Zarah Sultana’s call for Britain to withdraw from NATO is the latest example of moral outrage turning into strategic confusion.
In a tweet this week, the exLabour MP wrote: “NATO isn’t about ‘peace’ or ‘security’. It’s an imperialist war machine. Just look at Afghanistan and Libya… We must withdraw from NATO immediately.”
It is a sweeping denunciation that fits comfortably within a certain left-wing tradition of anti-imperialist politics. But when you read it alongside Sultana’s own words from the early weeks of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it makes little sense.
On 24 February 2022, the day of the invasion, she tweeted: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is deplorable. Putin must immediately withdraw Russian forces and cease his bombardment.” Two days later she praised “incredibly courageous anti-war protestors in Russia who are risking repression to stand up for peace and against Putin’s invasion.”
Those were clear statements of solidarity with a people under attack and a recognition of who was responsible. Yet the position she takes today, treating NATO as the true source of global instability, sits awkwardly beside that earlier clarity.
The uncomfortable truth is that the only reason Ukraine’s neighbours have not shared its fate is because they are part of the alliance Sultana wants Britain to leave. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have been secure because NATO’s collective defence guarantee deters invasion. Countries outside that shield, such as Georgia and Ukraine, have not been so lucky. The difference is not theoretical; it is visible on the map.
To understand how she arrived at this contradiction, it helps to recall that in February 2022 Sultana was one of eleven Labour MPs who signed a statement by the Stop the War Coalition. That statement questioned NATO’s legitimacy and suggested that the alliance’s “eastward expansion” had contributed to the tensions leading to the war. The Labour leadership immediately warned that any MP who continued to back it would lose the whip. Sultana and the others withdrew their signatures within hours.
She has never herself said that NATO provoked the invasion. But by endorsing and then retracting a statement that made that argument, she placed herself briefly on the side of those who see Western power as the main driver of conflict rather than the Russian regime that launched it. Her current call for withdrawal from NATO repeats that same one-sided framing, stripped of any recognition of what deterrence actually does.
Her domestic argument fares no better. “Wages, not weapons. Welfare, not warfare,” she wrote this week. It is a catchy slogan but a misleading one. Britain’s defence budget is around two per cent of GDP. Even if it were cut dramatically, it would not come close to fixing the structural problems of the NHS or reversing child poverty. The idea that disarming would somehow fund social justice is politically convenient but economically shallow.
Last year Sultana laid a wreath in Coventry’s War Memorial Park “in memory of all those from Coventry and around the world who have died in the horrors of war.” Her instinct to seek peace is sincere, but peace is not secured by hope alone. It depends on the ability to deter those who use force to achieve their goals. NATO, for all its flaws and misjudgments, has provided that deterrence for three generations.
When Sultana denounces the alliance as imperialist while condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, she ends up attacking the very structure that keeps most of Europe safe from similar aggression. It is not a position grounded in realism or evidence. It is a moral gesture that collapses under scrutiny.
In my view, the whole thing is baffling. You cannot demand solidarity with Ukrainians fighting for survival and then call for Britain to leave the alliance that prevents such invasions elsewhere. It is incoherent, detached from reality and, frankly, really strange.
She condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “deplorable” and expressed solidarity with Ukrainians under attack. Yet she now demands that Britain withdraw from NATO, the only institution that has successfully deterred further Russian aggression in Europe. If NATO were dismantled or if Britain left it, states like Poland and the Baltic countries would become far more vulnerable. In effect, her policy would make the kind of invasion she condemns more likely. That is a fundamental contradiction.
Oft overlooked but a fact. “The enemy within”.
Voters in Britain are about to get the government they deserve.
All the whack jobs in charge from Nigel Farrage to Zoe Sultana.
It’s mental to think nearly half of people in Britain are willing to vote for people literally on the kremlin payroll.
Let’s see them whining about small boats or the corporations when their NHS is gone and the country is left defenceless.
Some bedtime reading:
‘Universal Healthcare without the NHS’ IEA report.
