Sir Keir Starmer’s readiness to do ‘whatever it takes’ to support Ukraine seems to be qualified by his fear of offending the Biden administration. He wants to let Ukraine use British Storm Shadow missiles inside Russia but dares not, for fear of the White House. Surely if the special relationship were really strong, its junior partner would be confident enough to diverge occasionally. Think of Mrs Thatcher saying to George Bush senior, at the time of the first Gulf war, ‘This is no time to go wobbly’. In fact, however, Sir Keir is not even consistent: he is prepared to annoy the United States by making the worthless gesture of an embargo on tiny, selective arms-related sales to Israel, but not on missiles which could work decisively against Vladimir Putin.
David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, justifies the mini-embargo on the grounds that, ‘with regret’, he has found ‘there does exist a clear risk that they [the banned exports] might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law’. Does he see Israel as a little boy who can be allowed to play with plastic guns but is not yet old enough for an air pistol? If he truly believes it means to commit serious violations of international law, why does he let it have anything military at all? He treats legal advice as if it were an order: but it is only that, advice. Mr Lammy invokes Mrs Thatcher’s 1982 arms embargo on Israel in support, but the context then was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which Britain opposed. The context today is Israel’s right of self-defence after Hamas’s 7 October atrocities, which Britain supports.
Since the Conservatives are sensibly playing their leadership election long, giving it all the drama of a south-coast bowls match, this column has largely refrained from commenting so far. I have noticed, however, that Robert Jenrick has been winning the most plaudits for his campaign style, especially his use of videos. They do look good, to my admittedly untutored eye. At the weekend, however, Jenrick staged a tiny version of a Trump rally, though without an assassination attempt. Fans held up square boards for the camera saying ‘JENRICK’ and some wore baseball caps saying ‘WE WANT BOBBY J’. I looked across my study to a shelf where sits the only baseball cap I have ever possessed. On the front, it says ‘HAGUE’ and at the back, ‘A FRESH FUTURE’. In the 27 years since I was given it, it has gathered dust and sits neglected, like some childhood toy. There may be a lesson about modernisation here.
With the government promising a ban on trail hunting, hunting organisations have designated Saturday 14 September as National Trail Day, putting on demonstrations all over the country of how the sport works in order to show that any bill would be ill-founded. Naturally they have invited interested parties, including the police. One who received a friendly personal invitation from Lord Astor, the chairman of the British Hound Sports Association (BHSA), was the temporary assistant chief constable Matt Longman, from the Devon and Cornwall force. He is the police ‘Lead on Fox Hunting Crime’ (its huntsman-master, you might say). ‘After careful consideration,’ replied Mr Longman, ‘I won’t be attending. The events are clearly aimed at demonstrating what hunting looks like when operating legally. I personally don’t think it’s a suitable place for the police to be in any way supporting/sponsoring… an event in these circumstances. Whilst the intention may be that they are educational, the perception may not come across that way.’ When the BHSA challenged this, Mr Longman got a bit cross: ‘The timing of these events (and therefore their purpose) is try [sic] to demonstrate legitimacy in hunting, in a landscape where the current government have promised change in legislation. In my opinion, it is not the role of the police to be part of that. I do not believe it is a snub to the rural community, I believe it is me maintaining my position on the subject. In any case, any negativity will be from the pro-hunting community, which is different to [sic] the rural community. A large amount of the wider rural community would actually be abhorred [sic] at me attending.’ Since Mr Longman has previously commented freely, publicly and adversely about what happens during trail hunting, surely he has a duty to come and see the case for it demonstrated so he can understand what it might be like to police it. Last year, he attended a large meeting of the League Against Cruel Sports without qualms of conscience, so it is clear what he means by ‘my position on the subject’. It is not the position of a neutral law-enforcer.
When some death or disaster takes place, people say to those affected: ‘I cannot begin to imagine what you’re going through.’ Indeed, this is now part of the official, formulaic response of a public service or government minister to something they cannot do much about. It is an odd usage because it means almost the opposite of what it says. What is really being said is that the person sympathising can begin to imagine the awfulness, but cannot fully imagine it. The old-fashioned equivalent was a condolence letter which said ‘My poor words cannot express…’, hoping by that device that they could, a little.
This dreary summer was made drearier for us by the fact that the usual glow-worms failed to show in our garden in July. The poet Marvell has them – ‘by whose dear light the nightingale doth sing so late’ – even earlier, since the nightingale stops singing in June. What a lovely surprise, then, to find several of them appear last week, late but in earnest. By the last day of August, however, there was only one left. The glow is given out by the male of the species to attract a mate. Perhaps this solitary one was like someone on Tinder for whom no one has swiped right.
Comments