The Red Scare: How Labour can use geopolitics to win the next election

Leveraging National Security to Reshape Britain’s Political Landscape

On the 5th of July 2024, Sir Keir Starmer led the Labour Party to Number 10 following

fourteen years of Conservative Party rule. After austerity, Brexit, five Prime Ministers, and what many saw as a decade of political chaos, Starmer promised change and stability.

Eighteen months later, Labour’s position is one of fragility: they remain unable to control the narrative, sustain public favour or communicate their vision for the country.

Roughly seventy per cent of Britons disapprove of the current government, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK now polls around 29 per cent, ahead of Labour’s 18. To its right, the Labour Government falls behind Reform on key areas like immigration and social policy; to its left, the Green Party attracts the disillusioned progressives. Yet in one area Starmer retains a clear advantage: foreign policy and defence. In an age of geopolitical anxiety, that edge could prove decisive.

Starmer’s handling of Trump, his support for Zelensky, trade deals with India, and renewed ties with Europe have given Labour a rare lead on international affairs. Commentators and analysts consistently note Labour’s more stable and responsible reputation regarding global issues when compared with its competitors, a reputation that may prove pivotal in times of instability.  

History tells us the premise of external threats can reshape political fortunes. In 2022, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson was in the midst of the Partygate scandal in which he and Conservative colleagues had been caught breaching their own lockdown rules on multiple occasions; he had a negative approval rating of -30%. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Boris Johnson’s approval rating jumped 25 points as voters rallied around his support for Kyiv. From Churchill to Thatcher, British politicians have reaped the benefits of a short-term “rally round the flag” effect. Modern studies suggest this depends on context: voters reward competence, not charisma, when faced with danger. Nevertheless, if Britain again senses an external threat, Labour could regain the political initiative.  

As evidence of Russian interference continues to grow, the government is presented with a unique strategic opportunity which, if played well, may facilitate an electoral victory in ‘29. Two Ukrainian men accused of carrying out an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s home and car are believed by European officials to have Russian links. Russian-linked criminal groups have reportedly ordered attacks on European supply chains supporting Ukraine, including London-based infrastructure. The Royal Navy recently joined NATO allies in deterring a Russian submarine tracked in UK waters, part of wider submarine activity in the Channel and North Sea since 2022.

At the same time, Russian state television has repeatedly broadcast nuclear simulations targeting the British Isles, while the frequency of Russian air incursions into NATO airspace has sharply increased. In the past week alone the Defence Secretary held a Downing Street press conference regarding the interception of a Russian Spy-ship near UK waters. These incidents illustrate a wider pattern of what intelligence experts call “strategic ambiguity”: a blend of plausible deniability, hybrid tactics and psychological pressure. While Reform dominates headlines on immigration, British debate centres around domestic culture wars and the country’s exposure to geopolitical risk remains largely unexamined. By selectively declassifying Russian naval and air data, clarifying Russian military capability, communicating consistently about British military preparedness, being transparent about the recent attacks on the Prime Minister’s home and opening inquiries into Russian interference, the government may be able to shift the conversation and political narrative into an area of their own expertise.  

Other parties exhibit significant vulnerabilities on foreign policy, particularly on Russia. Nigel Farage’s longstanding relationship with Nathan Gill, former leader of Reform in Wales, has attracted scrutiny since Gill pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery for receiving payments pro-Russian payments in exchange for public statements whilst being an MEP. Farage’s appearances on RT, the Kremlin-backed media outlet, and past statements praising Putin as a leader he admired, further damage his credibility. The Greens face structural weaknesses on defence. In the 2024 election, the party pledged to leave the NATO; although new leader Zack Polanski now rejects an immediate withdrawal his support for eventually replacing it with a new European alliance makes the party’s long-term position unclear. 

The Greens have historically opposed nuclear weapons calling for an end to the Trident programme and pledge full denuclearisation if elected. This stance risks leaving the party ill-equipped to answer serious national security questions. Similar vulnerabilities exist for the SNP and Plaid Cymru, whose principled stances on nuclear deterrence and NATO risk alienating moderate voters concerned with defence.

Even parties traditionally considered strong on foreign affairs, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, currently fail to capitalise on the issue. Leaders Kemi Badenoch and Sir Ed Davey have limited public profiles, and their lack of authoritative media presence reduces their visibility as credible alternatives. Even internally, as rumours of potential leadership challenges persist, the party may opt for Starmer’s composure when compared with the likes of Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham if the issue of national security becomes more central.

Against this backdrop, Labour’s competence and professionalism on foreign policy stand out. In an era of heightened geopolitical anxiety, the party’s ability to project steady, credible leadership positions it as the default choice for voters prioritising security, a domain in which rivals appear fragmented, compromised, or under-prepared.

A strategy that places geopolitical threats at its forefront presents inherent ethical questions.  Indeed, war-mongering or exaggerated claims would likely produce backlashes akin to the “Project Fear” accusation given to the Remain Campaign in 2016 and may inadvertently erode public trust. However, there is an important distinction between manipulation and transparency. While the right frequently employs misleading or false culture war narratives, this approach raises awareness of real, verifiable security risks that highlight the weaknesses of opponents. Moreover, internal friction between the government, the Ministry of Defence and Intelligence Services may arise due to reservations regarding the declassification of material. These tensions can be managed if the government maintains a proportional, evidence-based and sober tone.  

Handled carefully, this strategy could reinforce Labour’s competence without slipping into desperate sensationalism. Provided the upcoming budget and future policies do not meet the expectations of the British public, Starmer’s government may have to descend into such ethically contentious territory.