disgraced former ambassador and the Prime Minister himself, as well as his chief of staff – and Mandelson protégé – Morgan McSweeney.

“The benefits of having government experience from responding to humble addresses,” a senior Tory tells me, “and helped by the fact that half the parliamentary Labour party hate Mandelson!”.

One shadow cabinet member jokes that by the time disclosure could come around, McSweeney’s phone will probably be destroyed, at the bottom of the Thames somewhere. “But it doesn’t really matter,” they added, “the damage will be done”.

When originally planning the humble address, Badenoch “was absolutely clear she wanted to force Labour MPs either to collude in a cover-up or vote for total transparency”, a Tory adviser says. After Conservative whips “did a cracking job” leaning on Labour counterparts, by the end of the day No 10 had accepted ISC involvement – and “the Prime Minister looked utterly powerless”.

Tory chief whip Rebecca Harris was central to forcing it through, alongside Meg Hillier, who had called for ISC oversight, and Jeremy Wright, the ISC’s deputy chair. They were seen in intense discussions with Labour chief whip Jonathan Reynolds in the chamber. But it was the former government chief whip, now Leader of the House Sir Alan Campbell, who I’m told ultimately helped shepherd it through without a vote.

Those working in LOTO and the Tory whips’ office are credited with “delivering a masterclass” behind the scenes, alongside Alex Burghart – who led ono the humble address – and Neil O’Brien. “They are superb,” one colleague says.

As another shadow cabinet minister puts it: “We’re getting quite good at this opposition thing.”

The “cherry on top” came when, as one Conservative adviser tells me, “we realised we had enough MPs on both sides ready to hurl insults at Starmer”, prompting the decision to drop their second opposition day topic and devote the entire debate – until 7pm – to Mandelson’s appointment.

The adviser added: “The idea of Starmer being some sort of forensic lawyer must surely now be consigned to history. This is a man who chose not to probe Peter Mandelson’s original claims of innocence. Who chose not to probe the security vetting on Mandelson. And who has been taken apart by Kemi in two PMQs sessions dissecting the Mandelson appointment, to the extent his tenure in No10 is now hanging by a thread.”

Starmer likes to say his career was spent championing victims. Yet he appointed a man he knew had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile to one of the most senior diplomatic jobs in the land.

What happens next is unclear. Many in Westminster expect McSweeney to go first, Starmer later – there is no obvious successor, no easy handover, and a set of awkward local elections to get through in May. But perhaps their fates are bound together.

As one shadow cabinet minister wonders aloud: “Does Keir think: if he has to go, I’ll go too?”

One LOTO source tells me Badenoch wanted her speech yesterday to make clear this was “not just a Westminster bubble story”, which is why she repeatedly stressed that “Britain is not being governed”.

“While Labour lurch around punching themselves in the face,” they say, “the world moves on at pace. And instead of keeping up with it, we have a government that is just not really governing. Not taking any big decisions or passing any important legislation.”

Amid the Mandelson maelstrom, not only have Badenoch and the Tory machine demonstrated their political competence; there was also a personal boost for the Tory leader. At a shadow cabinet meeting this week, pollster Luke Tryl of More in Common noted that Badenoch’s favourability is improving and the party’s polling has stabilised – with her now leading the Conservatives like David Cameron once did.

“Positive news,” one shadow cabinet member texts me. Not a bad way to end the week.

How can I prevent pasta from sticking to itself?

Any other tips?

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

Trying to find something heartfelt that your partner likes is hard enough, without all the emotional heft that goes along with this divisive holiday.

And that’s to say nothing of all the mushy and cringy tat you’re liable to be confronted with whenever you Google anything remotely related to ‘gifts for men’, which takes an annoying amount of time to sift through.

Yes, we all love a bit of crockery, but how many novelty mugs can one household take?

So, without any further ado, here’s a tat-free list of tried and tested gifts that would be perfect for him for Valentine’s Day.

Cllr Aled Richards-Jones is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Wandsworth Council.

Local government has its various traditions and procedures, which exist for a reason: to ensure transparency, accountability and proper scrutiny of decisions that affect residents’ lives.

