As part of our Policy Landscape 2026 report, Anand Menon considers the state of the political debate and the immediate and long-term challenges that need to be confronted when it comes to UK foreign policy.

Keir Starmer was generally thought to have handled foreign policy well, albeit ‘never here Keir’ was criticised for devoting too much time to international matters. In his defence, his premiership coincided with a period of profound international instability and a succession of challenges, including the need to deal with an unpredictable American President (who at one point seemed to threaten the territorial integrity of a NATO ally); to respond to crises in the Middle East and the Gulf; to rebuild relations with European partners; and to figure out how best to manage relations with China, both a major trading partner and a potential security risk.

But although Starmer proved relatively adept at reacting to, and managing, crises, what he signally failed to do was address the difficult choices increasingly confronting the UK: relating its key relationships and the challenges confronting a medium-sized power in a world dominated by competition between continental-sized economies.

We currently know very little about the intentions of his successor. Andy Burnham has no track record when it comes to foreign policy, and has been keen to stress that his focus will be on domestic issues.

New Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has stated he intends to put the climate crisis and international development at the heart of his foreign policy (under Keir Starmer, aid spending was reduced from 0.5% of GNI to 0.3%, with a large proportion of that devoured by domestic spending on refugees). In his inaugural remarks to Foreign Office staff, he emphasised values and international law as much as he did UK national interests.

What is less clear is whether the new Prime Minister shares these liberal internationalists values, and whether, if he does, a focus on law, climate and development is feasible in an international environment increasingly characterised, as John Bew has argued, by raw power.

Foreign policy is not a decisive issue in UK politics. Under Starmer, there were occasional political spats over specific issues such as the deal ceding control over the Chagos Islands and relations with the EU. There has been more sustained debate over his attempts to foster close relations with the Trump administration. The Liberal Democrats have called for the UK nuclear deterrent to become entirely independent of US technology, have introduced proposals to block US interference in UK politics, and have demanded that the UK withdraw consent for the US to use military airbases in the conflict with Iran.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Nigel Farage has, as I noted in this report last year, had to row back somewhat on his earlier enthusiasm for emphasising his close relationship with the US President, while early attempts by the Conservatives and Reform UK to attack Keir Starmer over his failure to support the US war with Iran proved short-lived (and ill-judged).

The Green Party had seen its membership numbers surge, partly because of dissatisfaction with the Starmer government’s approach to the occupation of Gaza. Yet the party is struggling to define foreign policies to attract floating voters and withstand the more intense scrutiny to which it is being subjected. There is the prospect of bitter fights at its autumn conference as members seek to update positions on issues such as defence spending and NATO.

Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have been critical of what they see as insufficient progress towards raising defence spending, with Kemi Badenoch offering to work with Starmer or his successor to legislate for welfare cuts to fund higher spending.

The immediate issues confronting the government centre on the trade-offs necessary to meet its defence spending commitments, and the need to consider whether and when to reschedule the UK-EU summit that was postponed in July, while beginning to plan for the UK’s Presidency of the G20 in 2027.

Longer term, reconciling means and ends will continue to be a challenge in a time of heightened fiscal pressures. Meeting existing pledges on defence spending will necessitate some compelling arguments as to why scarce resources should be spent on international as opposed to domestic priorities. Former Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper had begun to argue that “effective foreign policy is domestic policy”, but a more concerted effort to emphasise the importance of foreign policy will be required should the government be serious about attaining the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence during the next parliament.

Development assistance will also be subject to fiscal pressure, not least given the rhetorical emphasis placed on this by the new Foreign Secretary. Initial indications are hardly encouraging for Mr Miliband. The new Prime Minister funded his £2 cap on bus fares by changing international climate donations – largely intended for the poorest countries – into repayable loans. It has also been revealed that Kirsty McNeill, aid minister, will not attend cabinet as her immediate predecessors did.

The government will also face pressure to formulate a more strategic response to a rapidly shifting international environment. Outside the European Union, Mr Burnham will have to calibrate his approaches towards the US, EU and China, conscious not only of the need to avoid excessive dependence (on China for critical minerals and on the US and China for key technologies), but also of the ways in which policies towards one might impact on the attitudes of the others.