Then visit the Netherlands and get hospitalised. See how you get on; come back and report once you know what you are talking about.
How much does the Netherlands spend on healthcare per capita? And the UK? (clue, it’s about 25% less)
I don’t know why the likes of the IEA persist with such easily debunked BS
…is to completely miss the point.
Healthcare is far better in the Netherlands than in this country because the amount spent on health in the Netherlands is not determined by the Netherlands government.
In insurance-based health systems, such as that of the Netherlands, politicians cannot directly control the level of healthcare spending. Insurers are free to set their own premium rates, and if those rates are insufficient to cover their expenses, they can raise them. They do not have to ask politicians for permission first, or wait until a government sympathetic to their position is voted in. Not complicated and so much more efficient.
It is the state controlled/politically controlled health system, the NHS, that is the problem. Get politics out of healthcare as the Netherlands has done…and, while you are at it, do the same for education via a voucher system.
The IEA have simply pointed out an evidenced to be better way of running a universally available and equitable national healthcare system.
We know what to do but no-one has the backbone to do it….as with defence/conventional deterrence so another war on continental Europe results….!
Scraping the bottom of the barrel with the Institute of Economic Affairs.
While The Netherlands Healthcare System is excellent, The Australian Healthcare System is ranked higher than The Netherlands Healthcare System. Why choose the lesser one.
National heath care systems across the globe are ranked differently by various pundits, however, the general consensus is Australia followed by the Dutch system.
Both are not perfect, but when compared to the National Health System …
You mean the IEA that Andrew Marr once called them “undoubtedly the most influential think tank in modern British history”. Ho hum…
The point is that Australia, Netherlands and so many other countries have an insurance based universal healthcare system which works extremely well….far better than the NHS, funded out of general taxation.
That is precisely the conclusion that the IEA comes to in its excellent paper: ‘Universal Healthcare without the NHS’.
If you haven’t already done so, I would encourage you to read it. It is very well written and makes a lot of sense
Don’t give a hoot about Andrew Marr; would much rather listen to David Marr.
IEA is the nursery for all the Conservatives F’tards that wreaked havoc across British politics of the Johnson government and beyond to Truss, 14 members of Boris Johnson’s cabinet were IEA acolytes. What a extraordinary group of worthless and inept people they were/are.
Bully boy Dominic Raab … doyen of the British worker (that’s sarcasm)… said in his speech at the IEA’s birthday, about swimming in Brazil and after emerging from the sea to discover that the current had quietly moved him hundreds of metres along the shore, he considerd that was excatly how the IEA operated; quietly moving British politics to the right, without anyone noticing.
I can respect a valid report, yet, I will not allow it to blind me as to who the story teller is actually is.
You have no idea who the storyteller really is because you have not and will not read the report.
The Johnson government was a Social Democrat government, the true heir to Blair. Today’s government is the same, only worse….as everyone knew they would be but voted for them anyway, if only so that the country could once again be reminded of their true colours. Annihilation beckons for them as well….
‘Since Tony Blair was dazzled by President Clinton’s success based on calculated manipulation of the electorate – ‘triangulation’ as it was called – politics has become the plaything of people adept at oozing sincerity while telling barefaced lies.’
03 April 2021
Monro, I have now read the IEA report.
Then you are an absolute star!
The Australian system isn’t actually doing that well ATM.
I agree that the Netherlands system is the gold standard ATM.
As I said above …Both are not perfect…
The Australian system is doing fine, it’s not an ongoing disaster, debacle or finacial fiasco, it’s an effective scheme that serves the community very well onbalance, however, yes, it does need a ‘checkup’.
Some costs to the public need to be mitigated and reforms are needed to allow structural rationalisation, enabling coherence between various departments.
Judging by past history, necessary issues will be resolved, either the government will just get on and do it for political expediency or a Royal Commission will report and a list of recommendations will be compiled, these will be accepted by the Government of the day, until the next ‘check up’ is needed. That’s how it works.
