Sir Keir Starmer’s promise to increase defence spending will have several consequences. It may one day actually strengthen the UK’s ability to defend itself. More immediately it will mean billions less spent on foreign aid.
But what will it buy the prime minister diplomatically in Washington?
In times past visiting dignitaries would give emperors gifts and tributes. Starmer will now turn up at the White House on Thursday with a large goodie bag marked “more defence spending”.
Donald Trump is just the latest in a long line of US presidents urging European powers to spend more on their own defence.
The prime minister will be able to say to the president that he has heard the call and acted. He might not want Trump to ask too many detailed questions: What does an added 0.2% of GDP mean in real money? When will the UK actually spend 3% on defence?
But Starmer will want to land the idea that the UK is responding to Trump’s agenda.
Early signs are positive. Peter Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defence, said he had spoken to his UK counterpart, John Healey, and described the increase as “a strong step from an enduring partner”.
So Starmer’s announcement may well get his foot in the door at the White House and a hearing from the president.
But will it help him make the case for the security of Ukraine and Europe? Will Trump now be more amenable to allowing both a seat at the negotiating table? Will Trump be more open to the idea that the United States should play a role guaranteeing post-war Ukraine’s security, giving air, logistics and intelligence cover to European forces helping to keep the peace on the ground?
The answer to those questions is not clear cut. The prime minister may suggest the UK is showing leadership, pointing the way for other European allies to follow suit.
He may also argue that the defence hike shows the UK will not have to make what he calls the “historic mistake” of having to choose between Europe and the US, something made much harder by the US decision to vote with Russia against Ukraine and Europe at the United Nations on Monday.
The problem is that Trump and his administration have made it clear that their security priority is China and Europe will just have to do more to look after itself.
Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, told the BBC: “The reality is that whatever we do on defence, the US is going to pivot elsewhere, it is not going to take the lead role in European security that it has done for more than half a century.”
In that context, the government’s promised increase in defence spending may be seen as a short-term tactical move ahead of Starmer’s visit to Washington, rather than an historic response to the existential geopolitical changes posed by Trump’s election.
European diplomats told me they were underwhelmed by the UK defence offer, saying it was not enough to have a real impact. They said the UK would have to spend at least 3% of national wealth soon to give itself a chance to develop the capability it would need.
To do that, the government would have to do more than raid the development budget. Aid charities noted that their spending was a soft target compared to those of massive spending departments such as welfare, health and education.
But few politicians of any political colour appear prepared to start making an argument for a transformation of the post-war European welfare model and prepare voters for a massive change in defence spending.
For now, the government is cutting foreign aid and international charities are furious.
The reduction from 0.5% of national income to 0.3% means £6bn less will be spent on foreign aid each year. Given that billions of this budget still pays for asylum seekers’ hotels here in the UK, the actual amount spent on aid overseas will be about 0.15%.
The prime minister said the UK would use this remaining aid money to help Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, tackle climate change, and support multinational efforts on global health.
Aid charities were stunned. Save the Children said it was betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable children. The One campaign said it would create huge problems for the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance. The aid network BOND said there would be devastating consequences for millions of marginalised people.
All this after Donald Trump froze America’s development spending arm, USAID.
By cutting foreign aid, the government has broken a manifesto commitment to protect the budget. It has also damaged its policy of using aid to engage more closely with countries in the global south.
David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Committee and former Labour foreign secretary, said the cut was “a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader”.
