Is Keir Starmer's alliance with Donald Trump becoming a liability?
1 hour ago
Laura Kuenssberg, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, BBC
"Keir can't be the last gasp of the dying world order," a minister warns, highlighting the precarious position the Prime Minister finds himself in as global dynamics shift under the influence of his controversial ally in the White House. While domestic challenges have dominated headlines, Downing Street's foreign policy has largely been viewed as a success. But as Donald Trump's global interventions escalate—particularly in Venezuela and Greenland—Starmer's opponents are seizing the opportunity to turn one of his few strengths into a vulnerability.
But here's where it gets controversial... Starmer's closeness to Trump has raised eyebrows, especially among the left wing of the Labour Party. This unease isn't new; it echoes historical skepticism of the "special relationship," from Blair's Iraq War alignment with Bush to Thatcher's rapport with Reagan. And this is the part most people miss: regardless of personal feelings, it's always a transactional arrangement. "The unavoidable cost of doing business," one Labour MP explains. By fostering loyalty to a polarizing leader, the UK gains leverage in trade deals and support for Ukraine, even if it means appeasing Trump's ego with royal invitations or accommodating U.S. tech giants.
So far, this strategy has paid off, with senior figures praising Blair-era adviser Jonathan Powell's diplomatic finesse. Yet, a growing chorus warns of "being linked to the madness." Starmer risks accusations of weakness from both sides, compounded by the looming question of defense spending. Traditionally, the opposition aligns with the government on foreign policy, but Kemi Badenoch, emboldened and appearing on Sunday's program, is breaking this norm.
Boldly challenging Starmer in the Commons, Badenoch criticized his delayed response to the Venezuela strike and his secrecy around UK troop deployments in Ukraine. Her team believes she's undermined his foreign policy credibility, and the Conservatives are likely to amplify this narrative. But what would Badenoch do differently? Would she secure a peace deal in Ukraine or escalate operations against Russia's shadow fleet, as seen in the Marinera tanker seizure? The opposition's role is to critique, not act, yet their arguments are gaining traction.
The Lib Dems, nearly neck-and-neck with Labour in some polls, also pivoted to foreign policy, with leader Ed Davey's Venezuela comments going viral on Instagram. A senior Lib Dem source notes, "Starmer's ties to Trump are becoming a liability, especially among Labour voters who are anti-Trump but pro-NATO." This echoes the party's 2003 Iraq War stance, which boosted their profile, though the parallels aren't perfect.
Even within Labour, discontent simmers. Left-wing MPs question the government's silence on Trump's Venezuela actions and the UK's role in the Marinera seizure. Some allies worry Starmer's diplomatic approach lacks political punch, leaving him vulnerable to attacks from both sides. Yet, amid global turmoil, a leadership challenge seems unlikely, as it would appear self-serving.
Here's the kicker: While Trump's unpredictability gives Starmer's opponents ammunition, international crises make stability within Labour more appealing. Foreign policy isn't Reform UK's strong suit, making it easier for Labour to deflect criticism compared to immigration issues. However, the surge in global instability has reignited debates over defense spending. How much taxpayer money should be allocated, and has the government truly committed to this shift? Insiders reveal growing discontent, with one noting, "Defense spending is a proper wound now."
Defense Secretary John Healey insists global events demand a new defense era, but former Chief of Defense Staff Sir Tony Radakin warned of budget cuts, only to be contradicted by his successor. This inconsistency, coupled with Trump's aggressive strategies—from Venezuela strikes to Greenland ambitions—heightens the urgency. After Trump's recent actions, the question of how much the UK is willing to invest in its protection, and what sacrifices politicians will make, becomes increasingly pressing.
While ministers pledge increased defense spending, have they fully grasped the scale of the shift? Opposition parties argue they haven’t, and the public remains largely uninformed. Historically, foreign policy hasn’t swayed voters, but opposition parties are eager to change that. Could 2026 be the year foreign policy takes center stage?
Top image credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/bbcindepth) offers fresh perspectives and deep reporting on critical issues. Sign up for notifications here.
