Sir Keir Starmer finds a role

On Monday March 3rd the House of Commons echoed with glutinous praise. Sir Keir Starmer was updating Parliament after a week of shuttle diplomacy. What began with the prime minister glad-handing Donald Trump in the Oval Office, before hosting a “coalition of the willing” of European leaders in London, ended with Sir Keir trying to mend the relationship between Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, and Mr Trump.

Britain’s MPs liked what they had seen. Sir Keir had “spoken for Britain”, said Tom Tugendhat, a cabinet minister in the last Conservative government. Britain was “leading the world, as we have so many times in the past”, said Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who once found such patriotism gauche. “May I praise in the strongest possible terms the prime minister’s strong and pitch-perfect leadership?” asked one MP. He may.

The parliamentary love-in was a rare moment for Sir Keir, whose first eight months in office have been marked by a mixture of inertia and ineptitude. A ridiculous scandal about a donor buying Sir Keir clothes trashed his reputation for probity; Labour’s first budget cranked up National Insurance on employers and avoided breaking the party’s pledges only via pedantry. Yet in foreign policy Sir Keir has suddenly found a role that suits him. Never mind Dean Acheson, the former American secretary of state whose remark in 1962 that Britain had lost an empire but not yet found a role still haunts the country’s place in the world.

Labour has put in diplomatic legwork since coming to power. A Sunday summit of European leaders was the culmination of a great normalisation of relations with the continent. Under Boris Johnson, the prime minister when Russia invaded Ukraine, a coherent European response to Ukraine had to survive an otherwise toxic relationship. This put a ceiling on the ability of both sides to work together. Sending military supplies and offering Ukrainian troops training is one thing; discussing putting European boots on the ground is quite another. Now, under Sir Keir, both sides are able to go further together.

Likewise, Sir Keir’s strategic supplication in the Oval Office was the result of months of effort. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, was dispatched to America once it looked likely that Mr Trump was heading to power. Mr Lammy bonded with J.D. Vance, the American vice-president, over their Christian faith, their impoverished backgrounds and their previously sharply critical opinions of Mr Trump.

Sir Keir has a freer hand on diplomacy than his European peers. Britain’s government is among the most secure in the continent. It has a huge majority and four years until the next election. Under the Conservative government, foreign policy became backbench management. By contrast, Sir Keir can take difficult decisions with ease. Hacking the aid budget from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% to boost defence spending is not the reason Labour MPs entered politics. Anneliese Dodds, the development minister, resigned, but beyond that there was barely a peep of protest. It was a strikingly bold move for a prime minister who has too often opted for timidity that belied his parliamentary might.

Still, boldness masks a weakness. Sir Keir raided the aid budget because he had few other places to find the money. Extra borrowing has been ruled out for fiscal reasons; extra taxes are ruled out for political reasons. While Labour remains attached to its fiscal rules, war austerity is the result. Every pound spent on nlaws, an anti-tank missile that Britain supplies to Ukraine, is money that cannot be spent on the nhs. For a party elected to improve public services, its task only becomes harder.

Wrapping domestic goals in a Ukrainian flag can do only so much. Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for net zero, has long championed the green transition as a security measure, a way of reducing British reliance on gas prices that shoot up whenever Russia invades a neighbour. If the transition leads to lower energy costs, then Britons will cheer; if it locks in high prices, there will be little forgiveness.

Lawmakers from all parties have an unserious view of the realities of keeping a nuclear power at bay with only erratic support from America. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, has noted that Britain’s army is, by historical standards, underpowered. “Perhaps the prime minister could remind them of what the Kaiser said in 1914 about ‘the contemptible little British army’,” suggested Sir Edward Leigh, Britain’s longest-serving MP.

Politicians of all levels think foreign policy can boost domestic goals. “Defence is a vehicle for social mobility, career security and opportunity for our young people,” said one Labour MP, displaying an optimistic view of peacekeeping in the Ukrainian winter. Nor is Sir Keir immune: extra defence spending should boost small and medium-sized businesses, he said.

Under Sir Keir, the British government is pursuing the only plausible strategy available: clinging onto an uncertain transatlantic relationship and forging a closer one with Europe. A potted history circulates in Labour circles. In the post-war era Britain hewed to America under Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill, missing out on the first wave of European integration. It then launched a foolish break with America under Anthony Eden which resulted in the Anglo-French debacle of Suez. When asked to choose between Europe and America, the answer can only be a firm “both”.

This strategy, however, now relies on the grace of Mr Trump. In Parliament, Sir Keir listed his aims: military aid must flow to Ukraine; sanctions must be maintained against Russia; an American security guarantee for any peacekeeping force in Ukraine was vital. By midweek, Mr Trump had undermined them all. If he were to do something once unthinkable, such as leave NATO altogether, then Sir Keir could face the unenviable choice he has sought to avoid: Europe or America? It is lucky that he has a new enthusiasm for foreign policy. He will be doing much more of it.■

We’re hiring: The Economist is looking to hire a Britain economics writer, based in London. Journalistic experience is not necessary. The ability to write clearly and entertainingly is crucial. So is knowledge of economics and an ability to work with data. For details go to economist.com/britain-econ-job

For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in Britain, sign up to Blighty, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.