The Blast of War
Britain is completely unprepared for global conflict
Towering Columns
In The Times, Ameer Kotecha describes how the Foreign Office is not fit for purpose.
Nearly five years ago, on the day Kabul fell to the Taliban, I was among several thousand officials invited to mark World Afro Day (for those unaware: “a global day of celebration and liberation of Afro hair”) with a panel discussion featuring a director charged with matters of national security. This week, with war raging in the Middle East and the RAF base in Cyprus under attack, the main news on the Foreign Office internal intranet was about the “New FCDO Capability Framework and self-assessment”, with all staff urged to “Take charge of your development”.
These provide a decent illustration of why, after over a decade, I have resigned from the diplomatic service.
The dysfunction runs deep. In recent discussions about how the Foreign Office could improve productivity with AI, some senior colleagues were more concerned with the need for an environmental impact assessment than for any proposed gains. Colleagues in the Department for International Development (now merged with the Foreign Office) justified to me their refusal to limit working from home to two days a week on the grounds that they didn’t want to work in a “colonial” office building. This is not culture war mudslinging. It illustrates a civil service culture hopelessly distracted by the peripheral, to the neglect of its core mission.
In The Telegraph, Maurice Cousins says that growing energy production is critical to restoring our hard power.
The numbers tell their own story. Between 2009 and 2024, installed generating capacity increased by more than 20 per cent – from 87 to 105 gigawatts. Yet total electricity output fell by nearly a quarter. Output per unit of capacity declined by over a third. We have built more but produced less power. In war, that kind of decline is a strategic liability. As the historian of grand strategy Paul Kennedy observed, productive force is “the single most important factor in explaining defeat or victory”.
By the end of the decade, defence experts are warning that Russia – an energy superpower – may possess a recapitalised armed force hardened by years of combat and a mobilised war-economy industrial base.
If the Kremlin judges that Britain and its European allies cannot sustain a prolonged war of attrition – that our production lines would falter before theirs – then deterrence weakens. The credibility of Nato, therefore, rests not merely on declarations of solidarity or headline spending pledges but on the capacity to endure.
In The Times, Juliet Samuels says that we are once again unprepared for a gas shock due to war in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, about ten years ago, Europe decided to get out of the gas financing business. Everyone from Mark Carney to the UN, Brussels and any Democratic state in the US urged investors and regulators to blacklist new fossil fuel investment and warned companies in the habit of building pipelines, finding gas or signing purchase contracts that the horrid stuff wasn’t wanted. Green tech was coming, they said, you’d better not get on the wrong side of history.
In the meantime, the plan was just to buy gas at whatever price was offered on the day. Predictable, long-term supply was stripped out of Europe’s most important energy market. Our prices are now set by the whims of LNG tankers — any way the wind blows (especially when it doesn’t).
Asia, by contrast, still signs decades-long contracts. This has the added advantage that when European prices spike, Japan or China divert the LNG they’ve bought at cheaper, pre-agreed prices to us and burn coal at home. This is one dynamic that explains why coal consumption is going up while gas stays flat.
For Conservative Home, Giles Dilnot says the government is not being honest that we cannot afford to pay for our own defence.
Rachel Reeves made a small reference to the unfolding situation in the Middle East at the top of her speech, but therein lies – at times literally – their problem. Not only are the Government being accused of vacillation and dereliction of duty defending our assets and denying their use to a key ally, but they also can’t pay – and have ignored questions about how they’ll pay – to be able to do so.
Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked the Chancellor this very question about defence spending. Rachel Reeves seemed to suggest that they had overseen the largest defence spending increase in years, and that was why “we’re degrading the capability of Iran to continue these attacks”
That’s news to everybody, because we aren’t, and the money hasn’t been spent, just promised. Word on when we might actually reach the point where it materialises is not to be found. It risks turning up as much too little too late as a British Type-45 Daring class Destroyer to the Mediterranean.
