Keir Starmer’s most consequential moves yet

Good morning. In a very important sense, this isn’t a Donald Trump email, because the FT has not one but two brilliant newsletters on US politics (White House Watch by Steff Chávez, which you can read for free here, and Swamp Notes by Ed Luce and Rana Foroohar, which Premium subscribers can sign up to here).

But in another, equally important sense, this is a Donald Trump email, because how his administration reshapes the US, its foreign and security policy is going to be among the biggest, if not the biggest challenge facing British politics for the next four years at least.

Starmer steps up

Keir Starmer has made what may be the most consequential statement of his premiership with an article in today’s Telegraph (requires subscription). He says he is willing to put British “boots on the ground” to maintain a ceasefire in Ukraine and that defence spending must rise.

The prime minister meets some of his European counterparts today and will travel to the US to meet Donald Trump later this month. He has set out what he sees as his aims for that meeting in his Telegraph piece, though candidly I think those parts are less significant. Whether anyone in the UK or Europe as a whole can convince Trump to be an active part of securing Europe a) is not my area of expertise and b) seems unlikely frankly.

I’m more struck by the specific pledges Starmer is making: the first is to increase defence spending (emphasis mine):

First, Europe must step up further to meet the demands of its own security. So I am heading to Paris with a very clear message for our European friends. We have got to show we are truly serious about our own defence and bearing our own burden. We have talked about it for too long — and president Trump is right to demand that we get on with it.

As European nations, we must increase our defence spending and take on a greater role in Nato. Non-US Nato nations have already increased defence spending by 20 per cent in the past year, but we must go further.

Russia is still waging war and Ukraine is still fighting for its freedom, which is why we must not relent in our efforts to get the kit Ukrainians need for their fighters on the front line. While the fighting continues, we must put Ukraine in the strongest possible position ahead of any talks.

I’m aware I’m a bit of a stuck record on this, so I will try to keep this succinct. Although the UK has unlike its peers increased spending to meet the new GDP target that Nato members agreed to after Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the Crimea in 2014, that money has not been spent well.

This is part of why input targets about how much you spend are generally not helpful in my view: the UK’s debate about defence spending has been very focused on hitting a specific percentage, but not on building the UK’s defence capabilities so that the country can protect itself and act unilaterally if need be. Indeed, as Keir Giles wrote this weekend in a must-read FT piece on Europe’s defence, what you buy is now an urgent question.

The UK government needs to do two things: first, significantly increase defence spending. Second, it must reform how the Ministry of Defence operates, particularly in procurement, so that it is getting what it actually needs for that spending. That is a big administrative challenge for the defence secretary, John Healey, and a big political challenge for the government as a whole, given the promises it made on tax and spend before the election.

Politically, whatever choice Labour ends up making will be hard: to increase defence spending without breaking its pledges on tax means overseeing incredibly sharp and painful cuts everywhere else — the road to certain electoral defeat in my view. But an increase in income tax, national insurance or VAT comes with big risks attached too.

Starmer’s second and even more important commitment is this (again, emphasis mine):

The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine. This includes further support for Ukraine’s military, where the UK has already committed £3 billion a year until at least 2030. But it also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.

I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way. But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine’s security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent, and the security of this country.

The end of this war, when it comes, cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again.

Taken together, these are commitments that are going to define the life of the UK and of the Labour government.

Now try this

I had a lovely time this weekend seeing some of my oldest friends and their kids. As a classical music fan I am thrilled that thanks to YouTube, one of my friend’s toddlers has developed a passion for string music, particularly the cello and Yo-Yo Ma. (Sadly I could not persuade them to accept this recording of César Franck’s cello sonata by Jacqueline du Pre was preferable, but I was able to dig out this lovely performance by a young Ma on YouTube here.)

Top stories today

• What Iceland chair wants out of Labour | Richard Walker, executive chair of food retailer Iceland, has given the Labour party a lacklustre “six out of 10” for its performance in government. Walker, who voted for Brexit in 2016, said he wanted the government to do more on planning reform and fixing relations with Europe. 

• Cut back | A quarter of UK employers plan to make redundancies before Budget tax increases bite in April, according to a survey that will reinforce fears of a sharp downturn in the jobs market. 

• Thames Water’s road to rescue | Thames Water only has enough cash to survive little more than five weeks. While the taps will keep running even if Thames Water tips into default, it is an existential moment for the company and the wider system of privatised utilities that has prevailed in England and Wales since 1989. Robert Smith and Gill Plimmer assess the crunch decisions that lie ahead as the Treasury seeks greater clarity on the cost of renationalising the utility.

• Paper problems | Patients routinely have to chase up test results, receive appointment letters after their appointments and do not know when their treatment will occur because the NHS is so “dysfunctional”. The Guardian writes up research by two major patients’ organisations and the King’s Fund, which found 64 per cent of people in England who used the NHS or arranged care for someone else over the past year encountered a problem involving its administration or communication.