Keir Starmer talks tough on Ukraine — so why can’t he stick up for his own country?

Preesident Trump’s “America First” policy has plunged the western world into turmoil. Traditional certainties about the transatlantic alliance have suddenly been swept away. US support for Europe’s defence is no longer guaranteed. Here in Britain, one of the more remarkable consequences of the crisis has been the political reinvention of the Prime Minister. Since he entered Downing Street, Sir has been under attack for his inadequate leadership. To his many critics, he is just a typical progressive metropolitan lawyer, with no real convictions beyond his faith in judicial activism.

Yet Starmer is now increasingly hailed as the statesman of the crisis, not only for his energetic international diplomacy but also for his drive to boost Britain’s defences. Amid his endless summits and negotiations, where he has emerged as the key link between , and the USA, he has promised to increase the defence budget by slashing foreign aid, something that would have been unthinkable for a Labour Government only a few weeks ago.

But there is something unconvincing, even surreal, about the portrayal of Sir Keir and his party as Europe’s born-again warriors, because that kind of resolve to protect nationhood and sovereignty has been wholly absent from Labour in recent years.

Now keen to pose as the guardians of security in the east of Europe, they have grievously undermined security at home with their open door policies. They trumpet the importance of upholding the integrity of against the Russian invader, but they preside over the destruction of Britain’s integrity by promoting mass immigration on a revolutionary scale.

Starmer declared this week that he is “ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air” to back , but such determination is never applied to Britain’s own porous borders. Far from guarding our shores, the Border Force acts as a quasi-ferry service for illegal migrants crossing the Channel.

That helps to explain why the number of small boat crossings continue to rise, with 1,168 arrivals in the first four days of March alone. This is just part of a colossal influx that is transforming our society.

The latest official immigration figures, published last week, reveal a nation in the grip of astonishing demographic upheaval. In 2024, no fewer than 850,000 long-term visas were issued by the Home Office, while 108,000 people claimed asylum here, up 18% on the year before.

The now denounce Labour but their record was as bad. They sent numbers spiralling out of control through measures like the relaxation of restrictions on students, dependents and low-skilled workers.

In truth, the entire political class must share the blame for this disaster. The economic damage is serious enough, as our civic infrastructure is put under intolerable strain, and the bills for the welfare state mount dramatically.

But just as worrying is the threat to public safety caused by the lack of proper checks on new arrivals. Our politicians and security talk grandly of the dangers from , China and , yet the shambolic British state encourages the import of huge numbers of unvetted young men from cultures that despise Britain.

It is little wonder that MI5 has 43,000 extremists on its watchlist, more than 95% of them Islamists. The security problem is compounded by the human rights regime, which acts as a barrier against the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorists.

In his “Never Surrender” speech in 1940 Winston Churchill spoke of his determination “to defend our island home.” But our current rulers have moved in the very opposite direction, presiding over a social revolution that is eroding our British way of life and identity. Their fight for is not matched by any robust defence of Britain.

In the name of tolerance and social inclusion, they have encouraged the denigration of our heritage, the loss of social cohesion and the rise of toxic identity politics. Two years ago the RAF even temporarily banned the recruitment of white men in its eagerness to promote diversity. A truly confident Britain that cared about self-protection would never consider such discrimination.