Bismarck likened statesmanship to waiting to hear the footsteps of God sounding through events and catching hold of his coattails as he passes. Keir Starmer has heard those steps. The Trump presidency has created, he declares, a “generational moment” for Britain and Europe.
Heroic talk abounds. Gasp, then, as our premier shakes off his fusty style and reveals himself as a true leader rising to the global challenges and rescuing his standing with the British people. But what is boldness, Starmer-style?
For all the emphasis we place on individual leaders, they are still bound by economic and diplomatic realities. A daring Starmer does not make the UK richer nor able to suddenly stand against a capricious America. Real life is not a Richard Curtis movie.
He has started well. Having surprised even his own cabinet this week with a move to increase defence spending from 2.3 to 2.5 per cent of GDP by cutting the foreign aid budget, Starmer has shown a readiness to act decisively. But this cannot be the end of his response. Welcome as this was, it is desperately incremental for a generational moment.
Starmer has talked of hitting 3 per cent of GDP in the next parliament but even this may not be enough. Speed on rearming is dictated by the state of public finances. Constraints are promoting talk of a European rearmament bank, as a path to borrowing more.
So how might a leader who hears the march of history reshape the agenda? Two considerable steps suggest themselves. The first is on tax, the second on engagement with the EU. He might use the opportunity to free himself from the constraints of Labour’s tax pledges. The new world order has exposed the absurdity of binding commitments not to raise the taxes which bring in nearly 75 per cent of revenue. Governments cannot predict the future. The cost of these straitjackets are grim choices such as breaking promises or coming up with other tax rises with perverse effects.
This crisis is a chance to shake off that foolish promise and level with voters about the tax necessary to fund services and defend the country. Voters might see the need and respond to the honesty.
The other move is to use British distaste for Trump to power a step change in re-engagement with the EU. This will, at first, be about defence and security rather than revisiting Brexit. But a bold leader might use this moment to remake the argument for where the UK’s destiny (and geography) lies. From crisis he can fashion a glide path for a return to the European economic orbit too. The case may only grow if the US president follows through on threats to punish the UK for levying VAT or for legislation to curb harmful material online.
It’s all tantalising stuff but those waiting for so daring a response may be disappointed. We will certainly see Britain seek a more active leadership role in European defence — though EU cohesion is far from a given. But Starmer remains convinced the UK must avoid choosing between the US and Europe. His policy remains one of trying to hold on to the Atlantic relationship whatever the indignities but the choice may yet be made for him.
On tax, however, there is less appetite for audacity. For one thing both the tax and EU arguments are a liberal vision of boldness. When Starmer talks of a generational moment, he is not thinking only of Trump. He is talking about what Labour strategists call “the forgotten people” drawn towards populist nationalism. To them, security is not merely defence but the cost of living, jobs, robust borders, a reliable NHS.
Boldness for Starmer will take a different shape, one presaged by his cuts to foreign aid. Labour will use the crisis to defy its own members about the new political priorities for a rearming economy. From soft to hard power; soft to hard choices. Working people, Starmer’s allies argue, will not tolerate tax rises while they see what seems to them wasteful spending on overseas aid, excessive public service bureaucracy and welfare.
His financial response to this security emergency, aside perhaps from the already mooted continued freeze of income tax thresholds, will instead reside in finding funds for defence in the two public service reforms already planned for this spring. The NHS plan will see a significant culling of health officials not attached to front-line services; welfare reform will centre on tougher eligibility criteria and reducing the perverse financial incentives which have added to the huge rise in those claiming sickness benefits.
In a recent political cabinet, Starmer stressed that citizens wanted to see a government shaping a new era not “defending institutions that are broken”. His generational moment will reinforce a central contention: that a struggling British state must adapt to be fit for a changed world.
Is this really what is required to rise to the occasion? There are good reasons for scepticism. If public service reform were easy we would not still be talking about it. The UK’s financial constraints remain tight and no one is even talking about cutting the debt. For many his approach will look like pandering to the Reform UK electoral threat rather than decisive leadership.
Events may ultimately force bolder policy shifts. Starmer’s first moves have been strong but those hoping for the dramatic dash of a Blair or a Macron may be disappointed. He has shown serious purpose for serious times. But this march of history is less likely to see him heading off in a brave new direction than moving faster in the old one.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
