By PETER YOUNG

After its commanding win in Britain’s General Election just a year ago, it is hard to believe reports of the extent of the domestic unpopularity of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government today. In what has become a volatile electoral landscape, the first twelve months have not been good for him and his administration, and the past week has been a particularly bruising one.

In this weekly column I aim to write positively about Britain whenever possible. But it is equally important to reflect reality, not least in the hope that any situation might always improve.

According to the latest polls, a majority of the public think that the Labour government is handling most major issues poorly, especially in the three main areas of the National Health Service, the welfare system and immigration. The UK press reports that voters have given a scathing verdict on the prime minister’s time in Downing Street which, by common consent, has been worse than anticipated. So, the general view seems to be that the prime minister is in some trouble.

Historians are now saying that no Labour prime minister since the Second World War has started so badly. Even allowing for voters’ usual dissatisfaction with sitting governments, Starmer and his ministerial colleagues have managed to anger an array of different people over failures in many areas.

These range from pensioners, parents, small business owners, farmers, fishermen and people with disabilities to rape gang victims and Brexiteers - together with Labour backbench MPs themselves, without whose support the government would not have a mandate to run the country. The latest threat to Starmer’s authority was last week’s rebellion by some 120 Labour MPs over the government’s welfare reforms - and, specifically, disability benefit cuts – that eventually led to a climb down by Downing Street.

It is now being claimed that Starmer does not seem to realize that his position depends on carrying his own MPs with him. Some commentators suggest that rather too many of these do not have much loyalty towards him as leader, since they feel that it was the electorate’s desire for change from a failing Conservative government rather than support for Labour’s party leadership that was responsible for their elevation to Westminster a year ago.

But what has become politically unsettling to many is that the prime minister’s personal popularity has plummeted in the country. Reportedly, half of Labour’s own voters now hold an unfavourable view of him; and this is not only in relation to his own actions - particularly the numerous U-turns on policy resulting in accusations that he is a “flip-flopper” - but because of serious doubts about what he really stands for politically.

It is claimed that U-turns on winter fuel payments to pensioners, on a national inquiry into grooming gangs and now on welfare payments have shown not only incompetence at the heart of government but also a lack of adherence to established values in reaching decisions in the first place. Moreover, it is now being said that dissident Labour MPs are planning further rebellions on other issues.

By contrast, many consider that the prime minister has been notably active and effective in relation to foreign affairs over the past twelve months, as is reflected in his much higher standing abroad.

Indeed, such has been his heavy schedule attending a variety of meetings of world leaders in different countries that he has earned the only partly critical sobriquet “Never here Keir”. It is fair to say that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations as the leader of a nation that is a global player – and Britain’s influence in international affairs has benefited accordingly.

Commentators in the UK press have been emphasizing recently that the rise of the Reform Party, led by the well-known Brexiteer, Nigel Farage, has shown that Britain is no longer dominated by the Conservatives and Labour while the Liberal Democrats have also enjoyed success in the latest elections.

Although it only has five MPs at the moment, Reform now seems to be on the march across the UK with several more wins recently in local by-elections. Its success is such that, in their study of electoral patterns, psephologists predict that, if a general election were held now, Reform would be the biggest party with 271 seats and Labour in second place with 178. The Conservatives would be placed fourth behind the Liberal Democrats.

General elections in the UK usually take place every five years unless, for example, a vote of no confidence in a sitting government forces one earlier or that an election becomes necessary in the light of unforeseen circumstances. So, these are still early days for the sitting Labour government, and there is time for it to change direction and restore its political fortunes.

Britain prides itself on political stability. This includes respect for the country’s well-established electoral process and the outcome of democratic elections. In the uncertainty of an increasingly unstable world, long may that continue. It is a most valuable asset for any country.

Success of historic NATO Summit

Barely six months in to his second term and, while his actions domestically are being felt in every corner of American life, it is being said widely that US president Donald Trump is also reshaping global politics. The evidence is there for all to see.

This is particularly the case in relation to NATO in which Trump has become the dominant figure. This defensive alliance was created in 1949 by the US, Canada and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. Although a joint enterprise, it was clear at the time and beyond that the US was the driving force behind the alliance which was considered necessary in the face of a belligerent USSR following the end of the Second World War.