There are clear dangers for the UK in excessive dependence on a less than reliable United States. President Trump’s unpredictability has sparked conversation among European allies about how they might compensate for a less reliable US security guarantee – conversations the UK will need to work harder to participate in fully as a non-member state. At the same time, growing tensions between the EU and the US might force the UK into the kind of choice between the two that post-war British foreign policy has attempted for so long to avoid.

“Our purpose is to shape the world, not to be shaped by it” declared Yvette Cooper in a speech at Chatham House. This is all the more important when the domestic impact of ‘international’ events such as the wars in Ukraine in the Gulf are more apparent than ever. The ultimate danger, however, is that, in a world increasingly shaped by the interactions of continental-sized blocs, and in which the post-Second World War liberal international order seems to be under increasing strain, even a relatively influential middle power such as the UK risks being unable to do so.

By Anand Menon, Director, UK in a Changing Europe.

Catherine Falls Commercial via Getty Images

What can parents do about it?

The importance of downtime

Should I take vitamin D and calcium for stronger bones?

How can I strengthen my bones without calcium or vitamin D?

Ahead of the show’s return later this month – with Richard set to host a week’s worth of shows before handing over the reins to Michael – a new set photo has been released by the BBC.

In a statement, Michael quipped that he had “quite literally very large shoes to fill”.

He enthused: “As a huge fan of the show, I’m incredibly excited to be able to move into the House and at long last see my silhouette on a fondue set.”

Explaining his decision to step away from his hit gameshow, Richard said earlier this year: “Thank you for all your kind words as I step down from House Of Games after nine amazing years. It is honestly the most fun show to work on, with the most wonderful team, but, after 800 episodes it’s time to hand over the keys to a new host.”

He added: “There are plenty of new episodes still to air though, and I’ll even be filming one final handover week later in the year! It really has been a treat from start to finish.”

Dan Carden, the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, was never a natural figure to front a political faction. That may be why, as he tells me walking from Westminster to escape the estate, Carden has relinquished control of the Blue Labour Group to his colleague Jonathan Hinder.

Carden and his successor were first introduced by Maurice Glasman, the godfather of Blue Labour thought, shortly after the 2024 general election. Glasman saw in Hinder a promising ideological ally looking for direction, while Carden – an MP since 2017 – stepped forward as the inaugural chair of the Blue Labour caucus. 

In Carden’s telling, the group formed organically out of conversations among like-minded Labour MPs who did not quite think like other Labour MPs. The group now meets weekly but is otherwise defined by its lack of traditional structure. If it was the European Research Group (ERG) of eurosceptic Conservative MPs that taught Westminster to love factions, the Blue Labour collective suggests we re-evaluate our model. 

When I ask whether Shabana Mahmood, who has repeatedly name-checked the tendency, counts as a member, Carden shrugs off the question. “We’re just quite relaxed about it.”

Blue Labour’s amorphous status – as a school of thought, parliamentary group, factional identity, occasional essay theme, X account and website – means it is remarkably democratic in character. It has no designated spokespeople, no permanent staff and no director. Carden, who claims to speak only for himself, refers to criticism the group has received “for not being organised and effective enough.” One senses that Blue Labour’s weekly meetings contain rather more ideological diversity than one might expect from a collective of just over 10 MPs. For Carden, these sessions serve as a forum for “ideas, free thoughts, and then every so often it gets attention either for positions we take or things that we say”.

But for all the room for dissension, Carden and his Blue Labour colleagues are bound by a shared political analysis.

The Blue Labour faithful, Carden contends, share a conviction that the party at large must “move forward to reconnect with working-class communities, to reindustrialise the country, to restore some hope and dignity, especially in the world of work, but also in those communities.”

