Labour lawmaker Emily Thornberry, who is currently running for deputy prime minister of Britain, has lately been more critical of some of the policies of the government, including its stance on Gaza, even though until some time ago she had adopted that stance herself when she insisted on “Israel’s right to defend itself” in response to the simple question posed to her of whether “cutting off food, water and electricity is within international law.” In keeping with the principle of “better late than never,” perhaps Thornberry could be forgiven for her earlier sins. To her credit, her questioning of Natasha Hausdorff of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) was received by Israel’s fanatics with utter contempt, thus contributing to her redemption.
Yet, Thornberry seems to have a strange understanding of reality; so strange, in fact, that one wonders if she would benefit from forgiveness. In a recent BBC appearance, reflecting on Labour’s dreadful performance in the national polls, she expressed her regret that certain unpopular policies of Labour have been destroying their chances for reelection, despite the government’s otherwise brilliant performance in international affairs. These were Thornberry’s words: “We are doing so well internationally, and our standing is so much higher. We are back on the international scene, but domestically things just don’t seem to be working.”
Given what has actually happened since Labour won the last general election and formed the government, it is really hard to see the basis of Thornberry’s claim that Britain’s global standing is “so much higher” today. Apart from moving in lockstep with the U.S. in helping Israel achieve its genocidal aspirations in Gaza and beyond, and bending the knee before the empire by celebrating the establishment of self-harming trade agreements with it, Britain’s only major international policy has been its persisting fixation on preventing any potential deal with Russia in Ukraine. And even that is only possible because at least certain sectors within the political establishment of the U.S. agree with that agenda.
In reality, Britain’s global standing is so much lower today that British society has become exposed to a tremendous flux of malign propaganda intended to influence British politics in the interests of foreign governments. Of course, this kind of influence is not specific to Britain, and there has been some resistance from within Labour to this unduly intervention. However, the leadership positions within the government seem to be filled with those who are rather content with the current arrangement. Prime Minister Keir Starmer will reportedly be meeting Israeli President Isaac Herzog in London this week, thus reaffirming his refusal to meet the minimal demands of international law – and indeed, of morality. This is merely a reflection of that contentedness.
It must be a fine feeling, surely, and serene in its effect. Yet, how it is beneficial to British society remains unclear. Two years before Thornberry spoke about Britain’s supposedly rising global standing, Chinese government spokesperson Victor Gao had reminded LBC’s Andrew Marr that China did not regard Britain as a competitor, advising it not to “overestimate its impact on the global scene.” What must have changed over the course of the last year for Thornberry to imagine such a phenomenal rise in Britain’s global standing? The Chinese official was talking about economic competition first and foremost – has there been any development on that front, then? Or is it indeed a fact that Britain’s economic downfall has only been accelerated? Evidence indicates the latter.
The higher people like Thornberry imagine Britain’s global standing to be, the wider the gap between rhetoric and lived reality becomes. To speak of renewed prestige abroad while daily life is marked by political oppression, economic strain, failing services and strikes, and a pervasive sense of decline is simply to invite disbelief. Such absurd claims, far from reassuring, only sharpen the impression that those ostensibly in power are either unwilling or unable to face the truths before them, preferring the comfort of illusion, both for themselves and for the consumption of the public.