In The Critic, Charlie Cole documents the rapid rise in grants in British citizenship in recent years.
235,782 British citizenship grants were issued by the Home Office in 2025, with 78 per cent of these grants (182,778) going to non-EU nationals, with the top three nationalities being India, Pakistan and Nigeria. You might assume the spike in grants post-2020 are EU nationals acquiring British citizenship post-Brexit, however this is not the case, most grants have gone to non-EU nationals.
British citizenship grants are down from their peak in 2024, where 269,806 British citizenship grants were issued, the highest since records began. Britain has issued more citizenship grants in the last three years (2023-2025) than Japan has issued since 1967. Applications for British citizenship have been rising since 2020. There were 291,971 applications for British citizenship in 2025, the highest on record. For some comparison, there were 170,692 applications for British citizenship in 2020.
This is not the Boriswave acquiring citizenship, as they won’t have yet met the residency requirements, and pending Labour’s implementation of the Earned Settlement proposals, the bulk of the Boriswave will be prevented from acquiring Indefinite Leave to Remain and subsequently British citizenship until sometime in the 2030s.
On Substack, David Goodhart asks what is being done to preserve the way of life for the majority of people.
All the evidence we have from surveys and observation makes it clear that most people from the majority are happy to live in mixed places where their group continues to dominate numerically and minorities broadly fit in with majority ways of life. This can also happen in places far more diverse than Abingdon where the minority population is already more than one third—Reading, Watford, Milton Keynes and parts of Manchester might fit this description—places with large minorities and relatively comfortable levels of integration that could be the model for a future soft-landing.
What is meant by that phrase majority way of life—open to all comers—is hard to pin down but would include, as a minimum, common language (meaning fluent, idiomatic English), dress, and norms of public behaviour, some local attachments through sport/ media consumption, and easy mixing across lines of class and ethnicity in so-called third spaces (meaning neither home, nor work) such as pubs and cafes. At a national level it would include some sense of a shared history and Britain as a secular democracy but with a continuing attachment to Christian-influenced symbols and rituals, such as Remembrance Day or the 2023 Coronation, and some degree of emotional citizenship, with people feeling part of a common team and national story.
This majority way of life is something shaped by the White British but is fluid and evolving and open to people of all races and ethnicities who are also increasingly coming to mould it too.
For The Telegraph, Ben Marlow shows how our weak economy means we are uniquely exposed to the war in Iran.
That Britain remains this exposed to international markets and so reliant on foreign imports after the obliteration of living standards of the last few years is both unfathomable and unforgivable. Ministers have been asleep at the wheel.
There is a temptation to think much of this will be temporary, not least because most military experts believe the conflict will be short-lived. But that may prove to be wishful thinking.
Even if that is right, the pandemic and Ukraine taught us that prices shoot up much quicker than they come down. Inflation has fallen back sharply from the terrifying highs of 11.1pc in October 2022, but it remains stubbornly above the Bank of England’s 2pc target. After dipping below that level last year, it remains at 3pc, having bounced around for the last year or so.
The truth is, households are at the whim of an American government that gives the impression it is making things up as it goes along. Therefore no one can know how long the war will last. Even the White House can’t make up its mind, perhaps because it underestimated the speed with which it would be facing a broader regional war.
In The Times, Lord Finkelstein criticises the government’s decision to base foreign policy on narrow interpretations of international law.
Our position makes little sense diplomatically. It has been a major aim of the Starmer government to maintain a close alliance with the increasingly erratic American administration. In the long term we clearly need to be less reliant on the US but the prime minister judged that this would take time. Our position over Iran has made a mockery of his entire approach to the Trump administration.