Australia and the UK had very similar healthcare systems until the end of the 1940s, when they diverged. The UK created the National Health Service, while Australia opted for more gradual reforms within its existing system. We can see the Australian system as a plausible counterfactual for how healthcare in Britain might have evolved if the NHS had never been created.
The Australian model of today is best described as a multi-layered hybrid system. It is, in the main, a public health insurance system, comparable to the systems in France, Canada, Taiwan and South Korea. A universal insurance programme (Medicare) pays for most healthcare costs, but Medicare does not run any healthcare facilities of its own. Instead, it maintains contractual relations with a range of healthcare providers.
On top of universal public health insurance, most Australians have private health insurance (PHI). PHI potentially offers faster access to treatment, greater choice, higher levels of comfort, and additional services not covered by Medicare.
Private health insurers in Australia are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of individual health risks. A person in poor health pays the same insurance premium as a person in good health. Thus, private health insurance in Australia is similar to social health insurance (SHI) in Europe or Israel.
Australians with PHI tend to use the public system less. This is recognised in the Australian tax and transfer system: people with PHI receive a rebate, which effectively lowers their public insurance premium by around a quarter. This makes PHI more widely affordable.’
IEA
Thank you Monro. Yes, I know all this.
It will take a siesmic shift in British politics to make the reform to a PHI underpinned by a public system.
In Australia if you don’t have private hospital health insurance, you will still pay the standard Medicare Levy of 2% on your taxable income, but you may also have to pay the Medicare Levy Surcharge (MLS) if your income is above a certain threshold. The MLS is an additional 1% to 1.5% of your income, designed to encourage high-income earners to take out private hospital cover and reduce demand on the public system.
I have experience of both systems. In the UK I had to check myself out of the John Radcliff Hospital, Headington, Oxford after one night, as it seemed the equivalent to “Bedlam”, it wasn’t a safe, soothing place to recover from a myocardial infarction, it was perdition.
Utmost sympathy. The NHS is very much a curate’s egg, having had several excellent experiences recently….with, of course, excellent front line staff. Swingeing reform is, as you say, vanishingly unlikely.
My actual point was (which we both seem to agree on) scrapping the NHS won’t save money; an insurance based health system will likely cost more in extra funding than the entire defense budget.
With this in mind, where is this extra health funding coming from, along with promised increased defense spending and tax cuts?
The math aint mathing.
It’s a mindset thing.
Mindset A: ‘The government will see me right’ (it never will) = tax & spend.
Mindset B: It’s my responsibility to look after myself and my family = true open market social insurance with the state paying premiums for the disadvantaged.
Mindset B is essentially a voluntary wealth tax. Australians, Dutch pay more for healthcare because they want to, and it’s worth it.
That, because private, funding does not impinge on public money defence spending, the first duty of government.
Regarding tax cuts, the Laffer curve gives a hint as to where more revenue might be found, supply side reform another.
It’s a mindset thing.
Mindset A: ‘The government will see me right’ (it never will) = tax & spend.
Mindset B: It’s my responsibility to look after myself and my family = true open market social insurance with the state paying premiums for the disadvantaged.
Mindset B is essentially a voluntary wealth tax. Australians, Dutch pay more for healthcare because they want to, and it’s worth it.
That, because private, funding does not impinge on public money defence spending, the first duty of government.
Regarding tax cuts, the Laffer curve gives a hint as to where more revenue might be found, supply side reform another.
Then you are an absolute star!
And who do you think is getting rid of the nhs?
That’s the same rubbish trotted out about Farage. Quite like to see where he has committed to that?
Farrage has frequently proposed a ‘French style system’ i.e. insurance based healthcare.
Which isn’t getting rid of the nhs. In fact generally the Dutch and French system work far better than ours
We can all play semantics.
What’s suggested is a fundamental change from the NHS principal of free-at-the-point-of-use.
If they bought in a minimum IQ score of 100 (the average) to be a politician, half of them would fail.
