National defence: it's the economy, stupid

Ten years before the outbreak of the First World War Sir Halford Mackinder read a paper to the Royal Geographical Society in which he related history to geography. In it he noted Britain’s strength as a sea-based empire but also that there was the growing potential for a rival among the nations of the central European landmass.

Mackinder argued that the latter would be able to boost their trade and economic power – and military capacity – by building railway networks that could do more than their river systems naturally allowed. He worried about a forthcoming clash with the British Empire.

The discussion following the reading was even more illuminating, thanks to the comments by Leo Amery, who said that as to armed conflict modern ships could carry far more troops than could trains but – and this was in 1904! – sooner or later both means of locomotion would be supplemented by air which would lessen the importance of geographical distribution.

Amery went on to say that no matter where they were situated “the successful powers will be those who have the greatest industrial basis… those people who have the industrial power and the power of invention and of science will be able to defeat all others.”

If only our government had understood this in 1914! For by then Germany’s steel production was more than twice Britain’s and industry accounted for 60 per cent of their GDP. By mid-1915 we had run out of artillery shells and had to import them from the USA on borrowed money – defaulting on our war debt to America in 1934.

War is “the sport of kings” and only the richest can afford it. We couldn’t then, even less so in 1939 and not at all today, when all three branches of our national defence are dangerously weak and two ministers have just resigned on the issue.

If we wish to be a sovereign nation providing for and protecting seventy million people we need a strong manufacturing economy, with abundant, reliable and cheap sources of energy so we can conduct international trade on profit margins that can pay for all our imports.

Instead our liberal globalist leaders have done exactly the opposite while increasing the population by mass immigration, so boosting the numbers of potential victims of economic collapse.

Our overall losses in the international trade in goods are largely offset by our income from services. However other nations – east or west of us – may eventually develop significant competition in the latter field. When that happens our net earnings may become perilously negative.

Amery warned about this also. In 1906 he published “The Fundamental Fallacies Of Free Trade,” arguing that the total volume of British trade was less important than the net international balance. He was a lifelong advocate of tariffs between the British Empire and non-Empire nations.

Our current rulers seem to think that GDP growth is the same as paying our way, but the rest of the world is not obliged to feed and clothe us.

Perhaps a final reference to Amery would be appropriate. During the wartime “Norway debate” (7 May 1940) he made a speech that helped terminate Chamberlain’s premiership, concluding with a quotation from Cromwell that might be used now to Keir Starmer, the self-declared “fixer of the foundations”:

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”