'..You should have never started it' said President Trump on Tuesday night, referring not to Russia but Ukraine, in the context of his attempts to end the brutal war between them – a conflict that began when Russia decided to invade its sovereign neighbour almost exactly three years ago.  It was the most startling utterance yet from the leader of the free world.  In the wake of Trump's latest breakfast marmalade-dropping moment, spare a thought for diplomats across Europe (and the US State Department) as they scramble to recalibrate decades-held assumptions about the Western alliance. By Wednesday afternoon he was doubling down describing Zelensky on social media as a  ‘dictator without elections’ who had 'duped' the US into supporting his country.  

What does this mean for British politics? On 30 July, 25 days into the new Labour Government, Cardew predicted that the US Presidential election would cast a huge shadow over the Starmer administration: 'The nightmare scenario is a Trump victory, then a US withdrawal from Ukraine and the consequent huge jump in UK defence spending putting most of Labour’s plans in doubt.' We may be proved right. This is shaping up to be one of those moments like the Suez Crisis in 1956, the Oil Crisis in 1973 and of course the Brexit vote in 2016, after which nothing in British politics will ever be quite the same again. 

Politics is likely to be upended in three overlapping ways. First, however successful or not President Trump's 'peacekeeping' efforts may be, time has been called on the US defence guarantee that has kept us Europeans sleeping (mostly) soundly in our beds since 1945. US Vice President Vance was brutally clear about that at last weekend's Munich Security Conference. Indeed, Vance was so colourful in his attack on the 'threat from within' that some European attendees suggested that the US was not just an unreliable ally, but could even now be considered an adversary. The British Government certainly does not share this view. The UK-US defence and security ties are deep and multi-layered. The relationship may no longer be so special but it is still more special than most.  Yet Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy, and the new ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, will need all their political skills to navigate Britain's future between the competing poles of Washington, Brussels and Beijing.

Second, UK politicians will need to perform presentational gymnastics as they adapt to the new realities. Labour will have to find its own path on Ukraine (as Starmer did last night by calling Zelensky), on Israel/Palestine and on climate change while not incurring the wrath of the White House or too many late night social media barrages from Elon Musk. Politicians who have celebrated Trump's decisive election win to a greater or lesser degree - Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Robert Jenrick and Liz Truss for example - may regret having done so.  All parties will need to spend far more time than they expected developing foreign, defence and trade policies in a world of tariffs, realpolitik and nationalism, rather than a world governed largely by global institutions. Flexibility and agility will be needed in spades. The next UK election in 2029 is likely to be after the next US election in November 2028 when Trump will (at least in theory) step down, and only the foolhardy would predict the outcome of that one.  

The final impact is likely to be the most far-reaching for British politics. President Trump last month called on all NATO members to raise their defence spending from the official NATO target of 2% of GDP to 5%.   Starmer and Rachel Reeves are committed to a policy of 2.5% (currently 2.3%) but with no timescale yet on when. The UK hasn't spent 3% of GDP on defence since 1993/94, hasn’t spent 4% of GDP since 1986/87, and hasn’t spent 5% of GDP since 1967/68 when Denis Healey was Defence Secretary, and Britain was still struggling to maintain the last of its imperial possessions.  

With health spending now at north of 8% (it was c.3% in the mid-1960s) and welfare spending greater still, the implications of greater defence spending on UK fiscal policy are likely to be immense.  The Chancellor is already receiving 'advice' from politicians, commentators and thinktanks on all sides on how to meet future defence demands, but any politician who thinks it will be easy to win over an electorate burdened with higher taxes, lower spending (and probably both) are kidding themselves. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan is supposed to have told JFK that 'Events, dear boy, events” were most likely to knock governments off course, so these challenges are not new, but it does feel that politics will never quite be the same again.

If you would like to discuss what all this means for your organisation do get in touch with publicaffairs@cardewgroup.com