Last week’s two-day NATO Summit in The Hague, attended by its 32 members including the overpowering figure of Trump himself, has been described as historic and transformational insofar as it secured major new financial commitments on the part of each of its members, with the exception of a reluctant Spain. These allies agreed to a massive ramping up of funding by committing to spending and investing annually 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035. This comprises 3.5 per cent on core defence requirements and 1.5 per cent on defence and security related investments like infrastructure and industry.

In a joint statement about their commitment to spend 5 per cent of their country’s economic output, NATO leaders said they were united against “profound” security challenges, singling out the long-term threat posed by Russia and terrorism. They also reaffirmed their “ironclad commitment” to the principle that an attack on one NATO member would lead to a response from the full alliance – and that will surely be music to the ears of those countries situated in the east of Europe close to Russia.

This five percent pledge on defence spending marks a major uplift from the previous level of two percent. It represents a considerable victory for the US president himself, though Trump made a point of saying that it was a big win for Europe and for Western civilisation. He hoped it would become a new benchmark. Since his first term he has been railing against NATO members about their need to pay more for their own security rather than relying excessively on the US, and he has been pressing consistently for implementation of the two percent spending requirement agreed to by NATO defence ministers as a minimum level as long ago as 2006.

For a number of years, NATO members have become increasingly wary of Trump’s apparently lukewarm attitude towards NATO. There have been doubts about whether he would honour, in the event of a crisis, the Article 5 commitment to come to the assistance of a fellow member who had been attacked. So it was interesting to watch the fawning approach to him by the new secretary general, Mark Rutte, who seemed eager to flatter him and “butter him up” at all costs, including sending him a special personal pre-summit letter. But perhaps Rutte read his man accurately. At the end of the summit Trump stated on the record that the summit was a “big success” and that “I stand by Article 5, that’s why I’m here”.

In his speech at the summit, Mark Rutte welcomed the 5 per cent pledge which, he said, would reinforce NATO’s ability and commitment to do what it was founded to do – to deter and defend; and he admitted this would not have happened if Trump had not been re-elected. The new financial pledge would “ensure that our one billion people can continue to live in freedom and security”. He added that “together the Allies have laid the foundations for a stronger, fairer, more lethal NATO.”

Despite what is generally regarded as a positive outcome of this NATO Summit, the joint statement at the end did not include condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and there are critics who say there was no specific mention of the US which meant the credibility of deterrence had been weakened. Even though the US president has said he will always stand by Article 5, everyone is aware he is known for changing tack on a whim.

So, in light of such doubts, many in Europe are now beginning to realise that being forced by Trump to increase their own defence spending could, in a way, turn out to be a blessing in disguise - in terms of helping to ensure their own safety and security.

Free speech or terrorism?

Reportedly, to hear the “top cop” in London himself say recently that he was “shocked and frustrated” was alarming for many people. He was referring to the violent group in Britain called Palestine Action which was mounting a protest outside Parliament in central London. It cast doubt on the police’s commitment to protection of the public, leaving people wondering whether in today’s British democracy the right balance is being struck between respecting the right to protest and punishing criminality.

The implication of the remarks attributed to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is that the police were unable under existing laws to do much to prevent this protest by Palestine Action or even to contain it. He stated that he did not have the power to ban the protest because, although it was already branded an extremist criminal group, it had not been officially proscribed. But, according to UK press reports, many find it hard to believe that tougher action could not have been taken under existing laws.

His comments came after a former adviser to the government on political violence had warned that the security of MPs and members of the House of Lords was at risk after they had been harassed, intimidated and obstructed during a previous recent pro-Palestine demonstration outside Parliament.

This has hit the headlines in the UK because the Home Secretary (Minister of Interior equivalent) announced last week that Palestine Action would be proscribed under anti-terror laws. This would make membership and support of the group illegal. As she said in stentorian tones “this government will not tolerate those that put the nation’s security at risk.”

Given the group’s long history of targeting, among others, financial companies, universities and government buildings and committing criminal damage, many people find it hard to see why the police were unable to act strongly against it without a formal banning order which will inevitably be controversial.

Presumably, what has been the determining factor now is the group’s recent break-in at the RAF’s main base of Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and its spraying of paint into the jet engines of military aircraft together with other damage. This is not only a deeply embarrassing security breach for the RAF but it seems to have been the impetus for the government’s latest action.

Perhaps it is worth repeating briefly to such protesters that criminal action incurs penalties under the law. While freedom of speech and expression are the lifeblood of a democracy, there have to be restrictions in order to maintain public order - and to protect the rights of individuals, including their own.