Many years ago, I met a former British ambassador who had encountered Joseph Stalin on several occasions. Wide-eyed, I asked what had struck him most about the Great Dictator. The surprising answer was: “His smell: he seemed to bathe in Chanel No 5.” As it turned out, it wasn’t the stench of death from his millions of victims that clung to the murderous old tyrant – he just had terrible BO.
For some reason this memory came to mind when Lord (George) Robertson launched his withering criticism of Keir Starmer’s “corrosive complacency” in defending Britain against Vladimir Putin. The former NATO chief’s assessment could hardly be clearer: ”We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe… Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
This is a potentially defining moment for the Starmer premiership, coming just three weeks before a likely evisceration in the May elections. Until now, Starmer’s two main assets have been his relatively strong performance on the international stage and the significant reservations within Labour about his two most likely challengers: health secretary Wes Streeting (tainted by his association with Peter Mandelson) and former deputy PM Angela Rayner (damaged by her resignation after messing up her tax affairs).
I had thought Rayner was the more likely beneficiary of Starmer’s woes, but the Robertson intervention introduces an intriguing outside bet. Could defence secretary John Healey – hitherto the government’s safest pair of hands – run on the argument that he is the one person prepared to do what we must to defend our country?
Robertson is not the only respected voice to expose this government’s lack of preparation for the worst of eventualities. From the same venerable generation, professor Tim Lang authored an equally chilling critique in The Guardian about the UK’s abject lack of preparedness for a food supply crisis sparked by international conflict.
Pointing out that chancellor Rachel Reeves and Defra chief Emma Reynolds had no solutions to current global supply difficulties, Lang argued: “We should be diversifying supplies, growing more of our own food, coming off the oil-based farming treadmill and engaging the public in protecting itself for coming shocks.”
He continued: “Politicians need to get real about food security. We have built long, complex supply chains that are more vulnerable to disruption by global events. What we actually need is more short, diversified chains, with incentives to primary producers to grow food domestically.”
Drawing on his brilliant but alarming report for the UK Preparedness Commission, Lang suggested ministers should adapt defence planning to food security. Noting that all Britain’s retail food goes through just 130 distribution centres, he labelled them “sitting ducks” for modern drone warfare. His prescription: government and industry must together protect the food supply from the hybrid warfare we may soon face.
Lang did not stop at defensive measures. His alarm bell chimed perfectly with Robertson’s as he called for the government to level with people: “The public must be treated as adults over food security. We need realistic guidance. We must plan what modern food rationing would look like. Don’t be shocked by the word ‘rationing’. Markets ration. They just cannot deal with shocks other than by helping only those with deep pockets.”
His other proposals include a new approach to national and regional food storage, mirroring similar approaches in Switzerland, Sweden and – significantly – China. He even invoked the famous wartime ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign with a call to tap into the latent public wish to grow their own food.
All this may sound vaguely hysterical. But it should not be unthinkable. What if Robertson and Lang are even half right? Government’s first duty to its people is to keep them safe. Its second is ensure they are fed. That’s why food is a matter of national security: if you can’t feed the country pretty soon you won’t have a country.
However frightening the prospect, we should be listening – and the government should be acting on these warnings now. Those sounding them are brave and wise. Heaven help us if they also prove to be prescient.
Ian Wright is a partner at Acuti Associates
No comments yet