This is a can-do, will-do Starmer – more of the same, please

The decision to cut the international aid budget, to boost the defence budget… is this Starmer shooting the Tory fox and finding his pulse, only to split his own party? They’ve all lined up behind him – Starmer is finally leading, writes Chris Blackhurst

Cometh the hour, cometh the man – or something to that effect. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are engaging in their love-in, blowing a gaping hole in Europe’s security cordon, and into the breach steps another strong leader: Keir Starmer. That is how Downing Street would like to paint the move to swap international aid for defence.

Sure, it’s contrary to Labour’s manifesto, the one that got Starmer elected. Yes, it also happens to be directly in tune with Reform’s manifesto: the one that may block his re-election. To go there is to indulge in political frippery.

Nevertheless, as if to ram home the symbolism, Starmer delivers his news flanked by union jacks. Pure Nigel Farage. As for the Tory agenda, he’s stealing theirs as well.

Needs must, as another premier displayed repeatedly. Starmer is no Winston Churchill, and we’re not at war, but these are anxious times, and the facts that existed when the campaign managers drafted their sales patter for voters have dramatically changed.

The left is cavilling, and the right is accusing him of reneging and betraying his supporters and purloining their policies, while also applauding. So what? It pays on an occasion like this to consider the alternative. If Starmer had allowed Britain to continue along its own sweet way, what then? We would remain isolated and vulnerable, neither in step with the US nor with Europe. As it is, this shift allows us to join with both.

Ahead of Starmer’s meeting with Trump, the Americans are applauding the new direction; and where Europe is concerned, he is restoring Britain to the top table, putting it on a regional leadership footing once again.

‘The facts that existed when the campaign managers drafted their sales patter for voters have dramatically changed’ (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

It’s smart. It highlights, too, a ruthlessness and willingness to strike out on his part. We’ve seen flashes before but this cuts across and silences much of the chatter of recent weeks. Stop all that gloomy moaning about unaffordability and lack of cash; he’s found the money. This is a can-do, will-do Starmer. No going back now. More of the same, please.

David Lammy isn’t happy. Only two weeks ago, the foreign secretary said on a trip to Kyiv: “What I can say to American friends is it’s widely accepted that the decision by the UK with very little preparation to close down the department for international development, to suspend funding in the short term or give many global partners little heads-up, was a big strategic mistake. We have spent years unravelling that strategic mistake. Development remains a very important soft power tool. And in the absence of development… I would be very worried that China and others step into that gap.”

Yesterday, Lammy was forced to fall into line as billions of pounds were cut from the aid budget, which falls under his remit, and transferred to the military. Asked this morning if the switch had been discussed in cabinet, the defence secretary John Healey refused to answer.

Who is in charge here? A cynic might reply Trump, Putin and Farage. But no matter how collegiate the ideal there is no point to a PM unless they are also required to command and that includes telling the foreign secretary what’s what. The answer is Sir Keir, stupid.

Naturally, as a quick-footed politician, Lammy was quick to big up the loss of 40 per cent from his aid budget. He had previously championed the need to boost defence spending but surely did not envisage funds from his own department would be slashed to pay for it.

Still, Lammy tweeted: “Three years into Putin’s brutal war, this is a hinge point for Britain. Keir Starmer’s commitment to raise defence spending shows his leadership. We believe in international aid but will always do what’s needed to keep Britain safe.”

He’s correct. So much so that Starmer could not have put it better himself.

As for the chancellor, she too has emerged as a sudden proponent of increased spending. With Rachel Reeves, there is a sense of her saying too much. For what seems like an age, she has been publicly downplaying any discussion on raising expenditure anywhere and focusing entirely on going “further and faster” to kickstart growth. Everything has been deflected towards that mantra. Now she is informing us: “This is a generational moment for our continent. All of us must step up and do more on defence. That is why over the coming days I will be talking to European counterparts at the G20 in South Africa about the importance of security and defence for our economies, and how we can work together to bolster them.”

They’re all behind Starmer. He’s out in front, which, at last, as prime minister, is where he should be.