Week after week, there used to be a grim but poignant ritual at the start of Prime Minister’s Question Time.
The prime minister of the day would begin by acknowledging by name and by rank the British servicemen and women killed serving their country.
But what happened this week was different.
Not different in how it was done or the solemnity of the moment as MPs fell quiet and listened respectfully.
But different because this time Sir Keir Starmer was marking the anniversaries of deaths rather than recent ones, which does not happen normally.
And he was doing so intentionally to mark in actions, not commentary, what the government thought of the US Vice President JD Vance’s remarks about the military sacrifices of America’s allies.
It is a case study in the dilemma UK ministers face: they are striving to have a close and productive relationship with a White House known for shooting its mouth off.
No 10’s approach is one of discretion and avoiding the temptation to commentate.
Or to put it more crudely, don’t get into a slanging match with Team Trump because you are certain to lose.
So when European leaders were tapping out various levels of social media opprobrium on Friday evening after President Zelensky’s bumpy meeting in Washington, Downing Street were not.
The prime minister, we were later told, was on the phone to both President Trump and President Zelensky to try to patch things up.
In other words, leveraging the relationship he has with both to try to move things forward: governing, not commentating.
Now put yourself in the prime minister’s shoes.
You are determined to maintain this discipline because you believe it to be sensible, pragmatic and in the UK’s national interest.
But it is also true, according to opinion polls, that considerably more people in the UK are inclined to be critical of Donald Trump than supportive of him, particularly on his handling of Ukraine.
In comparison, Sir Keir’s approach is welcomed by many.
But what do you do to deal with those who might think Sir Keir is being far too cosy with President Trump, and, crucially, what do you do when his team do something you might regard as egregiously indefensible?
The other night JD Vance went on Fox News and claimed that the American plan for Ukraine offered a “better security guarantee that 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.
There are only two countries that have publicly said that they would provide troops, the UK and France, neither of which the vice president mentioned.
But plenty in the UK were outraged by the remarks, whether they were a reference to Britain or not.
And the government found a mechanism, in co-opting and reviving a recent ritual, but this time to mark anniversaries, to make its view clear too.
When us reporters asked the prime minister’s team afterwards why they had done it, they stuck rigidly to their strategy: don’t commentate.
They didn’t, and they didn’t need to.
