Little more than a year ago, Keir Starmer could be described as what Napoleon called a “lucky general”. But now, six months after a landslide election victory, “lucky” is an adjective unlikely to be found anywhere near a prime minister more usually described as having made missteps and unforced errors. And yet, perhaps, amid this tumult – a shifting geopolitical landscape, an authoritarian to the west of us conceding to the imperial ambitions of another to the east – Starmer’s luck holds. For the situation offers him an unparalleled strategic opening through which my government can find and define its purpose.
The prime minister himself has called this a “once-in-a-generation opportunity”. The paradigm has shifted. It will not return to “normal”. Most significantly, the shibboleth of atlanticism – that unshakeable belief that the US-UK relationship is always right and always in our interest – has released its grip on our political imagination. We are free to define defence and security on our terms. And – as an increasingly anxious public pushes defence up the league table of concerns – we must do so.
But first we need to be clear with ourselves that thinking deeply and clearly about defence is a moral and political imperative. For many progressives it is something we would rather not talk about. War, and preparations for it, feel, by definition, regressive: an irrational capitulation to the worst instincts of humanity, proof that power corrupts and a diversion of much needed resources for construction to the cause of destruction. We didn’t go into politics to end lives or to relight the fires of Britain’s imperial past.
But at issue is not expeditionary wars in distant lands. This is about national defence. Russia has clear imperial ambitions. So too does Trump. He has repeatedly stated his ambition to extend US territory. We cannot avoid asking the hard questions, even if they upset people.
Post Trump, will atlanticism ever again be a rational policy for a UK government? Will Europe itself be a stable partner? And what of Trident? With the US pursuing its self interests without hesitation, does it make sense for the UK to rely on a nuclear capability dependent upon it? What use is a weapon system that could be switched off, repurposed or used as leverage by an American administration with its own agenda?
That question isn’t ideological – it is strategic. And alongside it are even bigger long-term questions about the security threats caused by climate breakdown, resource shortages and the threat to cybersecurity from AI. The Americans are thinking about these things. That’s why they are trying to force Ukraine to provide them with critical minerals. We in the UK cannot rely on the US to give these questions answers that take account of our interests.
So, this is a moment. We need to be on a new, more urgent footing. We cannot afford to be cautious and risk averse. The risks are too great for that. The temptation – as is already clear – will be to increase defence spending at the expense of wider public investment. This would benefit only Reform UK with its narrative of “out of touch elites”, and would not bring us the security we need.
Defence – against military, cyber and ecological threats – must be integrated with industrial strategy. Defence has long driven innovation and technological advancement. For that to continue we cannot rely on the usual Ministry of Defence procurement channels that leach away profits and public benefits. Instead, the state should take a controlling stake to ensure the public sector reaps and redistributes the gains.
Investment must be tied to greater economic democracy in the defence sector, enabling coproduction with unionised workforces. And defence industries must prioritise national security in its broadest sense, contributing to essential infrastructure projects such as those that make us resilient in the face of energy shocks caused by economic warfare: retrofitting homes to reduce waste, increasing and protecting renewable sources, safeguarding the steelmaking facilities we will need, ensuring that water and other key resources are managed for the public and not run down by private investors with their primary interests overseas.
This must be bottom up, not top down – giving every citizen a stake in securing our future. Divided countries always fall. The UK and Europe must build social cohesion, investing in people to ensure that if sacrifices are needed they fall on the broadest shoulders. The poorest must not be expected to bear the brunt of change alone – they must be given a stake in the state’s transformation.
And it cannot be an isolationist project. The UK’s response to Gaza has damaged western credibility in the eyes of the global south and the Brics economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and it has done so to a degree domestic commentators refuse to admit. As the world becomes fragmented and multipolar, we should seek to promote a renaissance in multilateralism, using our diplomatic capacity, and investing in rather than cutting our soft power to ensure that as global power structures evolve Britain is not isolated.
We are living through a once-in-a-generation moment of geopolitical upheaval. The threats are many and deep. But the opportunity is wide; to rebuild the economy in a fundamentally different way and to reset our foreign and security policies for ourselves, freed from a restrictive paradigm.
Britain needs a progressive vision of security, integrated with economic transformation, social resilience and international stability. Starmer has the chance not just to navigate this new world, but to shape it by redrawing Britain according to progressive values. If he takes this opportunity he will become a leader who changed Britain. And that won’t be down to luck: he will deserve it.
Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
