Keir Starmer has clearly decided that the only way to disagree with Donald Trump and his administration without angering the US President is to make statements that contradict him without ever mentioning him or J.D. Vance by name. Today he opened Prime Minister’s Questions by paying tribute to six young British soldiers who were killed 13 years ago tomorrow in Afghanistan, and a soldier who was killed 18 years ago today in Helmand. He added:
These men fought and died for their country, our country, and across the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 643 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice, and I know the whole House will join with me in remembering them and all those who serve our country.
Starmer was, of course, offering these tributes as a response to Vance’s criticism of ‘some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years’. (Vance has since said that he didn’t mention Britain or France).
The Prime Minister was asked by a number of MPs, most notably Liberal Democrat Richard Foord, to go further and engage directly with what Vance said. Starmer continued with his policy of walking very carefully around the issue by merely saying ‘I know he speaks for the whole house’ when Foord asked him to remind America that the UK had been ‘there for the US following the 9/11 attacks’. He added: ‘We do remember the role that we’ve played historically with our allies, and we particularly remember those that made the ultimate sacrifice in that duty for their country and for our allies, and that’s why it’s so important that we make that point today.’
It was a powerful point to make, but it was also striking that Starmer was so careful in his language, mindful of the risk that the ally he insists is reliable could at any point turn sour on – or at the very least totally ignore – Britain. The Prime Minister was also asked about that question of reliability by Lib Dem leader Ed Davey, who seems to have dropped his weekly question about social care reform in favour of pressing Starmer to be less friendly with Trump.
This week, Davey asked the Prime Minister if he still believes ‘that President Trump is a reliable ally’, and what his plan was if there ended up being no White House security guarantee for Ukraine. Once again, Starmer said that ‘of course they’re a reliable ally, we are operating on that basis, day in, day out, across the world, as he knows’.
There were a couple of uncomfortable questions towards the end. One was from former Labour MP Rosie Duffield, who attacked the cut in aid and the ‘shameful almost six million children living in poverty in this country’. The other was the opposite in tone: it was so dripping with praise and approval for the Prime Minister that it is a wonder he didn’t gag slightly on how overcooked the question was. An overly-keen Labour backbencher called Mike Tapp told the Commons that Starmer had led ‘as a true statesman and with skilled and careful diplomacy’ and asked the incredibly challenging question of whether he agreed that the whole house should be united. It certainly seemed united in its mockery at that waste of a question.
As for Kemi Badenoch’s questions, she clearly got the message of the need for careful diplomacy to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine, to the point that Starmer joked ‘we were doing so well’ when she changed the subject. She then asked about farmers’ protests and whether he would ‘change course so we can have economic security’. In her first few questions, she praised Volodymyr Zelensky for ‘keeping a cool head under very difficult circumstances’, and asked what Starmer was doing to repair the relationship between the Ukrainian President and Trump. Starmer said he was ‘doing everything I can to play my part in that’.
Badenoch then argued that while ‘we support efforts to resolve this conflict, we cannot write a blank cheque’, and that Britain could be drawn into conflict with Russia if its peacekeeping troops were attacked. She wanted reassurance on this, and Starmer replied that it was ‘the last thing anybody wants to say’, arguing once again for ‘a lasting peace’ and guarantees for any deal so that Vladimir Putin did not think he could breach it.
The Tory leader commended Starmer’s efforts, and asked what steps he was taking to ‘persuade America that it is also in their national interest to provide a security guarantee’. Starmer said he had discussed security guarantees with Trump, and that ‘the President made absolutely clear his commitment to Article 5 of Nato, absolutely clear that he would have our backs because of the relationship between our parties’. He added that he had spoken to him three times since then on the phone.
Most of these answers were quite short and cautious to this point, but Starmer used the next question about intelligence-sharing and ensuring America did not disengage to drive home one of his more political points. This was that ‘we must not choose between the US and Europe’. On tariffs and a US-UK trade deal, he said Trump had ‘agreed that our team would indeed sit down rapidly to talk through an economic deal’.
It was a largely unremarkable set of questions and answers. Perhaps, though, it was most notable for the fact that Badenoch doesn’t feel the mood is right for her to get too scrappy with the Prime Minister at the moment.
Book tickets to our next Coffee House Shots Live, where our panel will unpack the Spring Statement just hours after it’s announced
Comments