The events of the past week have altered the balance in Westminster. As George Eaton wrote yesterday, Keir Starmer’s recent decisions – announcing an increase in defence spending, navigating a highly charged White House meeting with Donald Trump then welcoming Volodymyr Zelensky to London and convening a summit of European leaders to discuss security – has added definition to a government that had previously been looking incoherent.
As with the Southport riots over the summer, this is the kind of prime ministerial challenge that plays to Starmer’s strengths. His persona as one of the “grown-ups” – cool in a crisis, dour but determined, never rash – suits a foreign policy security showdown far better than it does heady conversations about unleashing entrepreneurial spirits and boosting growth. Maybe that’s why his personal approval ratings have shot up since Trump started rewriting geopolitical norms.
But it isn’t only the government that could benefit from the sudden reprioritising of the political agenda. There is an opportunity for the Conservatives as well – as yesterday made clear.
The Tories have been struggling since the election to define themselves in light of Reform’s rapid emergence and Nigel Farage’s tendency to suck up all the political oxygen. Reform’s rise – in terms of both members and polling, overtaking the Conservatives an even Labour in multiple polls since the start of the year – has enabled Farage’s insurgent party to claim de facto opposition status, despite having just five MPs. The Tories have yet to come up with an answer for why voters who lean right, particularly those who care deeply about immigration, should vote for them and not for the “full-fat” party offering more radical policies without any of the baggage of the last 14 years.
Renewed focus on the war in Ukraine – in particular the pro-Putin tilt of the White House, epitomised by that jaw-dropping spectacle of Trump and JD Vance attacking Zelenksy in the Oval Office on Friday – provides a dividing line like no other. While British political leaders came together in their support for the Ukrainian president, Farage took a different line. In a phone-in on LBC on Monday, the Reform leader repeated Trump-Vance talking points, such as that Zelenksy had been “rude” and should have worn a suit to the White House, and that Ukraine was “a very, very corrupt country”. He also defended the Nazi salutes given by Elon Musk and Maga godfather Steve Bannon, saying they were “not really Nazi salutes” because “they were out to the side”.
Farage’s pro-Putin sensibilities go way back. In 2014 he cited the Russian leader when asked which world politician he most admired. His diciest moment during the election campaign was when he argued the West had “provoked” Russia into invading Ukraine. And when Trump shocked the world by calling Zelensky a “dictator” last month, Farage hedged his bets by suggesting Ukraine should hold elections in the middle of fighting for its very existence.
This puts him way outside mainstream British opinion. There is overwhelming public support for Ukraine, as evidenced by the crowds cheering as Zelenksy arrived in London this weekend. The Ukrainian president is wildly popular among Brits; Putin wildly unpopular. Just eight per cent of the public think Putin is doing the right thing in the war with Ukraine – less than the proportion who believe the moon landings were faked. Even Reform voters are vastly more likely to approve of Zelenksy than Putin (though they are more supportive of Trump than the average Brit).
The Conservatives, belatedly, have spotted an opportunity for definition. First, Priti Patel went hard for her old friend (and erstwhile karaoke partner). “Nigel Farage is completely wrong,” tweeted the shadow foreign secretary after the Reform leader’s LBC comments. “For Nigel Farage to sit there pointing the finger at Zelensky is both morally wrong and diplomatically counterproductive… But sadly, it is not surprising. Like Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of Reform UK seems to have history equivocating over Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.”
The comparison to Corbyn is interesting, and will no doubt resurface as a Tory attack line against Reform (there is a flavour of the anti-establishment Corbynite left in some of Reform’s economic positions and its suspicion of big businesses). But this was also Patel showing that her party is “putting our national interest first, rather than playing politics”.
And it was a sentiment expressed robustly from the Tories in response to Starmer’s Commons statement. Kemi Badenoch stressed the national unity message, repeatedly saying she “welcomed” the Prime Minister’s decisions over the past few weeks and asking questions that were collaborative rather than combative. Former foreign secretary James Cleverly went even further, saying he found himself “in the strange and rather uncomfortable position of very much agreeing with the Prime Minister… This weekend he has not really put a foot wrong.” There were supportive words too from Tom Tugendhat, while arch-rightwinger Edward Leigh evoked Churchill. The only slight edge of criticism from Tory MPs was the implication that the government should go further.
When Farage himself stood up, crediting Brexit with Britain’s ability to lead in the security arena and suggesting that perhaps the mere presence of American citizens mining minerals in Ukraine might be enough to deter Putin, he was jeered at from MPs across the House. Those jeers turned to rousing cheers when Starmer responded: “Russia is the aggressor, Zelensky is a war leader whose country has been invaded – and we should all be supporting him, not fawning over Putin”. And nowhere were they louder than on the Conservative benches.
A patriotic and passionate focus on national security is familiar ground for the Tories. (Indeed, the scepticism about some of the Prime Minister’s recent choices, in particular the move to cut foreign aid, came mainly from the benches behind him.) Cleverly and Tugendhat were not being opportunistic in their positions. But it is also a fault-line in the Reform edifice that Conservatives can exploit, a way for them to distinguish themselves from a party whose leader still seems more than a little enamoured of the Kremlin, out of step with public sentiment and more interested staying on good terms with his friends in the White House than on defending British interests.
As Starmer said in his statement, “In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it’s the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so.” The same applies – on this specific matter of critical national importance – to the Conservatives standing by Starmer.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: Can Starmer make Labour the security party?]
Listen to the New Statesman podcast
Content from our partners
Related