You would take away our democratic right to elect morons? I’d go further: I think they should take a standardised test before standing, covering finance, welfare, education, defence, foreign affairs, trade and industry, health, and law/criminal justice; their score to be published on the ballot paper next to their name.
I remember a statistic that said 85% of our MPs don’t even know where money comes from. Their ignorance isn’t surprising, but shouldn’t the HoC library commission a handy “this is the way the world works” for MPs that even the Sultanas of this world can understand and hand it to them when elected?
People like that are dangerous and should, on no account have the Oxygen of publicity given to their traitorous ramblings . the next taboo subject will be the amalgamation of all the armed forces just as Canada and other nations that cannot afford to operate three separate force the fashion is for a joint defence organisation. personally I quite like the concept of a one size fits all policy along the lines of the USMC. and the Japanese defence force Canada has proven that it’s not a cheaper option. and costs as much as before the amalgamation exercise. it’s taking over a decade of wrangling and arguements before Canada ended up where it is now. the word amalgamation, like the European superleague in football is a word which will not go away.
People like that are dangerous and should, on no account have the Oxygen of publicity given to their traitorous ramblings . the next taboo subject will be the amalgamation of all the armed forces just as Canada and other nations that cannot afford to operate three separate force the fashion is for a joint defence organisation. personally I quite like the concept of a one size fits all policy along the lines of the USMC. and the Japanese defence force Canada has proven that it’s not a cheaper option. and costs as much as before the amalgamation exercise. it’s taking over a decade of wrangling and arguements before Canada ended up where it is now. the word amalgamation, like the European superleague in football is a word which will not go away.
. starmer and the rest of the circus he runs, are quick to comment on anything but, I’m glad that these as usual I’ll informed ramblings are not being mentioned, and I hope it stays that way. the french left NATO,, did a u turn and as the French are wanting to do came back again if we’re in we stay in. and I’m happy with that.
She talks drivel all the time, every time she opens her mouth. That’s a known fact and it’s all the article need have said really because what else would you expect?
Sultana is the new Abbot
The extremists, whether left or right are wrong about most things and she is no exception.
Agree. Trouble though is the centre are looking pretty weak electorally at this point in time.
Depends how one defines the centre, it’s all quite subjective. I see Reform as a moderate centre right party with all the other main parties to the left of it and no party of substance to the right of it.
Whereas I see Reform as traitorous Fascist loons effectively working for Russia trying to destroy the West from within.
They started this process with Brexit and continue to attack Britain’s interests at every point.
In the run up to the last election this website on its own saw seven calls for a military coup if Labour were to win. These came from four people. Three of them responsible for six of the calls were open about supporting Reform.
They are our real enemy within.
That perception of Reform probably closely aligns to the Zarah Sultana’s of this world. I’m not convinced that’s a mainstream opinion.
The disconnect to reality in some posters on this site is very worrying.
Check the latest opinion poll for UK elections. 73% of the population will be voting for parties to the left of Reform. There are none to the right of it.
So the left wing of Reform are significantly right wing, the right wing are the far right having subsumed all the neo-nazi groups.
They are not centre right. I am.
I am on the right wing of the Lib Dems. This puts 44% of the population to the right on me. Maybe a quarter of the Lib Dems are with me, 4% of the vote. The other 52% are the rest of the Lib Dems and all the parties to the left of them.
I am slightly right of centre for the UK at the moment
As I said before I believe the political spectrum is subjective. I see the Lib Dems firmly of the left. I dont think any far right political party of any substance exists in the UK and Reform are a moderate party of the centre right.
I think the term subjective is misleading. I think left and right are relative terms, so to have any real meaning they must always be used for a time and place.
By the standards of all sides in the English civil war our entire current political spectrum are social radicals (With the possible exception of anyone hiding in Reform who thinks the Handmaids Tale is a workable manifesto, and there might be).
If the worst fears of Green radicals occur then in a hundred years the bulk of people might see us all as conservative fake reformers who fiddled while the planet burned.
