.png)
4 hours ago
4
Keir Starmer is neither the kind of leader to light up Britain with a shining vision of the future, nor one of those populists who reheat supposedly glorious myths from a largely imaginary national past. On Tuesday, however, the prime minister proved there are few better than him at communicating the heavy weight of decisions that bear down on him – here and now – in the present world upheaval.
Indeed, from the funereal manner of his announcement, you might have been forgiven for thinking that he was saying something deeply unpopular. Yet polls have suggested for some time that about two-thirds of the public – especially those parts of it Labour fears losing to Reform – want less taxpayers’ money spent helping the poorest in the world. More funding of Britain’s defence is usually backed by voters who also strongly support Ukraine in its fight for freedom. And, most importantly of all, it has been the key demand of a president threatening to withdraw US security from Europe and whom Starmer meets at the White House on Thursday.
For all these reasons and more, there are plenty of politicians such as Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch who would have relished making deep cuts in foreign aid to increase military spending. But they clearly do not include Starmer, who on Tuesday repeatedly showed his discomfort and emphasised his unhappiness as he talked grimly about the decision being necessary to keep Britain safe.
Partly this is because international development has become a sacred Labour principle in recent years, and the decision has stunned not only global aid agencies but also some parliamentary colleagues on front and backbenches. Nor is support infinitely elastic from a significant proportion of voters already tempted by the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in seats that Labour won by small margins over the Conservatives last summer. They are horrified by Donald Trump and certainly do not want to see their prime minister doing the president’s bidding.
The prime minister’s display of unhappiness on Tuesday wasn’t just about the awkward politics. On several occasions when I was writing my biography of him, Starmer told me proudly about his time in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service when it helped establish the rule of law and improve judicial systems in developing countries. He explained how such “soft power” was good for national security, too, because it stopped organised crime and terrorism at source before reaching the UK’s borders. If there is an ideological core to the prime minister, it revolves around the rule of law, human rights and a belief in strong international institutions, including the EU.
I’m pretty sure he resisted efforts before the election to water down Labour’s commitments on aid because, as he said on Tuesday, he still believes in overseas development. And he certainly recognises the damage this decision will cause, not only to the people whom Britain helps around the world, but also to efforts by the foreign secretary, David Lammy, to re-engage with the global south, and Starmer’s own view of Britain’s place in the world.
Nor are decisions going to get easier any time soon. Cutting overseas aid will only take Britain’s defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and Starmer has set a target of reaching 3% in the next parliament, which probably necessitates even bigger cuts or tax rises elsewhere. But as Lammy pointed out on Tuesday, at the height of the cold war, when the UK was still wrapped tight in the US security blanket, that figure fluctuated between about 4% and 7%. If Britain and Europe have to foot the entire bill for defence against a Russia emboldened by the retreat of the US, then Starmer can probably forget about achieving much of Labour’s domestic agenda – even if such questions remain relevant in the years to come.
It’s why other ideas for defending Ukraine are now being urgently considered. Most of them would push Britain back into a closer relationship with Europe. One that’s already been backed by the Polish government – and is gaining momentum – is for a European rearmament bank. This might leverage £100bn or more in investment loans from initial funding of perhaps just £10bn by a dozen willing nations. Although Rachel Reeves is understood to recognise it’s “not a magic bullet”, the chancellor has been interested enough to ring round European finance ministers to test support for a plan in which the UK could participate without either EU membership or a significant increase in government borrowing.
A more remote prospect is rebuilding and rearming Ukraine by using £200m in Russian assets frozen by European banks after Vladimir Putin’s invasion three years ago. But there are concerns that confiscation of the money would, even if within the bounds of international law, deter China or Gulf nations from keeping their money in Europe and destabilise economies still further.
Perhaps Ukraine’s outline deal with the US on mineral extraction will give it the money and what Trump calls “the right to fight on”. But Starmer’s overarching priority on Thursday will be to get some sort of promise that the US will continue providing “backstop” support not only for Ukraine but also for a European “coalition of the willing” that would include Britain in committing troops on the ground to shore up any fragile truce.
Although no one really knows exactly how the first formal meeting between president and prime minister will play out, not least because the former is so unpredictable, Starmer’s reluctance to engage in what he calls the “performative” or posturing side of politics may, for once, be an advantage. Doubtless there will be efforts to strengthen what’s been a perfectly friendly relationship so far. He won’t arm wrestle or interrupt as much as President Macron did on Monday. Instead, he will try to make a quiet, reasoned case that giving Putin everything he wants really won’t help “Make America Great Again”. The plan is to focus on outcomes and detail because Starmer knows there’s little to be gained, and much more to lose, from picking a fight or hectoring Trump for the sake of some easy headlines back home.
Even so, it would be wrong to confuse his respectful and pragmatic approach with acquiescence – let alone support – for a new world order carved up on the basis of military strength rather than the values Starmer has held dear for his entire adult life. Anyone watching him sit down with Trump on Thursday will see a profound contrast in style. But there is, still, a big difference in substance. And that matters more than ever.
-
Tom Baldwin is the author of Keir Starmer, The Biography
