Sir Keir Starmer has talked up the US-UK relationship after a White House meeting with Joe Biden, but questions remain over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles.
Speaking before the “long and productive” meeting held in the White House on Friday, Sir Keir said the two countries were “strategically aligned” in their attempts to resolve the war.
Afterwards, he skirted around questions regarding Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, saying: “We’ve had a long and productive discussion on a number of problems, including Ukraine, as you’d expect, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, talking strategically about tactical decisions.
“This isn’t about a particular decision but we’ll obviously pick up again in UNGA (UN General Assembly) in just a few days’ time with a wider group of individuals, but this was a really important invitation from the president to have this level of discussion about those critical issues.”
Decisions loom for Ukraine’s key Western allies as Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently increased pressure on them to permit his forces to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory.
More on Joe Biden
Related Topics:
However, despite repeated calls for a decision, the West has so far resisted green-lighting the use of the missiles.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy speaking to the media outside the White House on Friday. Pic: PA
Two US officials familiar with the discussions said they believed that Sir Keir was seeking US approval to let Ukraine use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes into Russia, according to Reuters news agency.
Advertisement
They added that they believed Mr Biden would be amenable.
The president’s approval would be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the US.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Military analyst Sean Bell looks at how serious Putin’s threats could be
But when speaking to journalists after the meeting, Sir Keir was repeatedly pressed on the long-range missile question but evaded giving a firm decision.
“This wasn’t a meeting about a particular capability. That wasn’t why we got our heads down today,” he said.
The US has been concerned that any step could lead to an escalation in the conflict and has moved cautiously so far, however, there have been reports in recent days that Mr Biden might shift his administration’s policy.
It wasn’t much, but it’s a start
There wasn’t much to say at the end, but it’s a start.
Both sides in these discussions had spent some time playing down expectations and the Americans were insistent their stance wasn’t changing on Ukraine and long-range missiles.
“Nothing to see here” seemed to be the message.
Only, there clearly was – a glance at the headlines gave that the lie.
It’s not every day a Russian president threatens war with the West.
The UK and US were discussing a change in strategy because they must – anything less would be a dereliction of duty for two leaders pledging a commitment to Ukraine’s fight.
Just ask Kyiv’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Following the meeting, Sir Keir Starmer said they’d talked tactics and strategy.
It will have had missiles, range, and Russian territory at the heart of it.
That is the material change in strategy demanded by Ukraine and supported widely among its backers.
A plan discussed by both sides of the special relationship will now be floated to other, allied nations in an effort to build a coordinated coalition behind a change in strategy.
And they’ll do it against the clock.
There is the unpredictability of the war itself in Ukraine and no less certainty surrounding the political battle at home.
A Trump victory in November’s US election would change the picture – here and there.
Vladimir Putin previously threatened the West, warning that allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory would put Moscow “at war” with NATO.
Speaking to Russian state television, he insisted the decision would “significantly change” the nature of the war.
Image: Pic: AP
He added: “This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.
“This will mean that NATO countries, US, European countries are at war with Russia.
“If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
There remains some scepticism within the US over the impact that allowing Kyiv to unleash long-range missiles would have.
US officials, according to Reuters, have pointed out that Ukraine already has the capability to strike into Russia using drones, and while US missiles would enhance that they are too costly and limited in number to change the overall picture.
A company linked to Tory peer Baroness Michelle Mone breached a government contract of nearly £122m to supply surgical gowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has ruled.
The £121.9m sum, the price of the gowns, must now be repaid by the company, PPE Medpro.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) brought the case, saying it provided 25 million “faulty”, non-sterile gowns.
On Wednesday, the High Court said the gowns did not comply with the requirement of having a validated process to demonstrate sterility, and it was not possible for the DHSC to have sold them and recoup the loss.
The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone’s husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded the government contract after she recommended it to ministers.
As well as wanting to recover the costs of the deal, the government wanted to recoup the costs of transporting and storing the items, which it said amounted to an additional £8.6m, though the High Court denied the latter request, saying the loss was not proved at trial.