Always enjoy your ludicrous posts that never pertain to Defence matters and exist solely to forlornly defend the indefensible – who pays you “Chris”, Soros or the TUC?
See my reply to Andrew above.
I would happily be paid by George Soros. He is one of the strongest defenders of western values on the planet. Less keen on the TUC.
Question.
Are you the same FSB Officer as Andrew or are you just one of the useful idiots of Reform?
You know George Soros was behind the run on the Pound when Norman Lamont was Chancellor ?.
Reform is understandably new and will they have any surprises regarding defence policy ?
From memory I think they pledged 3.5% to defence at the last election and Farage has consistantly attacked cuts over the last couple of decades. I doubt there will be any detailed policies until the general election as things can change so quickly.
Farage hasn’t got any policies so far, just vague aims. He talked about massive budget cuts across the board but then pulled the pledge when experts said the numbers didn’t even vaguely add up. Farage is clearly a russian asset, so highly unlikely he will not cut defence.
I would be very surprised if defence does not increase under Reform (although most of the increase should have happened by 2029). Farage has been very consistent over decades now on the issue, often comparing defence to home insurance. The Russian asset stuff I just see as a wacky conspiracy theory.
Is it now, so he didn’t work for Russia today, his Wales leader hasn’t been prosecuted in court and admit to taking russian money. He hasnt been dodging every question on the topic rather than clearing the record. He didn’t say the same talking points that the guy admits came from russia. His clearly a russian asset, just a question of how that would influence him if he came to power.
As I recall, they pledged 2.5% in 2027 and 3% in 2030. Pretty close to what Labour is working towards right now. You mostly can’t put a Rizla between the defence policies of most UK political parties. However I believe Reform also said something about large scale Army recruitment that was different.
Sounds about right, I think Reform were the first to pledge more than 2.5% and then the others followed.
Yes about the same time they pledged to privatised the NHS.
We can easily afford 3% on defence once we get rid of the NHS.
If healthcare is free at the point of use, no matter how much money one has (Reforms policy) then I don’t really care what acronym provides the care.
The NHS is cheap as chips. Private providers cost significantly more (Source: I have paid quite a few actual invoices for both)
So scrapping (or even reducing) the NHS objectively won’t save any money (unless of course, the real intention is to stop providing free at the point of use healthcare)
Australia & Netherlands both have higher rated systems. What ever you do, don’t go to USA without insurance, even if all you use it for is to get home. If they can’t fix you cheaply, they will bury you (whatever is cheaper).
Don’t let facts get in the way. Farage and reform have repeatedly said the nhs will always be free at end point and have committed to it staying.
You have some proof no one else has seen?
Yes, 30k extra for the Army.
I believe that call actually came from the Lib Dems.
Hi C.
And Reform.
Look it up, linking would be pointless.
I studied their Defence policy, financially it is similar to the others but with the army addition, which I believe is unrealistic given recruitment realities.
Nope!
Try googling the political spectrum. Then you will see that reform are on the right. It’s objective not subjective
Placing someone or a party is entirely subjective. And yes, I believe Reform are centre right.
It’s objective, and reform are demonstrably not center right. Your opinion is irrelevant, the facts are the only thing that is important
The only relevant fact is that the placing someone or something on a political spectrum is fundamentally subjective! And since facts are apparently the only thing that matters then I consider the matter closed 😉
It is very objective. Just take on the new information, and update the accuracy of your world view.
Objectively socialism is on the left and conservative on the right. Reform are to the right of conservative.
You are sounding like the ship captain from Blackadder…..
If you look to the right and hardly see anyone then look to the left and see everybody else then you aren’t in the centre.
Or it shows a disconnect between politicians and the voters, which I would suggest there is a large body of evidence to support.
And there are plenty of far right parties out there but relatively very few far right voters.
In other words the politicians and their activists may believe they occupy the centre ground but is actually to the left of much of the country.
but better looking. 🐴🐴🐴
Currently they are. Labour has only had 1 year to turn around the mess that the was left by the conservatives. The voters turned up to vote them out because of it, but have unrealistic expectations on how fast the current government can turn things around. Still 4 years to the next election, so early days, still time to turn things around.
