On NATO, the extremes are a risk Britain cannot afford
For once, Keir Starmer is right.
When he says that Reform UK on the Hard Right and the Greens on the Hard Left pose risks to NATO and, by extension, Britain’s national security, he is identifying something serious.
From opposite ideological poles, both parties advance instincts that would weaken the alliance that has underpinned European security for over seventy years.
That should concern all of us.
Reform’s worldview is, from what I can tell, rooted in a kind of muscular unilateralism. Alliances are treated with suspicion. Multilateral commitments are portrayed as constraints on sovereignty. There is an underlying assumption that Britain would be stronger if it stood more alone.
History suggests otherwise.
Britain’s security has never rested on ‘splendid’ isolation. It has rested on partnership-on shared defence, intelligence cooperation and collective defence. NATO is not a bureaucratic luxury. It is the backbone of that system.
On the other side of the spectrum, elements within the Green movement have long been uncomfortable with NATO’s very premise. There remains a strain of thought that sees military alliances as inherently proactive and imagines that scaling back defence commitments would somehow make the world safer.
It would not.
In an increasingly dangerous world, with Russia waging war in Europe, authoritarian regimes flexing their muscles and global instability rising, weakening NATO would not reduce tensions. It would invite miscalculation.
Deterrence only works if it is still credible.
Now, let’s be clear. Supporting NATO does not mean pretending it is perfect. It must adapt to new threats. It must modernise. It must ensure democratic accountability and maintain public consent. Liberal internationalists should always press for reform and renewal.
But reform (small R) is not the same as retreat.
There is a profound difference between improving an alliance and hollowing it out.
The superficial attraction of the Hard Right and Hard Left to some may, arguably, be understandable. They offer clarity. They offer bold rhetoric. They promise decisive breaks with the status quo. In unsettled times, that can feel appealing.
But national security is not the place for ideological experiments.
Britain’s safety rests on stable alliances, credible commitments and steady leadership. NATO has preserved peace in Europe for decades precisely because it binds democracies together in collective defence.
Undermining that framework, whether in the name of nationalist sovereignty or moral idealism, would make us weaker, not stronger.
This is where the Liberal Democrats must be absolutely clear.
We are the party of responsible internationalism. We believe in NATO because we believe in cooperation between democracies. We believe in reform because we believe institutions must evolve. And we reject the isolationism of the Hard Right and the naïveté of the Hard Left.
The political centre is not a halfway house between extremes. It is the place where serious governing happens. In a world that is becoming more volatile, not less, Britain needs steadiness, credibility and alliances that work.
On NATO, that means strength and reform, not retreat.
We must back Vince Cable on a full and fair investigation into Andrew
Former Lib Dem leader Vince Cable is absolutely right to call for a thorough investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s decade as Britain’s special trade envoy, as reported in The Guardian and elsewhere.
Newly released emails from U.S. Department of Justice files suggest that while serving in that official capacity between 2001 and 2011, Mountbatten-Windsor may have shared confidential government reports and commercially sensitive information with individuals linked to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The former Duke of York reportedly denies all allegations of wrongdoing.
Independent scrutiny of these very serious allegations, including whether misconduct in public office or other criminal behaviour occurred, is not just appropriate, it is necessary.
Sir Vince, who knows the responsibilities of government and diplomacy first hand from his time as Business Secretary, described the reported behaviour as “totally unacceptable” and has urged both police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to assess whether any criminal corruption took place and why safeguards may have failed.
In a democracy the rule of law must apply equally to all. Especially to those entrusted with representing Britain abroad. Supporting a full, transparent investigation, not least in the national interest, is something all parties of principle should endorse.
Britain’s Winter glory: A historic Olympic celebration
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan-Cortina have delivered unforgettable sporting joy-and for Team GB, a moment to savour. On a historic “Super Sunday,” Charlotte Bankes and Huw Nightingale won Britain’s first ever gold on snow in the mixed team snowboard cross, a stunning breakthrough for British winter sport.
On the same day, skeleton stars Matt Weston and Tabitha Stoecker claimed gold in the inaugural mixed team skeleton event, with Weston becoming Britain’s most decorated Winter Olympian at these Games after getting a Gold earlier for the single event.
From snow to sliding ice, these victories have captured the imagination, reminding us why we love the Olympics: brilliance, courage, and collective pride.
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
expats
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
9 Comments
However, on NATO I think the argument it is in about the right place. I actually think SKS is doing a decent job in impossible circumstances, as we need both the possibility of a relationship no longer existing with an “America Alone” USA which is no longer an advanced democracy, or being in a position to salvage parts of the relationship – which would be worth doing if possible. SKS is best positioned to do the traditional ‘bridge’ role for such future recovery of the relatinship, whilst Macron, Merz etc are better positioned to do the “tough cop” part. I think SKS does not really like being a politician.
