UK Labour’s Approach to the World
How might British foreign policy change with a change of government?
A resurgent UK Labour Party is looking like it may be heading back into government in Britain after voters go to the polls on July 4th. What would a change of governing party in Britain for the first time in fourteen years mean for foreign relations? And is Labour—and the center-left more generally—prepared to secure their nation’s interests in a new age of global instability?
If Labour leaders do form a government this year, they will do so in a dramatically changed world compared to when they last left office, in the end days of Gordon Brown’s premiership in 2010. The global financial crisis preceded a period of low economic growth, the rise of right-wing populism and authoritarian rulers, and a breakdown in the rules-based order that liberal democracy was founded on. Britain itself withdrew from the European Union, a construct that had seemed such a stable feature of increasing integration.
Today, we live in a more dangerous world than many Labour politicians will have known in their adult lifetimes.
Popular commentary suggests that a Labour government would mean little change for Britain’s foreign and defense policy. With good reason: Labour has gone out of its way to stress policy continuity on support for Ukraine, and on Britain’s security and defense interests. It has actively sought to avoid a political dividing line with the Conservatives on foreign affairs. This is in part a strategic judgement to position Keir Starmer’s Labour as firmly on the side of Britain’s national security interests, in contrast to his immediate predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, who was not trusted by the British public to defend the nation. It is also a recognition of the threat that is so clearly posed by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—and to Ukraine’s sovereignty—but more broadly to the notion that borders cannot be changed through force.
Yet the Labour Party in opposition has started to set out the contours of its approach to foreign policy, which indicate some important differences with the incumbent Conservative Party that are worth paying attention to. Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy has issued a new doctrine he calls “Progressive Realism” to capture the party’s approach, and offer an alternative to the Conservatives’ post-Brexit isolationism. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves used a platform in Washington to introduce her foundational theory of “securonomics,” asserting “globalisation, as we once knew it, is dead.” It has echoes of the “new centrism” David Leonhardt has written about in the New York Times.
Lammy has even made strident efforts to meet Trump’s key advisors, in a move that spells more realism than progress. Both Lammy and Reeves are pragmatists, who are sending a message to ideologues within their party that they will govern for the world as it now is—not the world as they would want it to be.
The doctrines of “progressive realism” in foreign policy and “securonomics” in economic policy share an analysis that the world order has fundamentally changed and requires a new strategy. The era of hyper-globalization is being challenged by the rise of economies that are outpacing the West’s, principally but not only China, and countries that refuse to play by the same rules as those set by the developed nations. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought into focus the risks for countries whose economies have been dependent on the exports of regimes whose foreign policy actions conflict with their own interests and values.
While progressive activists on the left might expect an incoming Labour government to prioritize global action on climate change and advancing progressive ideals, Labour’s shadow ministers have made it clear they are concerned primarily with safeguarding Britain’s national interest in the face of heightened threat at this moment of risk, weaving in progressive goals as part of a new strategy.
“Economic security is domestic security,” Labour leader Keir Starmer declared to February’s Munich Security Conference, saying the Labour government’s “first priority is to grow the UK economy, for living standards for the British people, and to enable Britain to rise to our role in an unstable world. With Labour, Britain will be reconnected, NATO defended, and democracy strengthened.” This is based on a reappraisal of the current times and the foreign policy required should Labour come to office, as much as it is an electoral calculation that voters need to trust Labour with the nation’s defense and security.
The first major difference in Labour’s likely approach to foreign policy compared to the Conservatives’ is to be found in its actions at home, rather than abroad.
Central to Reeves’ governing economic philosophy is the idea of the active state, working in partnership with the private sector to take a strategic approach to harnessing the nation’s productive capacity to enable competitive sectors and firms to flourish. Reeves has quoted Janet Yellen describing this as “modern supply-side economics,” with a focus on the security of global supply chains for essential goods and services. Ideologically this is distinct from the Conservatives who are still wedded to an economically liberal orthodoxy, that pursues economic growth primarily through fiscal policy, despite a brief interlude under Boris Johnson who foregrounded “levelling up” as a more interventionist approach to the modern economy. This has been more or less abandoned under the current Conservative leadership of Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, who have moved away from the longer-term goal of rebalancing Britain’s economic geography in favor of a shorter-term hit of tax cuts ahead of a general election.
If successful, Labour’s plan will mean increased domestic production in critical industries, not least in clean power. The party has committed to the creation of GB Energy, a new publicly-owned clean energy company, to drive investment in new technologies and secure local community ownership of energy.
The goal is the reduction of domestic energy prices to consumers, an aim shared by the policy to create a Clean Power Alliance: a global “buyer's club” of countries working together with the explicit goal of cutting energy prices through investment, co-operation, and information sharing on decarbonization. Using trade and purchaser power to pursue foreign policy objectives is not new. But strategic cooperation between allies, such as through the framework advanced by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) called the Alliance for Clean Trade, could be a way to lower prices and reduce instability for consumers, as well as to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. Starmer’s electoral strategy is to re-establish Labour as the party of working-class voters, so he will need to stay focused on lowering consumer costs to reassure them they won’t be the ones to pay the price for the transition.