During the same year reform councils have been imploding and breaking all their promises. Demonstrating to the electroate what will happen if they get into central government. Plus already had their Wales leader admit to accepting money for russian speaking points.
Right now reform have all the advantages, they can promise everything without needing actual policies. Closer to the election they will need to start coming up with actual policies and the mess that is their local government will be brought up regularly. They won’t have as easy a ride.
Labour are making things worse, the more time we give them the more damage will be done. I’m not convinced they’ll limp to 2029 as a financial meltdown might force an election before then.
As for the May council elections, I know of promises made and kept, so I don’t recognise your statement that all promises have been broken.
That is actually an increasing risk.
A melt down that causes cuts that causes the Labour left to rebel that leads to a vote of no confidence that leads to an election.
All in the hands of that genius Reeves!
Quite. My guess is a 50/50 chance of a general election within the next 2 years.
They have only been in power for a year, most of their policies aren’t even through parliament, let alone having an impact on anything. The stuff that is getting worse is a result of the burn earth policy that the conservatives left. The economy is like a ship it won’t turn on a dime.
What they have done is increase investment on infustructure that will long term improve the economy after 15 years of zero investment. Improved workers and renters rights. And importantly here increased defense expenditure.
Time will tell if what they have done will result in a easing of the costing of living, but it’s only a year things take time
In that year the conservatives and reform have had scandle after scandle that involves financial mismanagement and fraud/corruption and not to mention outright racism, and I can’t see how that is going to get better once reform has more local councils. How in their sane mind would vote for them.
The fact Labour have been in power 15 months with a massive majority and still haven’t passed most of their legislative agenda shows they came to power with no real plan and are stumbling from one scandal to the next.
The problem with Labours plan with investment is that they see it in the prism of government spending, which has its uses but it’s the private sector that drives growth. The very sector Labour has hammered.
If want you want to achieve can be done without legislation, you can move a little quicker, but legislation is a whole different thing. If you get it wrong, you end up in endless court challenges & there is that law of unintended consequences to consider. If it’s without legislation, you can reposition fairly quickly, if it’s a law you have got wrong, it will takes months to fix (or ask the King to repeal a law & go back to the previous one). Either way is both embarrassing & will take time (& courts & departments have to work with the law that is, not what was intended). Governments (other than in times of war), are by their very nature, slow moving. Just because you don’t agree with the opposition parties doesn’t mean they don’t have a point & if you ignore it & it comes back to bite you, you will pay at the ballot box. Policies always sound great until reality sets in.
I would have more sympathy with that position if Labour didn’t have 14 years to prepare (and Starmer 4 years). Legislation could have been written years in advance. Reform for example have already began writing legislation so they can get the ball rolling immediately.
Also about 70% of population would currently vote for them especially after labours string of broken promises on nearly everything
So hold on it’s fair to give labour 4 years to turn it round. But you expect Reform councils to turn it round instantly?
Get a grip
It is folly to expect logical consistancy from those quarters. Self reflection is not one of her strong points.
America has a real leader in trump, we have a wet lettuce in starmers media world of fantasy.
There’s always one in every country that says nonsense.. sometimes it’s an MP, sometimes its the president of the most powerful country in the world
Trouble is we are having more than one aren’t we? SNP ,Greens and as said the enemy within are becoming more vocal by the day!
normally it’s been a Scottish nobody MP who trucks out this kind of rubbish and okay by me. but it bothers me when it comes out of the circus at London W1.
difficult for the Left to speak about russia. nato expanded east when putin showed his colours and the biggest example is finland which defiantly remained neutral but has recently joined nato. the Left may have said (who knows) why were we trying to make a western democracy in afghan, i would have agreed with them
Perhaps someone could explain to her the meaning of “cognitive dissonance” 🤷🏻♂️
Thank goodness that she is no longer a member of the Labour Party.