Traditionally, the February ‘Special’ Meeting of Wandsworth Council has two agenda items: rent setting for council housing, and the general budget. But this month, Wandsworth Labour made the extraordinary decision to include only the first agenda item and block any discussion on the budget.

You might ask why.

Shortly before Christmas, when attention was more focused on mince pies than municipal finances, the Government published its Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for the next three years.

It immediately confirmed the worst fears of those of us who warned that a Labour Government would punitively rewrite the local government grant formula to transfer more money to their ideological heartlands.

In short, the settlement is a catastrophe for Wandsworth.

The Government is slashing Wandsworth’s funding by 39 per cent

Wandsworth Council faces an annual loss in funding of £85m a year by 2029/30 – roughly 39 per cent of its core spending power.

Worse still, that merely compounds Labour’s local financial mismanagement: the Council’s finances already have a budget gap of £51m a year by that same period – a cumulative £136m a year deficit. On top of that, the Administration is borrowing on its way into a financial crisis: planning to borrow £1.1 billion (at a cost over 50 years of nearly £2.5 billion) is reckless, particularly in these circumstances.

To compensate for the loss of funding, the Government expects the Council to increase council tax by at least 86 per cent.

Cynically, the Government’s model assumes that the punitive increases will start only after May’s local elections. The Government assumes only a five per cent increase this year, rising to 40 per cent in 2027/27, 77 per cent 2028/29, and 86 per cent in 2029/30.

The Council’s total useable reserves (all inherited from the previous Conservative Administration) stand at £166m – not enough to get through more than a year of this. The piggy bank will be smashed, the money will be gone and a decision on catastrophic tax hikes, public service cuts, or both, will need to be taken within the two-year window the Government has conveniently provided.

Labour knows that tax hikes will prove hugely unpopular. That’s why Labour ministers have granted Wandsworth a two-year exemption from the long-standing requirement councils have to hold referenda on council tax increases over five per cent.

It’s only right that councillors of all political persuasions should want to discuss such a dire state of affairs. But Labour shut us down.

When Conservative members raised points of order at the meeting, asking why the budget was missing from the agenda for the first time in living memory, the response was a nonsensical dismissal: procedures had “evolved.”

These procedures haven’t evolved; as I have written about before, procedures have been manipulated or just plain ripped-up, and councillors have been gagged. And once you look at the figures the Administration is hiding, you understand why Labour didn’t want any discussion on the budget.

Wandsworth Labour’s election strategy: deny, distract, and delay

This is not just a funding cut; it is a fundamental rewriting of the contract between resident and Council, orchestrated by Downing Street and silently accepted by Labour’s meek local leadership.

Yet the Administration has still not published these figures. So far, they’ve been provided in a written briefing to councillors by the Executive Director of Finance. If our February meeting had debated budget matters as usual, these figures would have been published in the agenda.

Almost as jaw-dropping as the figures themselves was the revelation in the briefing that the settlement for Wandsworth is actually worse than Council officials had expected. In the days after the 2024 general election, Wandsworth Labour proudly boasted about the “benefits” a Labour government, Labour Mayor of London and local council would bring the area. It’s only right Labour councillors now explain why their lobbying of their own party colleagues in Government resulted in such a bad deal for Wandsworth.

As Conservatives, it’s not only the stifling of debate we have a problem with – it’s the mobilisation of the Council’s press machine to spread untruths. Funded by taxpayer money, residents have been besieged with Facebook ads celebrating Britain’s “lowest council tax”, with not a mention of what the Labour Government expects the Council to do in the coming years.

We’re not backing down – and we refuse to accept Labour’s game playing.

By using the Council meeting to move a technical motion of our own, we managed to force a brief window of debate.

We pointed out that there is not even a sniff of a plan to deal with this £130m black hole. Labour refused to engage with the debate, and would not put up any speakers. The Leader of the Council sat silently, despite being called on to speak.

A clear choice at the election

This meeting laid bare Wandsworth Labour’s electoral strategy for the coming year: simply pretend the Government funding cuts aren’t happening, and hope residents won’t notice until it’s too late.

A financial asteroid is about to hit Wandsworth Council. The combination of a hostile Labour Government slashing our funding by nearly 40 per cent and an incompetent local Labour administration burning through our savings is catastrophic.

