Healey’s Diplomatic Engagement in Washington
When Defence Secretary John Healey arrived in Washington on Wednesday evening, he was greeted not only by the gravity of impending discussions regarding Ukraine with his US counterpart but also by a grand celebration hosted by UK ambassador Lord Mandelson. This lavish event marked the 250th anniversary of the US Marine Corps. Although the gathering had been meticulously planned, its significance was amplified following Vice President JD Vance’s recent remarks, in which he appeared to dismiss the UK and France’s initiatives for a Ukrainian peacekeeping force, labeling these nations as “random” and suggesting they had not engaged in military actions for decades.
Addressing an audience of British and American marines—both active duty and veterans—Healey delivered a heartfelt speech. He recounted how a member of his staff had served alongside a US marine bomb disposal expert who tragically lost his life while neutralizing IEDs in a Taliban-controlled area. Healey emphasized, “When the call comes, we answer it. We do not stand alone, and I want that bond to endure…” He further asserted, “In a rapidly changing world, we are dedicated to standing by you, our closest ally, just as you have stood by us.”
Starmer’s Dual Diplomatic Challenges
His remarks served as a poignant reminder of the intricate diplomacy the UK must navigate as it strives to maintain the support of an increasingly unpredictable US while simultaneously spearheading the international response to America’s reduced global presence. This requires a level of diplomatic finesse that Sir Keir Starmer will also need to employ domestically in the weeks ahead, particularly as he aims to boost the UK’s defence budget to fill the gap left by the US.
Increased Defence Spending Initiatives
The UK, along with France and Germany, has taken the lead in advocating for heightened defence expenditures across Europe. Starmer has already committed to raising the UK’s defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% by 2027, with ambitions to reach 3% by 2033. While there is substantial backing within Parliament for Downing Street’s objectives, discontent has begun to surface among some of Starmer’s backbenchers, revealing divisions about where the necessary funding should be sourced. After already reducing the UK’s international aid budget to facilitate the initial increase in defence spending over the next two years, speculation is rife that Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves will pursue further welfare cuts to meet the nation’s security demands, having ruled out additional tax hikes.
This decision is not being made lightly in Downing Street. In fact, Starmer is anticipated to make a rare appearance at the upcoming closed-door meeting of Labour MPs to emphasize the necessity of cuts to welfare.
The “Moral” Justification for Welfare Cuts
The Prime Minister is poised to argue that there exists a “moral” rationale for reducing the welfare budget, particularly concerning young people who are neither in education nor training. This line of reasoning will precede a significant address that could occur as soon as next week, aimed at laying the groundwork for cuts expected to be outlined in the Spring Statement on March 26, with a green paper on welfare reforms potentially forthcoming. However, economists such as Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have cautioned that any savings would need to be “radical.” One government insider remarked to The i Paper: “Welfare is so totemic to the Labour Party; we can’t afford to mishandle it.”
Additionally, No. 10 received a reminder this week that goodwill among its backbenchers is not limitless, as several senior MPs voiced their disapproval in the Commons regarding the decision to cut international aid. Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, warned, “We may look back at this time and realize this is when Britain withdrew from the world.”
The cuts to the aid budget have led one senior Labour MP to advocate for more vigorous negotiations on behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, expressing concerns that Foreign Secretary David Lammy is “too accommodating.”
Concerns About Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Support for cuts to overseas aid is evident among Labour MPs representing working-class “Red Wall” constituencies who feel threatened by the Reform party. However, the same senior backbencher warns that trimming the welfare budget might not resonate well with Reform voters as the government assumes. They noted that such measures could adversely affect the elderly and communities in coastal towns. “We need to approach welfare cuts with extreme caution,” the MP advised.
Moreover, questions are being raised within Labour about Reeves’s fiscal management, especially in light of the increased demands for defence funding. The Chancellor has consistently maintained that her fiscal rules, which prohibit borrowing for routine expenditures, are unyielding and will not be altered, despite the evolving political landscape.
Criticism of Treasury’s Fiscal Approach
One backbencher has criticized the Treasury’s “penny-pinching” approach to spending, warning that this strategy might prove detrimental for future defence funding. They advocated for a shift in fiscal rules to accommodate a new era of heightened defence expenditure, suggesting that this could be financed over the long term through a revised borrowing strategy dedicated to national security purposes. They are among several voices urging a reevaluation of fiscal policies to bolster security and defence budgets, pointing to Germany’s decision to relax its borrowing constraints to support increased government spending.
Despite these internal doubts, Starmer is currently enjoying one of his most favorable periods since taking office, with polling indicating a surge in public support linked to his handling of international issues, particularly concerning Trump and Ukraine.
Addressing Domestic Concerns Amid Global Focus
However, as all attention from Downing Street shifts toward the upcoming talks between the US and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia—where the potential for an American security guarantee in any peace agreement looms large—Starmer must remain cognizant of domestic issues as well. George Buchan, a pollster at GB Insight, noted that Starmer’s “statesman-like” performance on the global stage has been positively received by voters. Nonetheless, he cautioned, “The primary concerns for the public continue to be the economy, health, and immigration. Ultimately, Starmer must not lose sight of these broader issues while focusing on defence. After all, Boris Johnson’s attempts to align himself with Ukraine did not save him from political fallout.”
The Prime Minister may be winning the diplomatic struggle abroad, but he faces a far more significant political challenge at home.
