Sir Keir Starmer remains determined to secure US security guarantees for Ukraine, and new sentencing guidelines are causing a stir. Plus, our political correspondent Rob Powell answers your questions – and gets in a great West Wing reference.
Thursday 6 March 2025 19:10, UK
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Our flagship weeknight politics programme is under way.
Our guest tonight is Carla Sands, America’s former ambassador to Denmark, and the panellists are Labour MP Dawn Butler and former Downing Street communications director Guto Harri.
Watch live in the stream below or at the top of this page.
Taking questions from the media, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth says it’s “very encouraging” to see the UK and France “take the lead” on securing an enduring peace in Ukraine.
For America’s part, Hegseth says it remains keen to get “both sides to the table” and get a “commitment to peace” from Russia and Ukraine.
He reiterates that Donald Trump’s decision to stop military aid to Kyiv is just a “pause, pending a true commitment to a path to peace”.
Hegseth says we’re “very encouraged by the signs we’re seeing”, after Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated he was ready to sign a minerals deal with Washington following his disastrous meeting with Trump last week.
‘It’s on all of us’ to secure peace deal
UK Defence Secretary John Healey says Ukraine is ready to sign the deal and “ready for a ceasefire”, but wants security guarantees to ensure Russia does not attack again.
It’s a “responsibility on all of us” to make sure a peace deal is sustainable, Healey says.
Defence Secretary John Healey thanks US counterpart Pete Hegseth for his warm welcome to Washington, and kind words about Britain.
But looking back on the last time their pair met at NATO HQ last month, Healey says Hegseth “challenged Europe to step up on Ukraine, on defence spending, and on European security”.
“We have, we are, and we will further,” he says, referencing the prime minister’s boost to the defence budget.
Healey says today’s meeting follows “very good discussions” between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer last week, and that the president has “created an opportunity” for peace in Ukraine.
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth is hosting his British counterpart John Healey at the Pentagon right now.
He said a few words at the start of their meeting – perhaps keen to rebuild some bridges after the consternation JD Vance caused among Britain’s military community earlier this week, with his comments about potential peacekeeping troops in Ukraine.
Hegseth says: “I want to thank the British people for the warm support they give US forces stationed in the UK.
“It’s a long-standing relationship that we are very grateful for.
“You are true allies and longtime friends, and fellow warriors.”
That’s all for today’s Politics Hub Q&A – thanks for submitting your questions and for joining us this evening.
We’ll have another callout for questions in the not too distant future, so keep your eyes peeled.
Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge is live from 7pm.
Our guest tonight is Carla Sands, America’s former ambassador to Denmark, and the panellists are Labour MP Dawn Butler and former Downing Street communications director Guto Harri.
At the risk of sounding like the biggest cliche of a Westminster journalist ever, this question reminds me of a quote from the West Wing, where President Bartlet says social security (aka pensions and benefits) is the “third rail of American politics. Touch it, and you die”.
This probably holds true here. Attempts to revise public sector pensions would likely lead to swathes of strikes across various public services – something the government is desperate to avoid.
Depending on how changes were structured it might also lead to people taking early retirement or issues with recruitment and retention being exacerbated.
Does the West Wing have the answer?
All that said, your fundamental point is a fair one and just because the government likely won’t do it, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.
Public sector pensions remain extremely generous compared to those in the private sector. The independent IFS think tank has said there is a good case for lowering pensions to fund public sector pay rises.
You can make a broader argument that the amount we spend on the state pension should feature more in discussions about what taxpayer cash goes on.
Don’t expect that anytime soon, though.
To return to the West Wing, maybe the reason that social security is the “third rail” of politics is “because that’s where all the power is”.
Simple answer, Frank – it’s being done in the name of diplomacy.
The state visit allowed Sir Keir Starmer to hand the president a letter from the King last week and shower him with fawning language about how unprecedented such a trip would be.
We also know Donald Trump loves the British Royal Family, and as such they are being leveraged for diplomatic benefit (that’s nothing unusual by the way, every government uses the royals to curry favour overseas).
Watch: Our royal correspondent Laura Bundock explains why Trump’s getting a second state visit
All that said, trips like this are not a risk-free affair.
Think back to 2018 and Trump’s first state visit.
Theresa May was attempting to negotiate a Brexit deal at the time and was not helped by negative remarks made by the president about it as he boarded Air Force One.
There’s also the possibility of the Royal Family being caught up in embarrassing political issues – the ultimate no-no for any government.
Ignore and hope for the best…
You’re right that Trump’s threats over Canada do present an awkward talking point given the King is the head of state there.
The conclusion in Downing Street and Buckingham Palace may be that Trump is bluffing and using inflammatory remarks as a bargaining chip.
So the approach will likely be to ignore the issue at all costs and bet that Trump won’t raise it.
Final point – polling shows the president is deeply unpopular among the UK public, so the government will have to manage how much praise they lavish on him before it starts to irk their voters.
John Healey has arrived at the Pentagon for talks with US defence secretary Pete Hegseth.
Their conversations will likely focus on security guarantees for Ukraine, the broader war, and European security and defence spending.
We’ll bring you any updates from the meeting when we get them.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, James, and say Nigel Farage will have precisely zero official role in relations between this UK government and the US.
Yes, the Reform leader has good links with Donald Trump, but he doesn’t exactly share the aims of the current government.
Quite the opposite, his goal is to beat Labour at the next general election and destroy the traditional UK political landscape in the same way Trump has in the US.
So would he use any role to help Sir Keir Starmer or hinder him?
Looping Farage in would also give him attention and a valuable campaigning message (“Starmer needs me”).
And it would go down like a cup of cold sick with most people inside Labour who view the Reform leader as the ultimate political bogey man.
A final point – privately at least, there are those in government who question whether Farage knows as much about the thinking within this White House as he suggests.
They point to the Chagos deal, which Trump backed despite Farage claiming he was critical of it.
The UK has a huge diplomatic presence in the US, and that’s something the government leveraged successfully to pull off the PM’s visit to Washington last week.
In other words, some in Westminster may question whether Starmer actually needs Farage at all.
Watch: The highlights of when Trump met Starmer
You can definitely make an argument that the government is relegating the traditional Labour value of internationalism by cutting foreign aid to pay for defence.
Most people in Labour would say standing with the poor and needy of other countries is in the party’s DNA.
You don’t have to look far at Labour’s annual conference to find fringe debates about relatively niche international issues!
Watch: Does cutting foreign aid matter?
However, the defence from Downing Street would be the first priority of any government is protecting its own people and a changing world requires more money to be invested in UK defence.
Officials would also argue if the aid budget wasn’t cut, then another source of income would need to be found to pay for defence investment – most likely either spending cuts or tax rises.
They would question how this would fit with the traditional Labour values of protecting workers and protecting vulnerable people.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
