The minute Sir Keir Starmer announced his intention to resign 16 days ago, power began to drain away from him and towards his almost certain successor, Andy Burnham. Our prime minister therefore attended his final Nato meeting in Ankara as half a ghost, half a figure of fun.
But make no mistake, Europe is crying out for a stronger Britain. The Finnish prime minister was reduced last night to pleading with Britain: “Sort yourselves out. Please, we need you.” That need for clarity and leadership was indeed underlined by the latest perplexing fusillade of tirades from an increasingly erratic Donald Trump. The US president described Iran’s rulers as “scum” while launching verbal attacks on America’s allies – Denmark, Spain and the rest of Nato.
This is an extraordinary graceless way to respond to the theme of the summit in Turkey, a “more European Nato”, which was a response to the reasonable part of Mr Trump’s demand that European nations should shoulder more of the burden for their collective security, and rely on America less.
But then, extraordinary gracelessness is Mr Trump’s hallmark, and the challenge for Britain’s new prime minister, just as it was for the old one, is how best to manage it. The first step is to separate the reasonable from the wild and absurd. That Europe should pay for more of its defence is reasonable, and so Mr Burnham must stand by his promise to fund the Defence Investment Plan “fully”.
Assuming that he does become prime minister, he needs to set out how that additional defence spending will be paid for. He needs to eschew the gimmicks of efficiency savings and asset sales resorted to by Sir Keir. Ideally, he should reverse the cuts to the capital budgets of other departments. Instead, he should be cutting current spending on welfare and on public sector pay.
Ultimately, he should be prepared to be straight with the British people. He should tell them that taxes will have to rise further to keep the country safe. In The Independent’s view, the fairest way to do this is through income tax. This would not be a breach of a manifesto promise because the international situation has become considerably more threatening in the past two years.
If this is necessary, it will no doubt be unpopular, but Mr Burnham must show leadership where Sir Keir fell short by explaining to the British people, without alarmism, why they are in danger.
European war is not an abstract threat any more, and yet too many in Western Europe seem to think that loud declarations of solidarity with the Ukrainians and a bit of money to pay for their drones is all that is needed to keep us safe.
Those expressions of solidarity with Ukraine are important, especially when Mr Trump so frequently seems to belittle and undermine the Ukrainian people’s struggle to decide their own future. But they are part of a wider security landscape, in which the threat from Mr Putin’s regime is not limited to Ukraine’s borders.
For all that Sir Keir’s cumbersomely named “coalition of the willing” has rallied most of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan behind the rightful Ukrainian cause, it can be no substitute for a common European defence policy that can translate the economic might of the continental bloc into a military power sufficient to deter Mr Putin or other potential aggressors.
That means being straight with the British people about our future in Europe. Mr Burnham must be clear that the choice is security as part of the European bloc or insecurity outside it. Even if Britain’s defence spending is raised to the levels envisaged by the Defence Investment Plan, our security will still depend on close cooperation with our near neighbours.
It will be an early and important test of Mr Burnham’s leadership that, when he says – as he did in the one interview he has given since returning to parliament – “no compromise on the security of the nation,” he means it.