Carden, prefacing that he is now speaking for himself, takes this thesis further. He thinks Britain is broken. “It doesn’t work”, he says. “The biggest challenge to every prime minister has been state failure across the board, and it will remain the biggest challenge for Andy Burnham. And it won’t be too long before he’s blamed for that state failure if he’s not able to radically change things.”

He adds: “So it would be pretty pointless to be in a parliamentary Labour party clapping along, saying everything’s great, especially when you look at the depths of unpopularity that the last prime minister took us to.”

Blue Labour is an ideological instinct rather than a political institution. But its prominence has ebbed and flowed since it first emerged in a recognisable form from the lecture series led by Lord Glasman in 2010/2011. The renewed attention it has garnered during the course of this parliament is generally attributed to the rise of Reform UK. 

How does Carden explain the rise of Reform? “It is not because people are turning right-wing or fascist or anything else”, he tells me, “but we’ve had a political settlement in this country for generations now – and across Europe and other parts of the globe – that working-class communities have found has not worked for them, and they are looking elsewhere for their interests to be represented.”

He adds: “There’s no doubt in my mind, Reform does not represent those interests. It represents the interests of big tech and big money. 

“It’s a small little cabal of people that don’t care about the working class. But it doesn’t mean that working-class communities haven’t been dispossessed. They have.”

Much of my conversation with Carden revolves around his politics and its complications. First elected to parliament in 2017, Carden rose to prominence as a “Corbynite” lieutenant, serving loyally on the former Labour leader’s frontbench and as an officer in the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG).

Carden characterises his political evolution as a “journey”. But he rejects the suggestion that he has shifted from left to right: “my politics is left. My economic politics is left, especially.”

He adds: “But I think I recognise more than ever the difference between liberal progressive politics and left politics, and there’s a chasm between the two, and just because somebody like me questions a lot of the received wisdom of progressive liberal politics, doesn’t mean I’m not left-wing – quite the opposite. 

“I actually think liberal progressive politics has been part of the issue that has driven working-class communities away from the Labour Party.”

For Carden and Blue Labour more broadly, “progressive” is a term of pure opprobrium. He repeats a favourite joke of Glasman’s: “The last thing you want to hear when you go to the doctor is ‘it’s progressive’.”

Carden treads carefully when questioned on his Corbynite era. He insists he still “really like[s] Jeremy Corbyn as a man and a politician”, and praises him for having “caught the mood of many people in the country” during the 2017 general election. Skipping ahead to his twin resignations from Keir Starmer’s frontbench in 2020 and 2023, he reflects: “I guess I haven’t fitted in very comfortably anywhere, which is fine.”

Would he welcome Corbyn back into the Labour Party – something he called for upon the former leader’s suspension in October 2020? “I guess it would be firstly down to Jeremy if he ever saw himself coming back”, he responds initially. 

But Carden’s full answer is more complex. “If you look at the principle of this, it’s one of how should politics be governed… Do you use discipline to control political debates – and that’s what we’ve had for most of the time that I’ve been in Westminster?”

Carden adds: “If you use discipline to control political debates, then we’ve lost the argument, and that’s what we’ve had too much of. So, of course, people should decide if they’re in the Labour Party, if that’s where their politics is, and that’s where they’re comfortable. 

“And if every other member of the Labour Party disagrees with them, that’s fine. You don’t use discipline to kick people out.”

Carden’s political journey from Corbynite disciple to Blue Labour chair was motivated by something more than naked electoralism. In Liverpool Walton in recent years, the question at election time is not whether he will be returned to parliament, but whether it will be with a 70% or 80% vote share.

Instead, Carden frames his politics as in dialogue with working-class communities like those he represents. He draws a straight line from his experiences as the son of a dock worker to his election in 2017. “It’s not because I went to the London School of Economics [that I went into politics]”, he says. “It’s about where I come from and the values that I was taught when I was young.”

I sense it is the interaction between the values instilled by his upbringing and the lived experiences of his constituents that produced Carden’s politics – and sometimes reproduces it.

Andy Burnham gives Carden “a little bit of hope”. He sees the prime minister as sharing his view of politics and who it is for. “Even just having a prime minister who can at least connect with people and has some emotional intelligence. That’s a f***ing major step up from the last guy.”

