[ad_1]
The contrast could not have been sharper, nor the political meaning more profound. Keir Starmer embraced Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the steps of No 10 Downing Street Saturday morning — a sincere signal of solidarity after a hellish 24 hours for the Ukrainian president.
The prime minister gestured to the cheering masses huddled beyond Downing Street’s gates. Starmer’s words were not audible — but his body language, the symbolism, spoke volumes. Zelenskyy cut an emotional figure as he marched beyond his Range Rover convoy. Starmer’s broad smile reflected the levity of this singular moment: Zelenskyy once again stood among allies.
The prime minister noted the significance of the episode in his subsequent sit-down with Zelenskyy. The choreography echoed the ambush of the Ukrainian president, at the hands of Donald Trump and JD Vance, in Washington. Even Zelenskyy’s pose, hunched forwards and hands clasped, invoked his DC calamity.
The surface-level resemblance rendered the substantive contrast even more potent.
Doctors more sleep deprived now than after the pandemic, MDU survey finds
Isle of Man poised to pass assisted dying legislation
“You’re very, very welcome here in Downing Street”, the prime minister informed his Ukrainian counterpart. “And as you’ve heard from the cheers street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom, and we stand with you with Ukraine for as long as it may take.”
The prime minister’s observation was a correct one: the spontaneously cheering masses on White Hall Saturday are emblematic of a deeper political reality.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
According to YouGov polling published last month, 78 per cent of Britons believe it is unacceptable for Ukraine not to be included in peace negotiations — including 65 per cent who describe it as “completely unacceptable”. A total of 67 per cent of Britons say that they both want Ukraine to win and care a “great deal or fair amount” that it does so.
A different poll last month, also courtesy of YouGov, found that only one in five Britons (20 per cent) think maintaining good relations with the United States is more important than supporting Ukraine.
Zelenskyy, meanwhile, is viewed favourably by 64 per cent of Britons and unfavourably by only 16 per cent. Compare and contrast Donald Trump’s standing: 22 per cent view the US president favourably; 73 per cent view him unfavourably. The fieldwork for this polling was conducted from 16-17 February — long before Zelenskyy and Trump’s White House bust-up.
Starmer’s diplomacy in recent weeks has been unique, consummate and urgent. He has sought to reassure the Ukrainian president and his people of the UK’s absolute, unwavering commitment to their country’s cause. And he has endeavoured to do so without risking the sudden censure of Trump, whose whims — however unpredictable or unreasonable — matter for Ukraine’s fate. (Starmer recognises that the US president’s sincere anglophilia makes their relationship a powerful one. He has, to deploy Trump’s own vernacular, “cards”).
It was noteworthy that Starmer did not take to social media on Friday night to condemn the president and vice-president’s hostility towards Zelenskyy. A statement was issued hours later via a spokesperson; but by 10.00 pm GMT, the whole of the European continent (sans Britain) had already pronounced.
Nonetheless, Starmer rang both Zelenskyy and Trump in the immediate aftermath of the row. It was resolved that the planned visit by Zelenskyy to London would be brought forward, giving him the opportunity for a symbolic meeting at Downing Street followed by an audience with regal diplomat King Charles III.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
“I picked up the phone to president Trump, and I picked up the phone to president Zelensky”, Starmer told the BBC on Sunday. “That was my response.”
Trump has styled himself as a “mediator” between Russia and Ukraine as he seeks an unconditional ceasefire in the conflict. But Starmer’s role as an interlocutor between Zelenskyy and Trump is, increasingly, a defining diplomatic dynamic as peace is considered.
The prime minister has placed himself at the centre of European attempts to shape any deal between Moscow and Kyiv. Speaking on Sunday, he declared that European leaders — convened for talks at Lancaster House in London — had agreed to draft a peace plan to present to the US.
Starmer said: “The UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others. Europe must do the heavy lifting.”
For his diplomatic efforts, Starmer has won commendation from across the political aisle in the UK. Former foreign secretary James Cleverly, for instance, wrote on X over the weekend that the PM has “done the right thing”.