The next Wandsworth Council administration will receive the worst financial inheritance of any incoming administration since the Council’s creation.

Before May 2022, Wandsworth Conservatives ran the Council for 44-years, setting the country’s lowest council tax and providing award-winning services. Only Wandsworth Conservatives have the competence to navigate this crisis.

Labour refused to talk about it last night because they have no answers.

But we will not let them pull the wool over residents’ eyes.

Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.

“You’re in no position to dictate… You don’t have the cards.”

With a startling lack of diplomacy, almost a year ago in the Oval Office  President Trump spelt out some brutal realities to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. But the US Commander-in-Chief could just as well have been talking to Europe’s leaders.

The Ukrainian President was seeking American guarantees in connection with his country’s future. He wanted a bespoke version of Washington’s sword and shield which have been integral to the defence of NATO members and the rest of Europe since the late 1940s.

Trump’s America, however, has called time on Europe’s freeloading off its taxpayers and its mighty military.

The first year of the President’s second term was punctuated by uncomfortable reminders that the US has lost patience. They include Vice-President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.  He was clear: “It is important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defence.”

Across Europe’s capitals, it took a while for the penny, euro and krona to drop that the Trump administration wasn’t joking.

Keeping this country safe, as the Prime Minister reminded us at Wednesday’s PMQs, is the first duty of government. If so, there has been a dereliction of that duty, reflected by the eagerness to splurge the post-Cold War peace dividend on voter-pleasing welfare.  The defence of Europe, including this country, was outsourced to the United States.

Even with war on its doorstep following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago, dozy Europe was slow to awaken to the threat. It has needed the Trump administration to drive home the message about the importance of defence investment.

Finally, the continent is starting to step up.

This can be seen in Germany’s Zeitenwende  which will see defence spending rise this year to €108bn (compared to €34.2bn in 2016), Sweden and Finland’s accession to NATO and the warning by France’s military chief General Fabien Mandon that the country must be prepared to “lose its children”.

Most significant is the commitment chiselled out of NATO-member leaders by President Trump last June, which pledged an increase in defence-related spending to an annual 5% GDP by 2035. Europe wants some cards.

Suffering defence-related FOMO (fear of missing out),  the EU has conjured up SAFE, the Security Action for Europe.  It is essentially a €150bn EU-guaranteed piggy bank “to speed up defence readiness by allowing urgent and major investments in support of the European defence industry.” SAFE also attempts to streamline defence procurement within the bloc by reducing duplication.

Aimed at member states, EU defence and security partners can also apply for low-interest SAFE funds. This includes Japan, South Korea, Canada and the UK.

Last week in China PM Starmer stated that he wanted to renew defence cooperation with Europe – not least by joining SAFE. But in November Britain abandoned talks because of the entry fee Brussels was demanding – reportedly €6.75 billion.

This extortion contrasts with Canada. The EU put out the “welcome to SAFE” bunting for Ottawa in exchange for  €10 million.

UK-EU talks over SAFE are now set to resume. Aptly, for a defence-related pact involving the EU rather than NATO, questions are being raised about whether SAFE is a Trojan horse.

In theory, SAFE will give British defence firms greater access to the EU market. In practice, however, no more than 35% of components in any procurement project can come from outside the EU.  That such strings are attached is inevitable, not least because each member state wants to safeguard its own defence industry and hamper competitors, including Britain’s stellar prime firms.

At the recent International Armoured Vehicle Conference, Army chief General Sir Roly Walker said that Britain’s military has been trying to imagine a large-scale combat operation in 2027. “What would we be doing differently now, and why aren’t we doing that?” There is similar focus in Germany where Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has warned the country must be prepared for conflict by 2029.

A fortnight ago at Davos, President Zelensky voiced his frustration at Europe’s inability to act, citing the limbo around Russian sanctions funds and the lack of will to halt Russian oil being transported around the continent’s shores.

The EU seeks to avoid duplication, but there is already a cross-European defence forum that could address efficiency issues, such as armed forces’ inter-operability: NATO.

SAFE offers Labour another bite of the EU re-set cherry. Promoted as a job-creation scheme, it is also an example Brussels’ tendencies towards protectionism and bureaucratic meddling.