There is notable overlap in the sources of Burnham and Carden’s politics. “I have all the Catholic guilt”, Carden responds when I ask him about one such influence. He argues that religion and faith are too readily written off by the “progressive” worldview – an instinct he has come to challenge.

Carden suggests that this re-evaluation emerged from his recovery from alcohol addiction. Seven years sober, he describes his recovery as part of a process in which he became “a lot more open to thinking about things differently”, including his Catholic upbringing.

He reflects: “I think it’s that sense of duty to other people, and almost a public decency, where it matters the commitments you make, the duties you have, the responsibilities you have.

“I was brought up to kind of dismiss all of that. I look back and think how tragic that is now. Religion, culture, history – these are things that have kept the human race and countries like ours on an even keel. 

“I think sometimes politics can be just a little bit too quick to try and dismantle everything, and not understand the consequences of doing that.”

***

Throughout the interview, Carden repeatedly – and without prompting – refers to Keir Starmer’s tenure in office with real disdain. So when I finally ask him directly for his thoughts, starting with Starmer’s decision to stand down as an MP, he is scathing.

“I think it was pretty terrible, to be honest”, Carden responds. 

“First, I think back to all those people who were attacking Rishi Sunak, saying, ‘Well, he’ll lose and then he’ll go off to California.’ Yeah, that never happened. And I just think that you should have a respect for your constituents and a respect for the privilege of being a member of parliament. 

“Yes, there’s other jobs to be done in government and everything else, but if you take on that responsibility, you should treat it with some courtesy and respect. So I’m quite amazed, but no doubt Keir Starmer thinks he’s due another big job somewhere else.”

Carden traces Starmer’s undoing as prime minister to the June/July 2025 welfare rebellion, which he calls “the beginning of the end.” He still struggles to make sense of the government’s position, which crumbled in the face of a mass rebellion of Labour MPs. 

“There was nothing behind it. We were told we need 5 billion quid, and a few weeks later we were told, right, I’m going to cut 5 billion off welfare, and there was no political narrative story, and there was no willing to go out and fight for it.

“Because I’m up for doing difficult things in politics, but you have to have a vision for where you’re taking people, and you have to win people around. I just never felt like the top of the Labour Party at that time had the ability to do that.”

Carden is at his most animated when our discussion turns to the Chagos Islands deal and the proposed handover of the archipelago to Mauritius. He is utterly uncompromising in his criticism of the “disastrous” arrangement.

He tells me: “I’m still amazed that so few Labour MPs have had anything to say about it. I just say to any of them, go meet one of your constituents, try and explain the Chagos deal to them, and see how it goes down.

“For me, that’s what politics is – to see whether people understand what you’re doing and why you’re there.”

We are talking on 9 September, shortly after Kemi Badenoch called attention to the Chagos deal to bash Burnham at prime minister’s questions. Carden is not surprised by the Conservative leader’s line of questioning – and shares her concerns. 

He relates: “I have been saying, it might be an idea to drop this terrible policy because you’re going to get beaten around with it, and then you get the Falklands [controversy].”

Carden links the row directly to Argentine president Javier Milei’s recent sabre-rattling over the Falklands. “It will be a domino effect, and we don’t take overseas territories seriously”, he says. 

“We need to look at how we actually give the territories a stake in parliament and a stake in government.”

“So I hope Andy is capable of doing that, and I have some hope that he will look at the disastrous Chagos deal and drop it, and look to do something different – because he’s got the ability and the capacity to do that.”

After all, it is the Chagos Islands – a dispute over a remote archipelago thousands of miles away – that brings Carden’s politics into its sharpest relief. For Carden, Chagos is a test case for a politics built on dialogue. If a policy cannot survive a discussion on the doorsteps of Liverpool Walton, it must be misguided. That same sense of disconnection – between Westminster and the people it answers to – is what Carden believes hollowed out Labour’s support under Starmer.

Carden’s politics, perhaps, are not so complicated after all.