THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK
Bal Ram Sampla
Geopolitics
There’s an old saying in politics: “What you say in opposition comes back to haunt you in government.” For Labour’s leadership, those words have never rung truer than they do today.
In March 2022, Boris Johnson travelled to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Britain needed energy. Russia had invaded Ukraine, and oil prices were soaring. Johnson went seeking help.
Labour’s response was swift and damning. Keir Starmer declared that “going cap in hand from dictator to dictator is not an energy strategy.” His deputy, Angela Rayner, was equally scathing, accusing Johnson of going “cap in hand from one dictator to another” to solve Britain’s energy crisis.
The message was clear. Labour positioned itself as the party with principles. The party that wouldn’t kowtow to authoritarian regimes. The party that understood Britain deserved better than begging dictators for favours.
The Reality
Fast forward to today. Labour is in power. And what are they doing?
Rachel Reeves, now Chancellor, has travelled to Saudi Arabia to attend the Future Investment Initiative. She’s pushing for a trade deal with Gulf states. The government has hosted an International Investment Summit, courting billions from foreign investors. Starmer and Reeves are actively seeking the very same international investment they once condemned.
The duplicity is breath-taking.
What Changed?
The answer is simple: nothing changed except who sits in Number 10.
Saudi Arabia hasn’t transformed into a democracy. The human rights concerns that made it a “dictatorship” when Johnson visited haven’t disappeared. The country’s record on women’s rights, free speech, and political freedom remains deeply troubling.
What changed was Labour’s position. In opposition, they could afford moral grandstanding. They could score political points by attacking Johnson for dealing with unsavoury regimes. It played well with their base. It made them look principled.
But governing is different. Governing means facing the same hard choices they criticized others for making. Britain needs investment. The economy needs growth. And money doesn’t care about political rhetoric.
The Hypocrisy Exposed
This isn’t about whether seeking Saudi investment is right or wrong. Reasonable people can disagree on that question.
This is about Labour saying one thing when it suited them politically and doing the complete opposite when they gained power. It’s about using harsh language to attack opponents for actions you fully intended to take yourself.
When Johnson went to Saudi Arabia, it was “cap in hand to dictators.” When Labour does it, they call it a “growth strategy” and an “investment summit.”
The policy is identical. Only the spin has changed.
Why This Matters
Political hypocrisy isn’t new. Every party engages in it to some degree. But this example is particularly stark because Labour made it personal. They didn’t just disagree with Johnson’s approach—they questioned his integrity and Britain’s dignity.
They told voters they were different. Better. More principled.
Now those words ring hollow. Voters are learning what many already suspected: politicians say whatever they need to say to win power. Once they have it, principles become flexible. Outrage becomes pragmatism.
The Lesson
Labour’s Saudi Arabia U-turn teaches us something important about modern politics. The loudest moral condemnation in opposition often signals exactly what a party will do in government.
Those who shout “never” the loudest are often the first to break their word when circumstances demand it.
Starmer and Reeves criticized Johnson for going “cap in hand” to foreign powers. Today, they’re doing precisely the same thing—just with better PR and shorter memories.
The question voters must ask is simple: if Labour couldn’t be trusted to mean what they said on this, what else were they saying simply to win votes?
Conclusion
Britain needs investment. Everyone agrees on that. The debate should be about where that investment comes from and what strings are attached.
But Labour has forfeited the right to lead that debate with any moral authority. They burned that authority when they condemned others for actions they now embrace.
Going “cap in hand from dictator to dictator” was apparently not an energy strategy when Boris Johnson did it. But seeking billions from the same Gulf states is somehow different when Labour does it.
The British public deserves better than this double standard. They deserve leaders who either stand by their principles or admit they were wrong. What they don’t deserve is politicians who think they can say one thing, do another, and expect no one to notice.
Labour noticed when Boris Johnson did it. Now it’s the voters’ turn to notice Labour doing exactly the same thing.
