The resurgence of the Labour party amid the general election in 2024 has meant a reversal
of multiple policies implemented by the Tories across the (painful) last fourteen years.
One recent speech made by David Lammy (the current Foreign Secretary) has patented a
new motto: “Britain is Back”.
On first look this seems motivational and progressive. But looking to the history of Britain,
especially regarding our role in international diplomacy, it raises questions pertaining to the
“progressive” implication. We have renewed our role on the international stage. But at what
cost?
It must be said that, yes, Britain has been at the forefront of some major liberal and left-
wing developments; the support for the ICJ (of which other countries such as the US have all
but ignored in their positions), and the support for the UNDHR. However, we have also been
responsible for atrocities that are still leaving several regions amidst chaos and wide-spread
poverty. We only have to look back to the Blair government and the Iraq war to cement this.
At a time when genocidal acts and mass slaughter are at the centre of global politics. What
exactly is the purpose of Lammy’s reference? The purpose of the speech seems to attempt
to draw the contrast between our previous conservative government and the current,
however there are still many similarities and contradictions with this labour’s policies.
The statement made by Kier Starmer on 7 th October calling for a ceasefire between Israel
and Palestine, may alter perceptions about the progressiveness of Britain and thus the new
labour government. The contradiction between calling for this publicly yet also providing the
arms and funds to Israel, enabling them to continue perpetrating the genocide, is heavily
misleading for the British public.
In addition, recently Starmer has met with Italy’s Prime Minister – Giorgia Meloni – to
discuss the plans for sending Asylum seekers to Albania. A complete 180 from the disgust
Starmer showed toward the Rwanda bill set up by the Tory government. Are we simply
dealing with a Tory government in disguise, one more obsessed with saving face than saving
victims of genocide and their own populace?
Circling back, the speech Lammy gave is not particularly important in politics, in and of itself,
but it does raise the questions as to:
1) The identity of Britain on the international stage
2) Who have we actually elected?
3) What exactly are British ideals?
Comments