Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free

Your guide to what the American elections mean 2024 for Washington and the world

Did Ker not do well? He left the Oval Office without being humiliated. He escaped from this question about Donald Trump’s desire to include a country that was the head of state, King Charles. He was persuaded by an unofficial pledge to always stand with the British, most of the European Leaders’ Summit organized and refused to wander by the bad guys from the Vice President from the Vice President.

I do not mean ridicule of Starmer. It has shown strategic stability and was praised as a duty Parliament on Monday. The former conservative foreign minister said that he “did not make mistakes in the foot” while the liberal democratic leader is flowing that Britain “is leading the world, as we have many times in the past.”

It is clear that it is good to have a prime minister who does not behave like a pocket on the world stage. But we are discussing, in the performance pages, a climate in which a visit to the nearest ally of the country is at risk from an episode Squid game. Success is to avoid humiliation, evading customs tariffs and NATO saving. Within a few days, Trump was strangling the battle from Ukraine. The world has changed, but Westminster was not busy.

The Prime Minister is right to struggle for the Atlantic Ocean alliance, but this reinforces the remaining hope that normal may still be recovered. The correct words are pronounced, but deputies from all parties cling clearly in the hope of Trump, who returns to the president inside the tent. This deserves all this effort, but it is no longer a rational basis for planning.

Watching the discussions of the rumors on Monday was to see a body policy that is still incomplete with a changing world in which the rock of Western security has now become, at best, a chronic ally of unreliable. Few took the size of the British forces’ deployment to Ukraine. He reminded me of the first weeks of Covid-19, before deaths and locks-especially the Rishi Sunk budget in March 2020, which continued with the priorities of the Boris Johnson government as if its entire agenda was not about to be already consumed by a visual crisis.

Similar thing to happen now. Starmer and his team sees the seriousness of events, but politics still exists in this half of knowledge and lack of knowledge. Representatives applauded their pledge to raise defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP (and promised ambiguity to reach 3 percent at some time in the next parliament) even if some lamentations reduce external aid to finance them. However, everyone knows that this is not enough. The timetable that reaches nine years is nonsense to what many people already consider enough.

To use Starmer’s Starmer, reinforcing the new European security structure is now one of the central “missions” in the United Kingdom. But the Labor Party has not yet digested the consequences of its agenda. To date, the Treasury does not plan until after the pledge 2.5 percent. The current spending review, scheduled for June, was not designed to free more money for defense.

This is very modest. Holding this line is the gambling with the security of the nation. The idea of ​​non-increases is no longer more than 2.5 percent until at least 2028-29. It is a new fact that the government has not yet completed.

Conservatives talk about finding savings in social welfare, but important discounts have already been planned and can be used to meet the financial rules of the advisor and financing other programs, including spending some savings to obtain Youth Return to work.

The Treasury refused to change its financial rules – such as Germany I did amazing this week. He also refuses to return to the pledge not to raise the main taxes. Some option to borrow outside the books may appear unofficial Debt is already high by 95 percent of GDP. The UK has not yet felt the influence of any Trump tariff.

Hidden revenue revenue can be found, although the party strategies worry that the general support of Ukraine will fade if the price is higher than taxes. But this is no longer about Ukraine. It is related to Europe’s security.

The size of the challenge means that it cannot be moved within the current plans. Once this is accepted, the unpleasant facts are waiting. If the red treasury lines are possible, it will have to bear the cost of re -arms in billions of additional discounts that its adviser Rachel Reeves and most work representatives seem to be not ready to think. Starmer must prepare voters for difficult options – if not the tax increase and then unpleasant aspirations.

If Britain’s re -deportation is really important, the Labor Party will be forced to address translated priorities. Are it zero goals of carbon goals, which already face a major political reaction? What are the clean energy investments that will be converted? Supporters will argue that achieving energy independence is now more urgent, but it is likely to slide the already running 2030 goal.

What are the infrastructure projects that you will taste because there is no money? What about those new cities imagined by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rainer? What public services will be reduced or vision of late improvements? The UK should also consider planning its own flexibility and perhaps the support operations that allowed it to lose the Astrazeneca vaccine.

The Labor Party needs to start this conversation with itself and the country. There is still a lot of work as usual; Many wishes and deviation. Preparing for a world without the United States security guarantees is an essential task and must inflict the British policy of the effects of this reality.

Robert.shrimsley@ft.com