Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 25)
The open sore of Chagos and the increased defence spend
There was speculation that Trump was going to veto Starmer's Chagos Islands deal. It was likely he wouldn't, if he was happy with the long term lease of the Diego Garcia base. He wouldn't care about the money we were shelling out, nor our final, total loss of the Empire (he's busy building his own). Indeed it is now rumoured America will eventually buy the base itself. Nevertheless, many people believed the President was ready to put the kibosh on the arrangement. Even Foreign Secretary Lammy admitted if Trump didn't agree the deal wouldn't happen.
Starmer then made his cringe-inducing visit to Trump, where in a press conference he bribed the President with an invite for another state visit. Funny, I don't remember Labour supporting the last one... The tales of a 'diplomatic triumph' abounded, at least in the few days before Trump and JD Vance had their public row with Zelensky. The centrist media gushed over the possibility of a US trade deal, where before they had screamed blue murder about the 'chlorinated chicken', the threat to British workers and Trump being a fascist. Anyway, the upshot of all this was that in the same press conference, Trump said he would probably support the deal. He made no promises, but it sounded like he was ready to rubber stamp it.
Well we're gonna have some discussions about that very soon, and I have a feeling it's gonna work out very well, they're talking about a very long term... a very strong lease, about 140 years actually, that's a very long time; and I think I'll be inclined to go along with your country... it's a little bit early and we have to be given the details, but it doesn't sound bad
The disappointment across conservative social media was palpable, especially given his dressing down of Zelensky the next day. I must admit it felt like a kick in the teeth, even though I was sceptical that Trump would ride to our rescue. Flattery and submissive behaviour, it seemed, had appealed to his ego. It's worth remembering that personal connections with Trump transcend politics, meaning he can pal around with Kim Jong Un, Macron or whoever. However, he can also turn on a dime if someone acts against him, and Starmer is one faux pas away from being Trump's enemy. The developments in Ukraine have laid out dozens of rakes on the path, ready to be stepped on. The President may also be manipulating Sir Keir, playing along with the charade for now, but ready to drop the hammer when it suits him. Trump's people will be well aware that Chagos is a political weakness of Starmer, ready to be exploited at an opportune moment. With any luck Trump does so, and it would rock the UK government, perhaps terminally.
On 8th April, Steve Bannon, who has Trump's ear, signalled against the deal. Bannon suggested if it has to happen there must be a long-term lease, but he is clear he personally considers Britain's actions to be tactically inept. Maybe he will work his magic on his friend and we could see the start of an American pushback. If is thought Farage also has a close link with Trump and could influence the President on the matter - although in recent months that link seems to have weakened.
As a result of Trump's stance on Ukraine and NATO (and as a reward for Trump being nice to Starmer), our PM has announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. It is currently 2%, in line with NATO rules, and Starmer aims to raise it to 3% in a second Labour term (Trump has been talking about 5%!). The increase will equate to £13.4 billion per year. However, coming out of the defence budget is the fee we are going to pay Mauritius for taking the Chagos Islands off us.
There is still uncertainty about the sum, as indeed there is about the deal itself. The original leaked figure was £900 million per year over 99 years, totalling just over £89 billion. A second leak quoted the 'lease' of the Diego Garcia base to be £8.9 billion over 99 years (frontloaded by a larger sum earlier on), working out at just under £90 million a year.
The next figure came to light on February 3rd. Mauritius claimed the UK had offered them £18 billion in total, with a large up-front sum. This apparently followed a meeting between the UK and Mauritian Attorney Generals on January 16th. Labour at first would not deny this, then started saying the claims were 'nonsense'. Mauritius later backtracked and stated that no figure had been agreed. £18 billion would equate to about £182 million a year, if paid over 99 years.
On April 1st (Fool’s Day) Labour said it was finalising the deal, and the figure of £9 billion was rumoured to be the ‘agreed amount’. However on April 4th it was believed that Mauritius were asking for more.
If you take the first figure, of the annual extra defence spending, 6.7% would go to Mauritius. If you take the second/fourth figure, it makes 0.7% of the extra spend. Using the third sum, it is 1.4%. Either way, money we're supposed to be spending on tanks, guns and aeroplanes to take on Bad Vlad will be going to a Chinese ally instead, along with the territory itself. The government refuses to answer whether the Chagos fees will be taken from the extra spend, so we can probably take that as a yes.
The other problem with Starmer's increased defence spend is that he claimed he would raise the money from cutting foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP. However, the sums don't add up. The cut would raise £6 billion a year, less than half of the £13.4 billion required. The question, then, was how would Labour raise the rest. This has been partially answered on March 18th with Labour's welfare cuts. There was speculation this would raise about £5 billion a year by 2030, which the DWP minister, Liz Kendall has repeated. However, this isn't mentioned in the official document that was issued. So, we're up to £11 billion a year. Only £2.4 billion is needed, and we can expect more penny pinching which takes the money from British people and hands it to Zelensky and the armaments industry. Spokesmen for Rachel Reeves have justified the welfare cut by saying "the world has changed" since October, when extra government spending was promised. That is their standard excuse for breaking pledges. All that has changed is that Trump has pulled the plug on Ukraine, and the British taxpayer are supposed to compensate for that. It is not our war, and regrettably for Ukraine's territorial concerns, it is time for peace.