It makes little sense morally. We are now engaged in a war we regard as illegal. We are not on the side of the Iranian people yearning to be free, nor on the side of the opponents of all wars. We seem to have lost a sense of who our allies are and who the enemy is. The cheers ring out from Tehran apartment blocks, while in Britain you hear the sound of humming and hawing. A massive war has broken out. It wasn’t at a time of our choosing, or in a way we would have planned, but surely we should at least know which side we are on. Australia does. Canada does.
And it makes little sense practically. It was obvious that if Iran were attacked it would lash out at its regional enemies and therefore at our friends. And obviously we would need to defend them. It’s ridiculous to think that the US could be in a war in Iran and that we would remain uninvolved. But now we have lost much of the goodwill that would have come with this involvement.
But never mind, at least we can justify our position legally.
For The Telegraph, Bob Seely says that the US is taking out Iran to send a warning to China on Taiwan.
For China, an aggressive Iran – like its other allies Russia and North Korea – is a useful vehicle for fixing the Western adversary and presenting so many diversions that the US risks becoming overwhelmed by multiple threats. It is to create, as the father of military theory Von Clausewitz would say, “friction”, tying down the American Gulliver and giving China global freedom of manoeuvre.
The Trump administration’s response has been dramatic. It is trying to deliver a shattering blow not only to Iran’s despicable regime, but also to China’s hopes of using the country to set the geostrategic conditions it needs prior to a potential Taiwan invasion. Taken in conjunction with Trump’s capture of Venezuela’s dictator Nicolas Maduro on January 3 – another major oil supplier to China – the US is knocking out China’s strategic diversions, cutting its tentacles one by one.
So, should China start to build up forces to invade Taiwan, the US carrier groups that Beijing would dearly wish to be tied down in the Gulf or off Venezuela can now be sitting behind Taiwan. The message the US is sending is: “China, we see you.”
On Substack, Andrew O’Brien says that getting closer to the European Union is not a solution to our economic weakness.
The Gorton and Denton by-election has put considerable pressure on the government to pivot towards progressive voters who are generally seen to want closer economic and political ties to the EU. The Iran War and ongoing situation in Ukraine has also created tension in the UK-US Alliance and made the EU look more favourable as a partner. There is also widespread concern amongst Labour politicians that the country lacks of a ‘growth plan’. Inevitably, in this politically and economically weakened state, the government is turning towards a closer economic relationship with the EU, and perhaps a pathway to rejoining, as a solution to these problems…
The EU would kill off any domestic reform agenda that seeks to rebalance our economy, and with it any chance for real improvement in living standards or spreading growth across our nation and regions.
The government is full of travellers wandering in the desert desperate for water, with closer ties to the EU looking like the only relief for miles around. But re-joining the EU or a custom’s union is not an economic oasis, it’s a poisoned well. We need to wake up and see our situation for what it is.
Wonky Thinking
Onward has launched a new Energy Commission, with a foreword from the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security, Claire Coutinho MP. The Commission’s first report examines the suite of policy costs imposed by the state at various stages of the supply chain.
As well as driving gas scarcity, UK policy choices actually make bills higher directly, too. Onward analysis shows that through taxes, levies and subsidy costs passed through to billpayers alone, the state adds 30% – or £285 – to a typical household.5 And the state imposes costly carbon taxes and VAT on gas generators. These taxes add around 40% to the wholesale cost of gas, and 15% to the average family’s bill.6 These taxes on electricity generation could be cut almost immediately. This would make gas power cheaper – a vital first step in making electrification and decarbonisation of the wider economy affordable.
Finally, as well as taxing energy producers and imposing levies on suppliers, the state taxes the consumption of energy by businesses through carbon pricing and the Climate Change Levy. These policies are designed to incentivise industrial decarbonisation, but the reality is that they drive up electricity costs for businesses to unsustainable levels, leading to offshoring and industrial collapse.
The UK needs a radically different approach to energy policy, prioritising security of domestic supply and affordability for businesses and families. This will require more nuclear power, an economically sustainable and competitive renewables sector, and more abundant gas for the foreseeable future. It will also require reform of energy procurement, pricing and the auction system. Onward’s energy commission will address all these problems in turn.