He added: “We will need to go further, and bring other countries with us, but he has put the UK into a genuine position of leadership in support of Ukraine”.
Reflecting on the prime minister’s Sunday press conference, former defence secretary Ben Wallace commented: “An excellent statement on Ukraine by Sir Kier Starmer [sic]. He is to be congratulated on hosting this event and getting the tone and action points just right.”
Sir Roger Gale, the Conservative “grandfather of the House”, is another opposition politician to have praised the PM. He posted to X: “Whatever my criticism of Sir Kier Starmer’s [sic] domestic policy — [and] they are many — I believe that in the Leadership that he has shown and the progress that with European leaders he has made over the crisis in matters relating to Ukraine he deserves the united support of the [House of Commons].”
Significantly, these supportive remarks come after Starmer announced that defence spending will rise to 2.5 per cent in 2027, and to 3.0 per cent in the next parliament, last week. The PM made plain that the hike would come at the expense of the international aid budget — a “painful” but necessary decision. In an era of geopolitical instability, he explained, “the defence and security of the British people must always come first”. The resignation of Anneliese Dodds, the former development minister, followed.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
But the PM’s announcement, notwithstanding Dodds’ cutting “soft left” rebuke, has placed the government in the mainstream of British public opinion. New polling by YouGov suggests that two-thirds of Britons (65 per cent) are in favour of increasing defence spending at the expense of overseas aid. This compares with just 20 per cent who oppose the policy.
In this regard, the prime minister has proved an apparent geopolitical trailblazer. Emerging from over two hours of talks on Sunday, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen hailed the bloc’s new plan to increase defence spending. It will be presented on Thursday, she said.
At home, there are already suggestions that Starmer could receive a political reward for his steadfast diplomacy. New polling by More in Common, shared this morning with Politico, shows the prime minister has gained 6 points on the question of who would make the better prime minister compared to last week. Then, the same pollster had Nigel Farage polling above Starmer. No longer.
Fifty-six per cent of Brits say the handling of negotiations on Ukraine reflects positively on the government. Meanwhile, Starmer’s net approval is up from -39 to -28. That is far from good, of course — but it is his best score since November. (The fieldwork for this polling was done from 28 February-2 March — so just after Zelenskyy’s Oval Office appearance.)
The prime minister was branded “never here Keir” by his political opponents for his sustained diplomatic engagement during the early months of his premiership. But the time Starmer spent abroad in the July-November period, manifestly, was an intelligent investment. Today, he is receiving an almighty windfall for it — primarily in geopolitical terms, but potentially in domestic political terms too.
It points to an ironic but I think clear conclusion: Starmer seems less lost in the world Trump is carving. His diplomatic responsibilities have imbued his government with purpose — and political definition.
At times such as this — uncertain and volatile — political fortune favours the brave. Starmer’s advocacy of Ukraine’s cause, at once absolute and diplomatically delicate, could well remake his premiership.
Lunchtime briefing
Mandelson rebuked after saying Zelenskyy must give ‘unequivocal backing’ to Trump peace plan
Lunchtime soundbite
‘Like Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Reform UK seems to have history equivocating over Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.’
— In response to Nigel Farage’s LBC phone-in, shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel has compared his stance to that of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
She also said: “Nigel Farage is completely wrong. President Zelenskyy is a hero, who has stood up to Putin’s aggression, and led his country’s defence against their barbaric and illegal invasion over the last 3 years — and it is troubling to not hear the Leader of Reform say that.
“For Nigel Farage to sit there pointing the finger at Zelenskyy is both morally wrong and diplomatically counterproductive. At this uncertain and dangerous time, one would hope that MPs of all stripes would be putting our national interest first, rather than playing politics.”
Now try this…
‘“President Zelensky is a hero”, says Kemi Badenoch’
BBC News reports.
‘Defense promises but scant detail as Europe enters decisive week’
Via Politico.
‘Can Starmer make Labour the security party?’
The prime minister has found the definition he lacked but tensions over spending cuts remain, writes the NS’ George Eaton. (Paywall)
On this day in 2022:
Under the Borders bill, Britain will not treat refugees with the humanity they deserve
[ad_2]
Source link
