Burnham’s first test: fix UK’s ‘national embarrassment’ defence to reassure Nato

The apocryphal newspaper headline “Fog in the Channel, Continent cut off” is a century-old metaphor for Britain’s solipsistic attitude to its continental neighbours.

But the joke is no longer funny.

Uncertainty about the US military commitment to Europe, plus the near-certainty of a continuing threat from Russia, places the United Kingdom centre-stage in all defence and security discussions. 

But British political leaders are acting in a different drama. They talk to themselves, self-indulgently and incomprehensibly.

Half the last decade was spent on Brexit. Then Boris Johnson’s government imploded. Now Keir Starmer’s time in 10 Downing Street is over too.

Bafflingly, both men won elections with huge majorities: Johnson (disclosure: a personal friend) in 2019, and Starmer in June 2024.

The eccentric leftwing Greens are on the up, as are Nigel Farage’s Reform (dodgy ideas, questionable funding, and a dearth of talent) and to the far-far-right, Restore. A country that was a byword for political stability and strong institutions has taken an axe to its reputation. 

So it is not just exhausted British voters who hope that Andy Burnham, former mayor of Manchester and prime minister-designate, will bring a few years of calm, purposeful government before the next election, due by 2029. 

Burnham himself shows little interest in foreign policy, though in Manchester he showed commendable interest in importing other countries’ policies on housing, transport and regional development.

He hints that he will spend less time abroad (Keir Starmer’s globetrotting earned him the nickname “Never-here Keir”).

Good luck with that.

The National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, looks likely to keep his job (no great comfort for those like me who want a much more hawkish line on China, and a bolder one on Russia).

One big question is who Burnham will appoint as foreign secretary, probably replacing the underwhelming Yvette Cooper.

One option is to appoint Starmer. Another is to bring back David Miliband, foreign secretary from 2007 to 2010, and then head of the International Rescue Committee in New York. 

‘National embarrassment’

Harder choices surround defence, now a national embarrassment.

The long-standing promise to Nato of a war-fighting division looks unrealistic. Britain is near-bottom in a Nato league table on rearmament; it beats only unarmed Iceland.  

The widely-admired defence secretary John Healey resigned last month in protest at endemic dithering about military spending. Burnham should bring him back. But that is only the start. It is not enough to find more bucks. We need many more bangs for those bucks. Britain’s armed forces need both colossal amounts of money, and for someone to make colossally hard choices about reform. 

To create the necessary political energy and willpower, Britain must face up to the scale of the national security emergency. A mix of secrecy, euphemism, incompetence and incuriosity mean that few outside government (or even inside) are aware of the scale of sabotage, thuggery, propaganda, dirty money and other sub-threshold aggression. 

Take for example, a $2.5bn [€2.19bn] cyber-attack last year on Jaguar Land Rover, a carmaker.

“If this damage had been caused by an old-school, physical attack it would have been the equivalent of hundreds of masked criminals turning up to dealerships across the country breaking glass, smashing up computers and driving cars right off the forecourt,” said the security minister. Strong words.

But it was the New York Times, not the British authorities, that last week revealed that Russian hackers were the culprits. 

For all its economic and military weaknesses, Britain still matters. Allies understand that it may do less in future. But if Burnham’s new government can just tell the truth, it will be a great start. And a big change.