A lot of attention has now been paid to the fact Starmer's close friend, Phillipe Sands, is representing Mauritius in the negotiations. I think in my own small way I helped to get that out (my X and Youtube activity on the matter did well). The further details emerged that Sands had participated in an illegal publicity stunt in 2022, where Mauritians entered the Chagos Islands without permission and raised the Mauritian flag. He Tweeted: "It's morning on Chagos, where the flag of Mauritius flies, proof that the rule of law is not only a dream". Sands later deleted the Tweet. An Interpreter article confirmed his presence:
Mauritius made good on a long-standing threat to Britain and sent a boatload of officials to visit the Chagos Archipelago without permission… accompanied by Mauritius’ legal adviser, British academic Professor Philippe Sands, as well as Mauritian government officials and Chagossians
In evidence to a Parliamentary committee, Sands also wrote that Britain's possession of the Chaogs Islands is illegal under his beloved 'international law'. He even likened it to the Russian annexation of Crimea.
As the “British Indian Ocean Territory” is illegal under international law, Britain is currently in illegal occupation of a part of the territory of Mauritius, and of the continent of Africa. It follows too... that the operation of the military base at Diego Garcia is not in conformity with international law. So long as the UK’s illegal occupation continues, Britain’s position is no different from that of... Russia in relation to Crimea and other parts of the territory of Ukraine (since 2014)…
All this despite us legally purchasing the Island in 1965, having captured it from another colonising force in the Napoleonic Wars. By that standard, is Scotland legally part of the UK? Its nobles signed a treaty of union because they were broke - why should that stand in 2025? The man has genuine contempt towards Britain, and believes we should bow and scrape to nebulous 'international rules' and the non-binding advice of the ICJ. Well, he is friends with Keir Starmer and half-French - so I suppose it follows.
Starmer also appears to have a bias towards Mauritius, being friends with the country's former director of public prosecutions and having been gifted a luxury trip there in 2013. That friend, Satyajit Boolell, organised this on behalf of the Mauritius Bar Association in November 2013. The purpose was so Starmer could deliver a legal lecture at a five-star hotel near the capital, Port Louis. It happened just after Starmer had left the DPP role and 11 months before he became a Parliamentary candidate. The lecture was titled 'Human Rights, Victims and the Prosecution of Crimes in the 21st Century'. It spoke fondly, as you might expect, of the Mauritian legal system:
The legal arrangements in Mauritius are fascinating and, I think, unique... an adversarial criminal justice system built on a Penal Code designed for use in civil law jurisdictions!
Worse, the subject of the Chagos Islands was discussed on the jolly, according to Boolel. The former prosecutor is a prominent advocate for 'restoring' Mauritian control of the islands, and was only too happy to 'clear things up' for his curious guest. In an interview cited by The Times, Boolol said:
We were both members of the International Association of Prosecutors and we had collaborated on the issue of piracy in the Indian Ocean. We worked on the issue together. We became friends and I invited him to come attend a conference in Mauritius. We kept in touch. He wanted to understand the Chagos issue and wherever I could clear things up for him, I did
Boolel also said he believed Starmer had a "good image" of Mauritius and this would lead to closer diplomatic ties, including where the Chagos Islands were concerned. At the same event, Starmer met the then (and current) Mauritian PM, Navin Ramgoolam. When Labour won the General Election, Ramgoolam sycophantically recalled the 2013 meeting:
I had the privilege of engaging in meaningful discussions with you in my office, wherein your insights and perspectives were both enriching and thought-provoking... This landslide victory reflects the trust and confidence the British people have placed in your leadership and vision for the future. Your commitment to social justice, economic fairness, and international co-operation resonates deeply with us. We believe your tenure will usher in a new era of progressive change and strengthen the relations between our two nations
Ironically, considering Starmer was delivering a human rights lecture, Mauritius has been accused of having a poor record on human rights. The following is from a US State Department report:
[There are] significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary arrest or detention; extensive gender-based violence...and trafficking in persons, including forced labor. The government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses, but enforcement was not consistent
Could it be Starmer is guilty of hypocrisy again? It has been known.
There has also been much focus on the unholy Trinity of Starmer, Sands and Hermer - the latter being our Attorney General. Someone who is repeatedly making impact against Labour is Robert Jenrick. He released one of his trademark punchy videos outlining the whole affair, with particular attention on the trio. Starmer worked with Richard Hermer at the Doughty Street Chambers. Hermer worked with Sands at the Matrix Chambers. Starmer is close friends with both men, and both donated to his leadership campaign. So they have all worked for the same progressive legal firms, and now it just so happens they are in key roles on different sides of the same negotiation. All appear to have a more-then-professional interest in Mauritius and its territorial claims. Surely there can't be any conflicts of interest here, on top of the cronyism? Surely it can't be a stitch-up of the country they all seem to resent?