The “British MP’s” servings the “UK interests”
The article is wrong, she isn’t a labour MP, the whip was removed, she is now part of “Your Party”, which is Corbyn party.
I never get the fine nuance of what is a Labour MP. When the whip is withdrawn you don’t lose membership of the Labour Party, just the Parliamentary Labour Party. So are you then an MP who is Labour but not a Labour MP?
After a while, Sultana quit the Labour Party too, so in her case I suppose it’s moot.
Sultana is nothing but an overgrown Student Union activist who thinks soundbites and cliches are going to solve the worlds problems equitably.
I think George here has been very respectful here in his analysis. I’m kind of surprised he’s bothered at all giving it oxygen of publicity.
There’s a lot of digging in going on in UK politics; politicians on extreme right and left adopting fanatical positions and offering appealing, simplistic silver bullet solutions to all our problems. The conservatives got thrown out because they let the free market run away with itself. Labour will be thrown out if they try to convert the country into some kind of giant socialist multi-cultural, Bevanite Welsh valley idyll. IMO the current govt is behaving in a pragmatic and fair fashion but is being undermined by vested capital interests who know how to profit from chaos, by ‘traditional’ socialist their own party and by MPs like Sultana who have a sectarian agenda.
That’s a very fair assessment. I’d add that IMO neoliberal economics has run it’s course as the Truss meltdown amply demonstrated.
The UK is in a particular bind due to policies (by previous governments of all stripes) to promote the City, trading and finance over a more balanced economy with more industrial & technological depth. Thus a certain amount of intervention is required to encourage more value-creating (rather than extractive) investment.
However many very wealthy folks have profited handsomely from essentially parasitic business models (Farage himself is an ex commodity trader) so of course they will fight (or fund others to fight) changes hard.
But the far Left is equally dangerous politically, as they promote fantasy ideas that there are no real limits on public spending; it’s just the government being mean. Ironically, by implying that spending trade-offs are indeed necessary, Sultana’s argument actually undermines that very common left-populist position (even if her sums don’t add up, and proposals for defence cuts at this juncture won’t land well with any voters beside the extremist tankie fringe).
What Farage and Polanski have in common is that they both have big mouths and big egos. And the potential to screw up the country.
I’ve often wondered how many of our politicians have been in the pay/ influence of foreign states and religions.
Corbyn runs a fruit and nut party so a Sultana gets its credibility halfway there?
The toxic alliance of the extreme leftists and Islamists.
They care more about Gaza than anything going on in the UK.
“Wages, not weapons” Makes no sense as the military industries we do have provide jobs, especially shipbuilding, which has just won foreign orders
Typical leftist idealism: “Leave the rest of the world alone and it will leave us alone”
You can take a basic lesson which most of us learned in school:
If you look weak and passive, you will attract bullies. Global politics is no different
Never heard of her until I read this article.
Has anyone?
I thought sultanas were raisins
An MP with zero capacity for rational thought is hardly a novelty though.
Articles like this just get the same old left right warfare and respective echo chambers sniping at each other, and the tired russian asset nonsense thrown like confetti.
I made my mind up years ago, so have many, many others.
On Sultana, a Corbyn accolyte. Enough said.
Hear hear.
Given that we know Russia has been using migration as a weapon against western countries, why would a Russian asset be so vehemently opposed to it? Reform have also had the most defence friendly rhetoric and policies of all the main parties, so how is a stronger UK military in Russia’s interests.
It’s illogical, counter-intuitive, incoherent nonsense.
I think so. But, everyone has an opinion. I want proof.
When the establishment is scared, the establishment goes into overdrive, throwing mud.
An old, old tactic. Starmer was at it a few weeks ago.
Both Tory and Labour are at heart globalists, and arm in arm with big corporations and mass migration.
Reform are not, neither are Russia, obviously.
That doesn’t make them bedfellows.
I’ve watched Farage several times talk regards defence, including in person and also a face to face.
So whatever propaganda is spread here has no effect on me.