In a new report, Higher Ground, Bright Blue outlines two principles and eight policies for how the centre-right can tackle the cost of living crisis for lower income households. The focus of the report is reducing the cost of housing and energy which the report says is making life increasingly unaffordable for large parts of the country.
This analysis presents a distinctive centre-right policy prospectus for improving the living standards of low-to-middle income households in the UK. This means focusing on driving down the costs of essentials, not just boosting incomes, to raise living standards. Low-to-middle income households are defined in this report as those with an income below the UK population median.
This report examines the trends in, and private and public impacts of, stagnant living standards in the UK over the past few decades. It then offers two distinctive centre-right principles to try and boost the living standards of low-to-middle income households:
● Abundance - Abundance is the plentiful supply of all things good. Public policy should make better and more frequent use of supply-side measures, promoting prosperity by producing more of what we value and ensuring its availability.
● Certainty - Avoidable uncertainty is self-inflicted through deliberate government choices. In recent decades, the UK has suffered from pervasive avoidable uncertainty, both politically and economically. Certainty in key essential markets can reduce costs that can lead to savings for low-to-middle income households.
The report focuses on costs rather than incomes as a means of improving living standards for low-to-middle income households. In the UK context, the need for — and potential impact of — lower costs is greatest in two essential markets: housing and energy. Housing and energy costs are the biggest areas of difference between the outgoings of low-to-middle and higher income households.
A new paper published by Policy Exchange calls for a new Politics of Production to replace the consumption and debt fuelled economic model that has weakened the country’s finances and abandoned communities. The report outlines the cost of our current system and the billions being sent overseas at a time of capital shortages at home.
Despite the way that it is reported in the media, Foreign Direct Investment is not a grant but giving away our future income. Debt must be repaid, future profits from firms that have been sold transfer income overseas. Slowly over time the share of our future income that we are promising away is growing largely and larger. Between 2009 and 2024, £468bn left the UK to go overseas in the form of rents, debt interest, dividends and share buybacks. This is equivalent to handing over money worth the entire economic output of Tyneside overseas every year. In the next few years, we are on track to be hand over the equivalent of Glasgow, our seventh largest city, every year. This £30bn a year (on average) is less money for households to consume, less to spend on public services or whatever else we would like to do with it. This is only going to increase in the years ahead.
A third of our national debt is now owned by overseas institutions, which means that £25bn was paid out in debt interest on long-term central government debt in 2024, compared with £11bn in 1997 (2024 prices). This is only going to increase further as inflation and gilt yields increase. Over a third (38%) of the total value (by turnover) of our non-financial businesses are owned overseas, up from 36% in 2017.
In our most productive sectors such as manufacturing, over half of our businesses are foreign owned. In growing sectors, such as professional services or creative industries, foreign ownership rates are growing faster than the rest of the private sector. This is unsurprising. Overseas investors are most likely to buy those assets that have the greatest value. The total stock of business share capital and reserves owned by overseas investors has increased by £500 billion in the last four years. The more they buy, the more of our future income we have promised away, the more we are reliant on foreign debt.
Podcasts of the Week
The Institute for Fiscal Studies discusses how we can fix our broken fiscal rules which are holding the economy back and driving short-term decision making.
Links
The Chancellor published her Spring Statement with lower growth forecasts.
New analysis shows the UK has never recovered from the financial crisis.
In every region poor white children are less likely to go to university.
The average income for the first-time house buyer has reached £61,000.
One in seven young Britons are not in work or education.
The Head of the Police Federation has been arrested on suspicion of fraud.
The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that federal courts must defer to immigration agencies on deciding what counts as “persecution” in asylum cases.
AI models are allegedly deliberating lying to their users.
Forty per cent of Britons have not read a book in the past year.
Kemi Badenoch has made a major speech on British integration.