John Redwood: Starmer can strut the world stage all he likes, it changes nothing about the mistakes at home

He sees in it the opportunity to strut the international stage to try to deflect voters from the government’s domestic failings.

The budget that killed growth went down badly.

Big tax rises on jobs  are cutting vacancies and putting up unemployment. For all the promises to end the businesses of the people traffickers, illegal migrants are increasing. The attacks on family farms and small businesses have undermined confidence. Higher taxes are hastening the departure of investors and entrepreneurs from the country.

So instead we are offered the idea that the UK and France will send a military peace keeping force into Ukraine to police the ceasefire. The spin doctors have been hard at work to say this shows leadership and builds bridges with our European neighbours.

What’s not to like?

(Pause for applause.)

The peace initiative came from the USA who determined  they are  going to negotiate it themselves with Ukraine and Russia. Our trying to form a peacekeeping force when Russia has made it  clear no NATO countries would  be welcome  in such a force just gave the US another problem to juggle when trying to get Russia to agree a sensible compromise.

There may be no ceasefire to enforce or they may agree a UN force without NATO elements.

Has the PM taken advice about how large a force he would need to patrol and protect such a long border  as the  current one  between Russia and Ukraine?

Some think you would need more troops than our total army.

The UK would be hard pressed to sustain just 10,000 as a contribution to such a force. Does he envisage short tours of duty requiring many more than 10,000 involved in the task? If the  idea is a more permanent presence  what is  the budget for building accommodation and support facilities?

Will families go and live there with the members of the armed forces?

Far from bringing harmony to the EU the proposal has split EU members badly.

Poland and Germany with two of the larger  armies do not want to send troops. Hungary takes a more pro Russian stance. The EU Commission is pursuing its own different line. NATO has ruled out seeking any involvement, with the US making clear they would veto any attempt to engage NATO.

The US heavy lift, intelligence, air cover and other specialist support for  our forces would not be  available, adding to the risks of policing a border with Russia.  NATO countries with a Russian border  have the NATO promise  of help to deter Russia from invading, with access to US back up.

The EU will not give us any credit for this initiative. They would like us to spend more on defence to help protect them and would like our buying power to boost their arms manufacturers. They will not grant us anything we want in return.

It is pathetic that the government wants to be liked but does not know how to please. They have the same problem with the US. Trying to please both the US and the EU is impossible as they are in dispute with each other. The UK should define our national interest and pursue it with both parties.

There is a big muddle over whether the European task is to arm Ukraine more , trying to replace lost US support, or to assemble a peacekeeping force. Again you cannot do both. If you are helping Ukraine win the war you are not  a neutral force to keep the peace once there is one.

The UK should not be offering a peacekeeping force Russia is unlikely to accept which we can ill afford. When it comes to sending more military support to Ukraine before a ceasefire, it is time France and some of the other European countries upped their levels of contribution.

Germany and the UK have so far sent  much more than most of the  others.

The extra UK defence spending needs to strengthen our home  island defences against drones and missiles, rebuild our defence industries and replenish our own weapons stocks.