On Reform, I have Lee Anderson as my MP – their longest established, and I do not see Reform as having any particular worldview. In essence they are a Farage campaign, set up to make him irremovable, with a single unifying value of xenophobia, and in the populist tradition saying whatever they need to say to whoever they need to say it to promote themselves. The rhetoric is based on driving division into society rather than unity, and follows the popular press in needing to identify a “them” we can despise and demonise together.
In 2024 there were no asylum hotels locally, and when Anderson needed one to stir up controversy he just invented one out of thin air for his social media.
I think Reform will disintegrate as their support coalition is too varied, and Farage cannot ride that many horses. It includes every thing from Disaffected Labour, Alan Clark style Tories, Tory bandwagon jumper careerists, various shades of neo-fascist or extreme Right many of whom came up through the BNP, and others.
Restore Britain are already positioning for this. Alongside I am seeing a re-emergence of Distributionism, which is essentially socially conservative / economically liberal – as promoted by Hillaire Belloc a century ago.
I think the really serious threat is that a pathway has been created for the extreme Right into the centre ground.
“ We believe in NATO because we believe in cooperation between democracies”
I agree in us playing our full part as a member of NATO, but we need to be clear that membership has not depended on an individual member state being a democracy. Greece joined NATO in 1952 but later, from 1967-1974, Greece was ruled by a military dictatorship – and Greece was able to continue as a member.
Given the UK police involvement with Mandelson, it would be natural for them to also investigate Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I think we also need to get the names of the people (I presume mostly men) who were part of the Epstein network, into the public domain, so their UK activities can also be investigated by the UK police. Given Poland’s investigation into possible links with Russian intelligence services (Putin and Moscow are frequently referenced in the released documents) there seems to be depths to the Epstein-Maxwell network still to be uncovered.
NATO can no longer function as a credible defensive alliance when its dominant member openly threatens to absorb fellow members by force. We need to be thinking about how to move beyond NATO as currently constituted to a successor military alliance based on those “middle powers” (to use Mark Carney’s phrase), that remain committed to democracy and the rule of law. For us that means ditching Trident and working more closely with European and Commonwealth partners.
@Andrew
Such thinking has been happening at least since Trump was elected.
I think I recall a piece from the middle of last year from one of the LD MPs with military experience proposing an “East Atlantic Treaty Organisation” amounting to a NATO minus USA plus more cooperation with wider spread developed democracies. IIRC it was in the Times or Telegraph.
I’m quite sure that bits of the MOD and Armed Forces and related think tanks are thinking about it, perhaps quietly.
One issue is that the USA has a habit of staying in organisations it does not like to make sure they are wrecked and stay wrecked. This has been the case in the WTO since 2018, where since it works by consensus the USA has rejected all proposals for new arbitrators (at least 30 proposals) so there are now not any, quorum cannot be met, and the Court of Arbitrators is defunct, and rulings cannot be made.
There was a similar one a few weeks ago where the USA used country-to-country threats of tariffs to undermine a proposal for environmental improvement in shipping fuel at IMO.
They did similar things with pressure on Belgium around the use of the frozen Russia Sovereign Funds, as the US proposals were to use it to give 100bn of business to US interests.
So changing organisations will require a mass decamp, or a new organisation from scratch. I think it will happen.
The problem with NATO is that it has led to an over reliance on the US for a military shield. Many EU countries have done very little since WW2 to ensure they have adequate defence. We in the UK have spent billions on missile and other systems which require constant US logistical support. This can be withdrawn at any time.
It’s important to not overstate the scale of the supposed Russian threat though. I’ve just posted these figures on James Worley’s OP:
“Russia has a population of around 145million. It’s GDP is around $2.5 trillion. About the same as Italy’s. The EU + UK+ Norway, has a population of 530 million and a GDP of $27 trillion.”
@Peter Martin
Your figures seem to be based on the assumption “The EU + UK + Norway” are a single unified political and economic entity rather than cooperating nations. Given the discussion is about UK security the GDP figure you should be using is the UK’s $4.2 trillion (currency USD, which I believe to be the same as your figures).
>” The problem with NATO is that it has led to an over reliance on the US for a military shield.”
The problem has been an over reliance on the US . Across many industries (eg. Defense, IT), the short-termism of buying from the US because it was cheaper, easier etc. is now beginning to bite…
However, we should not forget, the US deliberately wanted this to be the case and utilised “the special relationship” to influence UK government Defense expenditure under Thatcher.
I think there should be a full inquiry into the connections between the United Kingdom elites and Epstein.
No matter what party or position.
Be they PMs, Cabinet members, religious, cultural, intellectual, sporting, royal, government, or media figures.
A full inquiry into who Epstein was connected with and why?
This is about money, sex, power, scandal, and some have possibly classified it as on a level with organised crime.