Labour’s “progressive realism” makes the case for closer foreign policy and security co-operation with the European Union. Although Labour has made it clear they will not seek to undo the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum—and the tortuous negotiations that occupied so much energy—the party is well-placed to forge a new geopolitical partnership with its European allies at a critical moment. The EU is respected by Labour politicians, the vast majority of whom wanted to remain part of it. In opposition, Labour shadow ministers have put in serious preparation to rebuilding relationships after the carousel of anti-EU Conservative politicians their European counterparts have had to engage with over recent years. Shadow ministers believe the election of a new Labour government could be a reset on the relationship with the EU, and open up opportunities for formal co-operation such as a proposed UK-EU Security Pact.
But Labour leaders know that the EU has moved on from its focus during the Brexit negotiations and may well be set for a rightwards turn after the European parliament elections in June. There is no restoration of an old order where the rule of law and the “good chaps” theory apply, and Labour knows it. Former British Prime Minister David Cameron may have brought welcome gravitas and experience to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in his appointment by Sunak as Foreign Secretary, as well as pro-EU credentials, but it is unclear what the current government’s longer-term game plan is in relation to Europe.
Labour, not having been the architects of Brexit, will have to come up with its own strategy for international engagement and European relations that is suited to the times we now live in.
If Labour does form the next British government, parts of the international community will be watching to see if its previous vigor for international development under the Blair and Brown governments will be renewed. Domestic arms of the NGOs have been advised not to expect an immediate reversal of the cuts to international aid instigated by the Conservatives, a path which was made smoother by a sceptical public. But there is recognition of the role Labour governments played in efforts to reduce global poverty, even if expectations are more modest given Britain’s relative position. Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Minister for International Development, Lisa Nandy, has indicated that Labour would treat international development as a key pillar of foreign policy alongside defense and diplomacy in taking on the challenges of our age, via a smaller number of nations. Resources for development need to be used much more strategically to promote prosperity, trade, and interdependence with liberal economies.
A more connected, engaged, and active Britain—pursuing its key strategic objective of domestic security—could be a stronger contributor to global stability. There is no doubt Britain’s international reputation and influence has taken a hit in recent years. This is partly a result of being economically eclipsed, and partly a result of self-inflicted wounds from the mishandled Brexit negotiations and botched withdrawals from the international scene, particularly Afghanistan. The arrival of a change of government in Britain would present an opportunity to reset relationships for a new era in diplomacy and alliance-building. But Labour is fully aware that the restoration of pre-Brexit conventions in British relations is not enough.
The sheer scale of major military conflicts across the world today, and regimes hostile to basic human rights, means the humanitarian and strategic need for engagement is overwhelming. The conflict between Israel-Hamas and Ukraine war still make daily news in the UK, but there are ongoing wars of international consequence with horrific death tolls, including in Sudan and in Myanmar. When Labour last left office in 2010, Britain’s foreign aid budget supported 33 countries. Today, with a reduced budget, it’s engaged with 88. It is understandable why other Western powers have revisited their historic role in supporting global stability, but the UK’s continued interdependence makes non-engagement an unrealistic option.
To succeed as secure and prosperous nations in this challenging world, center-left parties including Labour need to meet three goals.
First, center-left parties need to devise a common long-term strategy for the next century based on shared strategic interests, rather than reacting constantly in a series of defensive maneuvers. The move to clean energy offers one opportunity to use trade and technology agreements to bind nations into increased interdependency. Developing nations will need to be treated as crucial players in generating global prosperity, especially as climate change and conflict displacement require negotiated solutions for the people and places most affected.
Second, center-left political leaders need to drive mutually dependent efforts between our governments, and in forging new alliances including with those who we will disagree. Diplomatic convention, and realism, means Labour in the UK cannot say it out loud, but they know that a Biden re-election in November would be an opportunity to breathe new life into the “special relationship” between the US and the UK. Labour has already committed to a Democratic Resilience Centre, jointly established by the UK and the US, and open to all NATO member states wishing to opt in, to help protect our democratic values, political institutions, elections, and open societies. Together with allies in Europe and the Commonwealth, center-left parties can provide a stronger defense of the world’s liberal democracies against the subversion, disinformation, and aggression of autocratic regimes like Russia, China, and Iran.
Finally, there must be a political narrative on foreign policy from the center-left that treats the public with respect and understands their perspectives—not foreign policy as a private conversation for the educated elites. Short-term public opinion understandably might favor retreat from the international stage. So, the onus is on politicians and parties to engage the public in an argument about our future security that clearly states what is at stake and what can be achieved. Liberal democracies can only govern with permission, and they need agreement from their citizens on how best to craft a new road to security in the twenty-first century world.
To be successful, Labour and other center-left parties can’t afford to either retreat from the world or overreach in response to chaotic global developments. They require new political and policy strategies to uphold core national values and collective security interests in an age of insecurity. Should Labour win on July 4th, their leaders will need to be prepared to engage in pragmatic politics to advance our common goals, as domestic and global affairs are as interwoven as ever before.
Claire Ainsley is Director of the PPI Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute, and former Executive Director of Policy to UK Labour Leader Keir Starmer, 2020-22. The project launched in January 2023.