Why Keir Starmer must immediately start re-arming Britain

I hesitate to write about geopolitics and the developing new world order lest I go on too long. But the global set-up is inexorably linked with markets, business, trade and the economy. The sudden Trumpian pivot toward hard power appears to have shocked many in the global establishment and yet, historically, it has been the natural order of things. The pushers of so-called "soft power" have been conveniently delusional, taken in by "the end of history" mantra following the fall of the Berlin Wall. I say "conveniently" because It was never a substitute for hard power, however inconvenient this truth may be in our welfare and woke-led society.

For business and the economy there may prove to be major opportunities arising from this new world order. Rearmament may prove to be a Keynsian style answer to stimulating economic growth, analogous to the 1930s, it being public spending but delivered via the private sector and therefore offering a much greater "bang for buck" than could be provided by the dead hand of public service delivery. Not only does re-armament boost manufacturing but also the services and tech sector, it also tends to define a forced period of innovation, the handmaiden of economic growth. It provides opportunities for export and trade.

There is a lot to learn from history in this brave new world, but unfortunately many of today's political pygmies, who are in power and in Parliament, know little of history and the broadcast media even less. Understanding where we have come from and why we are where we are is vital to sound decision making, on which everything rests in dangerous times. Ostriches do not survive long in the presence of a predator.

We can learn a lot from the era of Churchill, a man revered and reviled at one and the same time. How is it that England in 1925 was the head of a British world system: a defence, trade and currency area and administered a global empire at its zenith in terms of geographical reach and now cannot even be bothered to retain the Chagos islands?

The ruinous second Act of a twentieth century of German aggression could have been avoided had Germany been challenged, as Churchill advocated, rather than appeased , a seeming lesson for us with respect to Russia, today. However, by sheer function of geography Britain could not have marched into the Rhineland nor saved Czechoslovakia, still less Poland. These actions could only have been pursued by France, with British financial support and a direct attack on Germany. Britain was prepared to fight to the last Frenchman and today eastern/Central Europe can only be defended by those who live there, unless we are prepared for the unthinkable consequences of a direct attack on Russia. Everything else is hubris and fantasy.

England is a maritime nation, and a trading nation with a global outlook by virtue of this. A strong navy and airforce, the latter now the necessary complement to naval strength, has always been Britain's superpower. A strong, mobile marine corps makes sense and the army is the junior partner of this hard power positioning. Hardly ever has Britain fielded a truly continental army and certainly not at the start of a war.

Equally Britain has in the past recognised that wealth and industry are the essentials of hard power, especially in a protracted conflict. We funded the Napoleonic Wars and also WW1. Both desperate fights to prevent global domination. Poor countries lose and those without strategic industries like steel production and energy resources are lost from the start.

The 1930s demonstrate that an expeditionary land force to the far east of our continent, a hostage for Russia, would be foolhardy, unsustainable, useless and downright dangerous. And why us? Yes air and sea, but definitely a NO! to boots on the ground.

Another lesson of the Churchill era is that of the Pyrrhic victory. Having thrown in our lot with France, by 1940 we were in a perilous situation. Churchill, then PM, was lucky that the navy managed a brilliant Dunkirk evacuation and that the Germans faltered. An armistice from a position of weakness would have been the beginning of the end. As Churchill said, a country that capitulates never recovers.

But an agreement from a position of strength after the RAF victory in the Battle of Britain may have been a different story. In 1941 Britain was bleeding dry financially, under siege and on the verge of starvation for an entire year, alone, against the European continent, including Italy and Vichy France.

In 1942 Churchill faced a number of Parliamentary votes of no confidence. By the end of the year we had been bled dry by the Americans via the sale of our assets and from the repayment of loans.

Churchill was lucky that Germany declared war on the USA but it was a victory, Britain was broke and paying off loans from the USA until only a decade ago. The US fulfilled the President Woodrow Wilson doctrine of usurping the British World System for America and it was done, finally sealed at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, the chief British negotiator being one Maynard Keynes.

For decades after the UK spent a huge proportion of its GDP in the orderly dissolution of an Empire and in defending Europe, while Germany and others concentrated on re-industrialising with no US debt to pay, hidden behind our cloak at great expense to Britain.

The lessons of these events are summed up in the words of one of my favourite Prime Ministers, Lord Palmerston, to paraphrase - we should have no permanent friends, no forever enemies, only interests - British interests, which we must from time to time pursue.

Wise words.

Non-aligned, or at least aligned to our interests. Armed to the teeth. With a strong and growing economy. Trading with everyone and no one in particular.

We are lucky that in this nuclear age we no longer need a massive empire to guarantee security but we do need an adequate deterrent that works and is truly independent. It is worth the investment. We also must have a home grown defence industry and access to the strategic resources to back up our defences. Strong economies win wars. The ability to win deters conflict in the first place.

I was reminded by the well known Cambridge historian Robert Tombs of another saying of Lord Palmerston. He said that Britain would be wise to keep close and on friendly terms with whichever country could do us most harm. Right now that is the USA. It will not always be. A trade deal with the US, irrespective of the EU, would be wise. A trade deal irrespective of the protectionists who spout nonsense about "dangerous" foods or upsetting our "friends" in Europe. But we must always have in our minds what it is that will serve British interests above all else.

History can teach us a lot. It is well worth properly reflecting on it and discarding the rose tinted spectacles.

John Longworth is an entrepreneur and businessman. Chairman of the Independent Network of family businesses he is a former MEP.