The need for rearmament is urgent: the €6.75bn question is whether Britain should lock itself into SAFE.

Tolga Inanc is Co-Chair, of the Conservative Friends of Turkey.

Starmer’s Chagos deal has been delayed in Parliament following backlash from President Trump. While the UK government’s position remains unchanged, the deal’s fate hangs in the balance.

Chagos is rarely an issue for most of the public.

An archipelago in the Indian Ocean 5,800 miles away, it has been controlled by Britain since 1814. Despite being one of the most remote places on Earth, it houses Diego Garcia – a top-secret US military base vital to UK defence, intelligence, and security.

The agreement to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while leasing Diego Garcia back for 99 years offers a fascinating insight into Starmer’s worldview. However laudable his intentions, the deal and its justification reveal an extreme naivety at the heart of our government.

Starmer’s first justification is international law. Labour ministers claim the Diego Garcia base was threatened by court decisions challenging UK sovereignty. Yet the legal ruling they cite is non-binding and advisory. On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an Advisory Opinion disputing Chagos’s separation from Mauritius in 1965. This opinion was requested by the UN General Assembly in 2017. Starmer must know the ICJ’s advisory function was never intended to settle disputes between states.

Furthermore, he has forgotten his history. Mauritius agreed to the separation of the Chagos Islands in 1965 and reaffirmed this during its 1968 independence. Britain made a binding commitment to cede sovereignty only when the islands were no longer needed for “defence purposes.” Mauritius respected this until the 1980s, when it began demanding a sovereignty transfer. Britain, meanwhile, has stood by the 1965 agreement.

Starmer also cites national security, claiming the deal protects Diego Garcia from ‘malign influence’. It is unclear how surrendering sovereignty 5,800 miles away and leasing back a site housing top-secret assets increases security. The best guarantor of security is the status quo, where Britain maintains sovereignty for defence. Sovereignty should only pass when that defensive need ends – as it did with the Seychelles in the 1960s.

That moment has not yet come, especially as great powers jostle for leverage, best gained through assets in key locations. With 40 per cent of global trade passing through the Indian Ocean, British sovereignty is vital to its strategic advantage and prosperity. Ceding control is an unforced error in an age of geo-economic competition.

As hostile states target democracies, this deal sets a dangerous precedent for British Overseas Territories and Sovereign Bases such as the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar or Akrotiri. Having worked in the Civil Service on hostile states and seen how they undermine the West, I anticipate Russia, China, and Iran using this deal to weaponize other bilateral disputes from history.

Starmer claims this deal addresses “past wrongs,” yet this is deeply misleading.

If he truly cared about past wrongs, he would listen to the majority of Chagossians in the UK who oppose the transfer. Mauritius has made only passing references to the Chagossian cause. Starmer could have shown leadership and diplomatic dexterity by offering practical support: reviewing resettlement options, improving livelihoods in the UK and abroad, and reconciling with families expelled in the 1960s. We could have deepened security ties to give Mauritius a greater stake in its relationship with Britain, counter-balancing Chinese influence.

Special Envoy Jonathan Powell – who negotiated the deal – claims China could not develop a base in Chagos. He forgets China’s disregard for bilateral treaties over Hong Kong and the fact that Mauritius is now free to resettle the Chagos Archipelago. What recourse does the UK have if such resettlement allowed under the deal is used for military purposes?

A 99-year lease won’t stop Mauritius from signing a defence treaty with China in a decade or allowing a Chinese surveillance site to monitor and disrupt UK-US operations in Diego Garcia. Beijing will not respect non-binding advisory notes when Diego Garcia undermines its vested interests. To our adversaries, this lease means as little as the 1968 treaty now means to Mauritius.

Some Labour figures note that negotiations began under the Conservatives. However, initiating discussions and formally ceding sovereignty are two very different things. Any minister using this talking point reveals how out of depth they are on diplomacy.

Whether driven by dogmatic idealism or poor advice, Starmer’s justifications show a lack of judgement. While our adversaries in Moscow and Beijing plan for leverage decades ahead, Britain’s resolve to maintain its strategic advantage and operate effectively in a realpolitik world continues to wane.