Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 6)

Trump; public sector wages; missiles and Ukraine

Trump

As Trump has now been elected and will assume the Presidency in January, Labour's past behaviour towards him is hardly the foundation of a good relationship. You had the spat with Khan, Lammy calling him a neo-Nazi sympathiser (because of the bogus 'both sides' incident after Charlottesville), and Ed Miliband going for various bog standard TDS talking points. There are numerous other examples of top Labour figures insulting the man, rather than using constructive political criticism. Worryingly, this includes Labour’s Minister for North America, Stephen Doughty.

Now, topping all of this, a Labour senior staff member organised a junket to America to campaign for Kamala Harris. Sofia Patel, their 'Head of Operations', arranged to send 100 past and present Labour staff on the trip, foolishly advertising it on LinkedIn (the post now deleted).

The Telegraph also reported Labour connected figures had been advising Harris on her run (that's all the poor woman needed). Starmer's new Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, and his Director of Communications, Matthew Doyle, had apparently briefed the Harris team while visiting America. The Telegraph also mentions an ex-advisor to Gordon Brown, Deborah Mattison, working with the Democrats. This is confirmed in a smug Guardian article by Mattison. Writing with Claire Ainsley, another ex-advisor for Starmer, she writes:

The start point is to identify and understand Harris’s hero voters – undecided voters who have considered Trump and live in the handful of most crucial battleground states.

Working with Democratic thinktank the Progressive Policy Institute [in which Ainsley is a Director], we have attempted to do just that, applying lessons from the UK election, conducting polling and focus groups to really understand the voters that matter most.

The Patel campaigning trip, which supposedly was called off or at least curbed when the story broke, was not necessarily illegal - contrary to what some are claiming. If foreign campaigners are unpaid volunteers - or 'not compensated' for their work - it is allowed. You could argue expenses are a form of payment, but it wasn't clear from the advert that expenses were being paid. It only said "we will sort your housing", which could mean they were finding peoples' sofas for them to sleep on, and not necessarily hotels. Flights, car-hire and spending money were not mentioned, so we might infer the volunteers have to pay for them. The Telegraph's report supports this version of events.

Neither was this initiative anything new - I know from my ill-spent time in Labour there was a similar programme in 2016 (from what I recall you had to pay for flights). However, it is hardly a good look for a party of government, especially considering how appalling a candidate Harris is.

Elon Musk, fresh from his recent beef with Keir Starmer over the UK riots, amplified a Tweet pointing the situation out, stating "this is illegal". Needless to say that made it blow up into a huge story, and it prompted Trump's team to make a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission in Florida. The letter contends that Labour's actions may constitute foreign interference in US elections, which is rather flimsy; though they are only pulling the same stunt the Democrats pulled in 2016, when Trump's victory was blamed on Russia. There is some political theatre here, but it's to be expected - and would have been best avoided by Labour preventing such activities.

I would suggest it should not be allowed for a British political party to send volunteers to campaign in any foreign election. It must be done by individuals in a personal capacity, without any use of the party name or infrastructure. That is just common sense, especially when a party is in government and will need to conduct diplomacy with whoever wins said election.

Since winning the election, Labour had been trying to cool the tensions with Trump. Starmer recently met him for dinner, and was quick to phone him after the July assassination attempt. Lammy has met with JD Vance (oh to be a fly on the wall). Trump himself spoke positively of Starmer before their meeting. This campaigning incident may well have set things back.

Countering the outrage, many cite Nigel Farage going to campaign for Trump. Let’s look at this. In 2016, he did so as an individual when he'd left UKIP. On that occasion he did not actually tell anyone who to vote for, although he clearly implied it. That was acceptable, in my opinion. He has platformed him while wearing his journalist/broadcaster hat, at LBC and then at GB News - also fine. However, he has now done campaigning of during the 2024 election, while a serving MP and leader of Reform.

He would probably have the same story lined up as before: ‘I was just observing the event, I didn’t actually endorse him. I was being a journalist’. This is rather dubious because we all know what he’s doing, wearing a MAGA hat and grinning like a Cheshire cat. Sorry, I call it as I see it. You can disapprove of both Labour and Farage campaigning. It might be best for us to tighten the rules as I describe, to prevent any more ambiguity. Still, a party of government facilitating such a venture is a very different thing from a lone MP doing so.

Now Trump has won, which he was always to, don't be surprised if the brash New Yorker has a frosty or even combative dynamic with the UK government. Indeed, there is a rumour going about that Trump is gearing up for a ‘war’ with Labour. That's not ideal for long-term allies in the midst of several global crises. If Harris had won, then Labour would have been tainted by the association; for Kamala was sure to be a catastrophe, just like her senile predecessor.

Public sector wages

As we have seen, Labour is perfectly happy to spend generously on its own priorities, while imposing austerity on everything else. It will also spend on what will benefit the party and its supporters. When the rest of us are expected to tighten our belts and cough up more taxes because of what the 'bad Tories' have done, certain public sector professionals will get a pay rise. Labour succumbed to the demands of junior doctors (22.3% rise) and then the train drivers (15%) - the latter already handsomely paid. Doing this will have sent a clear message to the other unions, who will now be queuing up at the buffet. Indeed, on October 16th, London's tube drivers announced they will strike unless they receive a larger rise than the 3.8% offered (4.6% is TFL's counter offer). 

The reason for acceding to these union demands is not 'we have to get Britain moving', as Starmer claims. It is because Labour is bankrolled by unions and supported by most public sector professionals.

