EVERY day, another lurch nearer the precipice. The British Establishment appears bent on dragging the country to war without telling anyone.
As anticipated, it seems that Keir Starmer has authorised Ukraine to fire British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles deep into Russia and that Kiev has commenced doing so.
The change of policy is of course not really Starmer’s. He is merely following the US lead, as ever, reversing his stance because he now has permission from President Joe Biden to do so.
It is a decision driven by panic, as the centrist elite worries that its proxy war in Ukraine may be terminated by the arrival of president Donald Trump in office in January.
Biden and Starmer want to make it as difficult as possible for him to follow through on his stated policy of seeking to bring the conflict to an end.
But it is not a decision British ministers want to own up to. There has been no announcement of the change of policy in Parliament. As Jeremy Corbyn rightly asks, Starmer should explain “why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.”
Directly challenged on the matter by MPs, Defence Secretary John Healey simply refused to answer, although he confirmed that the government is “doubling down” on its support for the war.
This is beyond irresponsible. Britain is marching into a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power without debate or public explanation beyond trite soundbites.
Kiev is now alleging that Russia fired an intercontinental ballistic missile at the city of Dnipro today, although many experts doubt that this is actually the case. There seems no reason for Russia to use a missile designed for use over thousands of miles to strike a target so near to its forces.
Whatever the truth, it is a further sign of an escalating confrontation. It should escape no-one’s attention that ballistic missiles could very easily carry nuclear warheads.
The alternative to escalation is not surrender by Ukraine, it is negotiation. The British people should demand their politicians change course while there is still time.
Don’t police journalism
TELEGRAPH columnist Allison Pearson is a provocative Farageist who sometimes pays scant regard to facts, and never to the feelings of those she offends.
Last year she published a tweet, since deleted, that could easily be described as racist and was almost certainly a libel on some of those identified.
A year later she was visited by her local police, apparently acting on a complaint that her tweet had incited racial hatred.
This has cued much outrage, some of it rather performative. Since she herself deleted the offending tweet, most likely on legal advice, the principles of free speech are hardly engaged.
Nevertheless, it must be concerning when the police visit journalists because of what they have written. Pro-Palestinian writer Asa Winstanley has recently had his home turned over by police because of his opinions and in general this is a form of intimidation more frequently directed at the left and anti-imperialists.
However, socialists must be consistent in their defence of democratic values, including the right to say things which others find deeply offensive. The alternative — policed speech and a more oppressive bourgeois state — is worse.
This is the consideration of principle in the Pearson affair, although one could also argue that pursuing people over their twittering, where no incitement to violence is involved, is hardly the best use of limited police resources.
Allison Pearson should not be made a martyr. Those many millions who find her opinions objectionable should simply refrain from paying for the Telegraph or following her on X. But leave the police indoors.