Where do posters seriously expect voters to go????
Back to the Tories and Labour AGAIN?
Look at the polls to see who is listening. Too many have woken up.
Oh dear.
If you think Labour and Tories like to ‘grandstand’ which you often rightly point out, just wait til Reform get in. In fact, we don’t have to wait – that’s all they do. Reform will, without a shred of hyperbole or doubt, destroy this country in short order. I’m not one for screaming about the end times when either of ‘the other party’ get in, but Reform are not even close to being an alternative ‘party’. They are spivs, charlatans and fools – and not the normal politician kind – they’re the ‘would sell their own grandmothers down the river’ kind.
‘Too many have woken up’??? Jesus christ. Leopards. Faces. Eaten.
Your contributions on here are consistently very good, you know your stuff, you hold politicians to account, you obviously care about your country. But you’ve been sucked in to the parallel bizarro world that exists nowehere but online and in the increasingly poor excuse for a media we have in this country nowadays. Anything other than fierce resistance to Reform (as well as the lunatics on the left), is a de facto dereliction of duty.
Many may be asleep, as you say, but Reform are sleepwalking their followers through a fever dream whilst proclaiming that they’re the ones wide awake. It would be deeply amusing, if it weren’t so tragic.
The Conservatives blew £500Bn on a common cold coronavirus and the labour party would have blown even more, are currently testing tax and spend to destruction.
Everyone has had enough so ‘throw the cards in the air, let them land where they will’ is the prevailing sentiment.
The daily insouciance of the current government fuel this sentiment with alarming regularity.
The die may very well be cast and who can blame the voter, really…
I totally agree that successive governments are failing to respond to the mounting challenges this country faces, and that not only do much of our institutions need reforming, but they need to be delivered into the next century, which represents reforms of kind, as well as degree. This is a coloassal task, especially when our public services are falling apart, and the ongoing fiscal crisis gets kicked down the road.
Although Labour have only been in a year (and I do expect there will be gradual improvement in many areas before next election, as they are passing lots of pretty good legislation), they have thus far dissappointed me, politically speaking – Starmer, as hardworking and genuinely motivated by public service as he is, is not temperamentally suited for leadership per se. As such he has been unable to make use of his huge majority for the major reforms our civics need. There are major economic problems that need to be dealt with competently and boldly. To be clear – I don’t care which party is in power, just that they are competently working for the improvement of the nation.
Reform may turn out to be bold. But competent they are not, and there’s nothing more dangerous than a confident and empowered fool.
There are damp squib governments who nevertheless have the country’s interest more or less at heart, and then there are lying charlatans who’s incompetence and corruption is so nakedly apparent that it beggars belief sensible people are willing to ‘give them a go’. There’s always going to be a proportion of any society that can be rabble roused into voting against their own interests, but Reform enjoy support from seemingly reasonable and informed people.
Reform are not Reformers, they are (super wealthy!) arsonists, and if you think our state is such an implacable pile of shit that the best thing to do would be to burn it down and start again, then you’re just deeply unserious.
I for one will blame each and every person who votes for Reform, if they get in, when everything grinds to a halt and start falling apart at the rate of a blazing runaway train. If you think we’re in dire straits now, think again – it could be oh so much worse. Just look across the pond at what’s happening – Farage admires Trump, and will try to enact some form of MAGA-lite if he ever gets the chance. If you can’t see the danger of this, then you’re being willfully negligent and should feel some responsibility when it comes home to roost.
The Conservative government had an 80 seat majority and spent £500Bn on nothing.
The British Public then gave the Labour party a massive majority. They expanded an already bloated public sector, raised taxes, raised unemployment and raised inflation, sending the cost of living through the roof. What, really, do you expect the desperate and benighted taxpayer to do next? Of course they will vote in Reform, no other alternative than a ‘Hail Mary’.
As this govt are being outed as Chinese assets it’s a bit rich to keep going on about Reform isn’t it? Talk about being desperate👍
It is. But it’s a standard tactic mate.