A bold move by Prime Minister Starmer has left many questioning its long-term implications.
"Keir's leadership must not be the last stand of a fading global order," a government minister warns.
Starmer finds himself in a delicate position, with the world undergoing a significant transformation, largely influenced by his close ally, President Trump. While domestic challenges abound, Starmer's foreign policy decisions have, so far, been well-received. However, as Trump's global activities accelerate, particularly in Venezuela and Greenland, the Prime Minister faces growing opposition at home, determined to turn this perceived success into a liability.
There has been unease, especially from the left-wing of the Labour Party, regarding Starmer's proximity to Trump. This discomfort stems from a traditional aversion to the sentimentality of the "special relationship," a dynamic that has existed beyond Starmer and Trump. Think of Blair's poodle-like behavior during the Iraq War or the parodies of Thatcher and Reagan dancing at the White House.
Despite personal opinions, this relationship is transactional. As one Labour MP puts it, "It's the unavoidable cost of doing business." Showing loyalty to a controversial leader like Trump could result in a better trade deal for the UK. Inviting the US President for royal visits or accommodating US tech firms' desires could secure support for Ukraine.
So far, Starmer's strategy has been deemed successful, with government insiders praising his foreign policy advisor, Jonathan Powell, for his brilliant work. However, a senior Labour MP cautions against the growing risk of being associated with Trump's "madness." Starmer could face accusations of weakness from both sides of the political spectrum, especially with the looming question of defense spending.
Traditionally, the official opposition in the UK aligns with the government on foreign policy, but in the tumultuous year 2026, this may feel outdated. Kemi Badenoch, a confident and rising figure, is challenging this norm. She recently blasted Starmer on foreign policy in the Commons, claiming he was irrelevant due to his lack of direct communication with Trump after the Venezuela strike. She also criticized Starmer for not sharing the details of the UK-France-Ukraine deal regarding ground troops.
Badenoch's team believes she successfully undermined Starmer's authority on foreign policy. The Conservatives are expected to continue building an argument that the UK is not demonstrating sufficient strength abroad. This raises the question: what exactly would Badenoch do differently?
It's unlikely that Badenoch would have been involved in Trump's inner circle to the extent that Starmer is. Would she have brokered a peace deal in Ukraine or opted for more aggressive operations against Russia's shadow fleet, like the UK-supported seizure of the Marinera tanker?
The opposition's role is to argue, not act. And arguments are indeed coming from the left, both within and outside the Labour Party. The Lib Dems, close to Labour in some polls, have also focused on foreign affairs, with leader Ed Davey's comments on Venezuela gaining nearly 10 million views on Instagram.
A senior Lib Dem source sees an opportunity, stating that Starmer's close association with Trump is increasingly damaging. The Green Party is also capitalizing on anti-Trump sentiments, with a senior source calling it "hugely problematic" for Starmer. They argue that lavishing Trump with a second state visit was a mistake.
Within the Labour Party, there is discontent from the traditional left, with MPs questioning the government's lack of condemnation of Trump's actions in Venezuela. Some are also uneasy about the UK's support for the Marinera seizure.
Even Starmer's supporters worry about how he handles domestic perceptions. One colleague says, "The responses have been diplomatic, not political, and failing to take a strong political position will invite attacks from both sides."
However, the international turmoil may make challenging Starmer's leadership less appealing. Any contender considering a challenge could appear self-indulgent given the volatile global situation.
While Trump's international rollercoaster provides opportunities for Starmer's opponents, the gravity of these moments emphasizes the importance of stability within the Labour Party. Reform UK, Labour's main opponent, is not known for its strength in foreign policy, making it easier for Labour to counter their criticisms on this front.
The dramatic events of early 2026 have reignited the debate on defense spending. An insider reveals, "Defense spending is a real sore point now. It's not just the military chiefs grumbling."
Prime Minister Starmer often speaks of turbulent times, believing that the UK and Europe must allocate more funds for defense. Defense Secretary John Healey has reiterated the need for a new era of defense spending, promising an increase faster than since the end of the Cold War.
However, before 2026, the former Chief of the Defense Staff, Sir Tony Radakin, publicly expressed concerns about budget cuts. While the Defense Secretary denied this, the new Chief of the Defense Staff later confirmed some cuts to certain capabilities.
These developments, along with the US's new security strategy and its actions in Venezuela and Greenland, highlight the urgency of the question: how much is the UK willing to pay for its protection, and what sacrifices are politicians prepared to make?
While some opposition parties argue that ministers have already committed to increased defense spending, the question remains: have ministers truly grasped the magnitude of this shift and been transparent with the public?
British politics has long been driven by domestic issues, with foreign policy taking a back seat. As one government source said, "People want competent handling of foreign affairs, but it's not their primary concern unless exceptional circumstances arise."
However, the opposition parties are eager to exploit this issue, raising genuine questions about the government's priorities in a dangerous world.
While the saying goes that "all politics is local," the events of the last seven days in 2026 may prove to be the exception.