That's hardly news, and it's not necessarily wrong to be funded by unions or be pro-public sector. However, the point is most people in the country are suffering in this economy, so why should some people get a place in the lifeboat, especially train drivers already earning £60,000 a year? Labour and the left in general do not tend to consider private sector workers or the self employed. They fetishise the public sector because that is where their support lies, and it signals virtue. There is also a bias towards the management levels within the public sector. In 2022 Starmer said he would not meet the 19% pay rise the nurses were asking for, and now the government he has offered them 5.5%, which they've declined.

I agree with paying public sector employees well, particularly in difficult frontline services like nursing, care homes, police and the Army. However, at this particular time there needs to be moderation and an effort to raise all wages, while tackling the issues that are increasing the cost of living. With this government, there won't be. Just like the last government, they are going hell for leather with immigration and expensive energy policies.

By caving on the demands of the junior doctors and train drivers, Labour have painted themselves into a corner. If they concede to new demands, they will stretch their spending commitments and anger the majority of the public who are not getting a pay rise. If they don't give enough money, they will anger these unions and haemorrhage their support, possibly risking disruptive strikes. One suspects that Labour don't really know how to negotiate, and don't really know what they are doing.

Missiles and Ukraine

Apparently, Starmer and Lammy have been pushing for Ukraine to be allowed to fire western missiles deep into Russia. These are weapons such as the 'Storm Shadows' we have given them. So far the rockets have been used against Russian positions within Ukraine, but not within Russia. The leaders of most other NATO countries - including Biden - are against this, because they rightly consider it would be a provocation too far. If even Biden's not up for it, that's telling you something. This isn't some game, this is a brutal war of attrition that has been going on for over two years; and if allowed to get out of control, it could mean global nuclear war.

UPDATE: Biden is now up for it…

This latest notion adds to the litany of unwise concepts proffered by our foolish politicians, such as imposing a no-fly zone which would mean NATO shooting down Russian aircraft, giving Zelensky our best aircraft to use, deporting or seizing the assets of any Russian in the UK, or even Western boots on the ground. These have not only been the preserve of 'Tory boys' like Tobias Elwood or Ben Wallace ('we kicked their backsides in the Crimean War and can do it again'); but of Labour sabre-rattlers as well.  

So Labour have been just as tub-thumping about Ukraine as the Conservatives. They continue to act the big tough guy in an Army jacket and throw money at the issue while the UK is struggling. They continue to eulogise about Zelensky and strut around in Kiev pointing at things for publicity shots.

This criticism is not, I hasten to add, an expression of support for Putin or for Russia. What Putin has done is dreadful, and a clear act of aggression even considering the long back-story (involving conflict in the Donbas, NATO expansion, and the western-backed revolution in Ukraine). It has cost not only the Ukrainian people dearly, but his own, and was a needless venture. A limited operation in the Donbas *might* have been more justified, but not an all-out invasion of Ukraine.

We were right to initially support Ukraine in arms, diplomacy and intelligence. However, how long can this go on for? It is my view, as an outsider, there needs to be a negotiated settlement. If it requires some ceding of the Donbas to Russia, that may be a price worth paying. If I was Ukrainian I would probably not agree, but I'm not. I want both sides to stop dying in huge numbers, and the world brought back from the brink. There is now an even higher risk of a world war owing to the situation in the Middle East. Addressing the Ukraine issue would lessen that risk, allowing us to put more efforts into deescalating the other crisis.

If you have this view, people inevitably level this crude accusation at you: "Appeaser! Just like Neville Chamberlain - you would have let Hitler walk all over us!". The fact is Hitler was not armed with 3,000 nuclear missiles and neither were the future Allies. Hitler was also trying to conquer the whole of Europe, the UK included. At the very least it was clear in 1938 he wanted swathes of Poland and Czechoslovakia, and he wanted to humble France and neuter Britain. Putin only wants the Donbas (and to humble Ukraine), despite some claiming he plans to take over NATO countries such as Poland. Even if he desires to in his heart, like the Soviets he used to work for, he won't because of nuclear weapons. It's a different situation entirely.

For another example, let's take the Falklands War. There was not much risk to Britain in fighting Argentina (other than the exposing the whole fleet to harm). Galtieri was not nuclear armed, had a much inferior force to Hitler and had internal political chaos. He had no powerful allies backing him, and it was over quickly. As a Brit, I approve of that action, and I probably would have approved even if it took years rather than weeks. However, imagine it had dragged on as a bloody stalemate for over two years, with tens of thousands being thrust into the meat grinder. It would then have been pertinent for a neutral to say "OK, you're going to have to come to a compromise over that remote territory". Our cause would have been fully tested by military action, and as a consequence of our war machine failing, a negotiation would have to settle it. Fortunately, we won and our cause was vindicated.    

I have, then, a pragmatic outlook towards the Ukraine War. Many on both the left and right share this, but Labour does not seem to - at least not publicly. They continue to make shallow political capital out of a mess that is costing us vastly, and costing its victims even more so. It is not a tenable policy, and is likely to become even more impractical now Trump has won the US election. The Western world is sure to toe the line and their support for Zelensky will ebb away as Trump and Vance seek a deal.

Some of course will agree with the Labour government's current position. Ukraine is a subject that understandably prompts much emotion. However, if you do share these misgivings about the war, suffice to say the behaviour of Starmer's administration should worry you. Those who do fervently support Ukraine are likely to see a classic reversal from Starmer when the inevitable Western climb-down begins. As usual we will both be left unsatisfied.

All rights reserved, Ed Pond, 2024