Very unusually for an Attorney General, Hermer has not served in Parliament. The last time this happened was 1922 (and the last time the AG was a peer was in 2010). Starmer bypassed Emily Thornberry, who many had tipped for the job as she had the shadow role. Once again, a friend o'Keir got the gig. In Mauritius, meanwhile, their Attorney General is a British man, Gavin Glover, who has worked in Mauritius since 1985. Wonder if he moves in the same circles as the others? The treachery by British legal professionals in this case seems to be limitless.
Hermer has not been shy about broadcasting his leftist views in the past. He has appeared on numerous podcasts with other progressives and handwringing centrist dads, keen to call out 'colonialism' and 'systemic racism' and all the rest of it. These are cited in numerous articles. He proclaimed that “racism impacted almost every element of the British Empire" and that the Empire pushed a “racial superiority that allows you to treat entire populations like school children”. He apparently suggested that all children and education secretaries should be made to read about violence in the British Empire. He implied that there is still admiration for the Empire, which was built on a “deeply racist assumption” that other countries are “not as good as us”. He is quoted as saying: "We seem to have this kind of myopia in this country, or certainly a collective amnesia when it comes to our collective past".
In another appearance he said he was “acutely conscious that slogans such as 'stop the boats', 'control our borders', so on and so on, are capable not only of being distracting, but also de-humanising.” In another he stated that “obviously statues of people like Rhodes and slave owners should go” and promoted so-called 'reparations' for slavery:
Even to very liberal friends, I would have real difficulty explaining to, in a way that [would] persuade them, about the case for reparations and why there was [both] a moral and legal, but certainly moral argument for it.
'Just Stop Oil', who had committed criminal damage and caused no end of disruption, also drew his praise:
We are seeing so many people, particularly young people, so concerned about the future of the planet, for all of us, that they’re willing to come out in their numbers and onto the streets and demonstrate in the way that they do. And that is, frankly, inspiring
For such comments, Hermer has been attacked by Lord Maurice Glasman of 'Blue Labour'. Blue Labour has formed a Parliamentary group of four Labour MPs, has been courted by JD Vance and saw Glasman invited to Trump's inauguration. Supposedly Morgan McSweeney has been taking an interest in Blue Labour's positions, in order to replicate these with Starmer and court the socially conservative vote. I think this is a containment strategy, rather than a genuine desire to restore common sense, but it remains to be seen. Glasman said of Hermer:
He’s got to go. He is the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool who thinks that law is a replacement for politics … They talk about the rule of law but what they want is a rule of lawyers
If Glasman really does have McSweeney's ear, perhaps this will happen. You never know.
Starmer and Badenoch clashed over the Chagos deal in Prime Minister's Questions on February 5th. Starmer's line was that the legality of the Diego Garcia base had been "cast into doubt" and thus it is not able to "operate in practical terms as it should". What he is referring to, I assume, is the 2019 advisory judgement by the ICJ that Britain needed to give the islands to Mauritius. It's quite simple, all we have to say is "no - this is our base and our islands and Mauritius can't have them". If Mauritius whinge about it, they can't do anything, unless they fancy a very short war with the UK and America. But of course, Starmer is fixated with 'international law' and the 'rules based order'. He will roll over for any supranational pronouncing against us.
Starmer claimed that a deal was necessary because of this purported complication with the base. He said this is why the Conservatives also entered into discussions with Mauritius (which they then shelved on the Defence Minister's instructions). On this point he said: "some within the party opposite know exactly what I'm talking about". He did not mention the ICJ and did not mention the 'decolonisation' ideology fuelling himself and his government; nor his personal history with Mauritius. In essence what he appeared to be doing - and is still doing - is hiding behind 'national security' to excuse an unpopular and senseless policy. The base was never in jeopardy, and this is all spin.
In the exchange, his attitude then became one of 'I know something you don't'. He implied that there is some great secret that Badenoch would know if she had been briefed properly. But he couldn't spell out what this was, conveniently, because of 'national security'. And if Badenoch were to be told, of course, she would not be able to reveal it either - along with anything said within the briefing. This is a similar tactic Starmer had over the Rudakubana terror charges, hiding behind the 'I couldn't jeopardise the court case' get-out. The PM said:
If the leader of the opposition is properly briefed on the national security implications when she's asking these questions... then she knows exactly what I'm talking about in terms of national security and legal certainty. If on the other hand she's not properly briefed on the national security implications, she's not doing her job, she's not concerned about national security and SHE'S NOT FIT TO BE PRIME MINISTER
In his next response, he added:
I notice she didn't say she was briefed about the Chagos issue. This is important... When she became leader of the opposition, I said to her that I would give her a briefing on any national security issue if she asked for it... She has not asked for a briefing on the Chagos Islands. That's because she's far more interested in chasing Reform than in national security"
I find it unlikely that Badenoch would turn down such information were she offered it, even if it meant she would lose an attack line against Labour. Ever the lawyer, he didn't explicitly say that such a briefing would contain a compelling reason to give away the islands and hire the base from Mauritius. He just implied it would. If it were to come out later there was no compelling reason, Starmer could say 'I never said there was'. He's hoping the national security angle will be enough to distract from his anti-British policy and his lousy negotiation skills.