PPE Medpro’s counterclaim that the DHSC should have advised it on how to comply with the contract also failed.
Denied wrongdoing
Both Baroness Mone and Mr Barrowman denied wrongdoing, and neither gave evidence at the trial in June.
She had initially denied involvement in the company or the process through which it was handed the government contract.
However, it was later revealed that Baroness Mone was the “source of referral” for the firm getting a place on the so-called “VIP lane” for offers of personal protective equipment for the NHS.
In response to the ruling, Baroness Mone said it was “shocking but all too predictable”.
Mr Barrowman said it was “a travesty of justice” and the judge gave the DHSC “an establishment win despite the mountain of evidence in court against such a judgment”.
“Her judgment bears little resemblance to what actually took place during the month-long trial, where PPE Medpro convincingly demonstrated that its gowns were sterile,” he said.
“This judgment is a whitewash of the facts and shows that justice was being seen to be done, where the outcome was always certain for the DHSC and the government. This case was simply too big for the government to lose.”
Ahead of the ruling on Tuesday, PPE Medpro said it intended to appoint an administrator.
The news has been welcomed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves and COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK.
“We want our money back. We are getting our money back. And it will go where it belongs – in our schools, NHS and communities,” Ms Reeves said.
“Profiting and corruption during the pandemic cost lives,” the families group said. “Those responsible must be held to account.”
All GP surgeries in England are required to offer online appointment bookings from today.
Practices must keep their websites and app services available from at least 8am to 6.30pm, Monday through Friday, for non-urgent appointments, medication queries and admin requests.
Many surgeries are already offering online bookings and consultations, but services are typically less effective in working-class areas.
The Department of Health and Social Care says there is a lack of consistency, as some surgeries that offer online services are choosing to switch the function off during busier periods.
The British Medical Association (BMA) has argued safeguards have not been put in place, nor have extra staff been brought in to manage what it anticipates will be a “barrage of online requests.”
The BMA has said GPs are considering a range of actions after voting to enter a dispute with the government over the plan.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has urged the BMA to embrace the plan, saying the union’s resistance is “a real disservice to so many GPs” who have already introduced the service.
Image: Health Secretary Wes Streeting says booking a GP appointment should be as easy as booking a takeaway. Pic: PA
‘As easy as booking a takeaway’
The minister said the government will help practices that need assistance to implement the plan, “but we’ve got to modernise”.
Mr Streeting told the Labour Party conference: “Many GPs already offer this service because they’ve changed with the times.
“Why shouldn’t be booking a GP appointment be as easy as booking a delivery, a taxi, or a takeaway? And our policy comes alongside a billion pounds of extra funding for general practice and 2,000 extra GPs.
“Yet the BMA threatens to oppose it in 2025. Well, I’ll give you this warning; if we give in to the forces of conservatism, they will turn the NHS into a museum of 20th century healthcare.”
Sir Keir Starmer has revealed plans to establish a nationwide “online hospital” by 2027, enabling patients to receive treatment and care from home.
The government said the initiative could provide up to 8.5 million additional NHS appointments within its first three years.
Available via the NHS app, it will allow patients to schedule in-person procedures at local hospitals, surgical hubs or diagnostic centres, reducing delays.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not believe Nigel Farage or Reform voters are racist – and also refused to label Donald Trump’s claim that London wants “Sharia law” as such.
Asked if it was racist, considering Sir Sadiq is a Muslim, Sir Keir said: “I have been really clear that the idea that in London we’re introducing Sharia law is rubbish.”
Sir Keir also insisted he does not think Mr Farage or Reform supporters are racist, after targeting the party in his Labour conference speech and claiming its leader “hates Britain”.
Asked if he thinks Mr Farage is a racist, he said: “No, nor do I think Reform voters are racist.
“They’re concerned about things like our borders, they’re frustrated about the pace of change.
“So I’m not for a moment suggesting that they are racist.”
He said he was “talking about a particular policy”, which would see Reform axe the right of migrants to apply for indefinite leave to remain, ban anyone who is not a UK citizen from claiming benefits, and force those applying for UK citizenship to renounce other citizenship.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:19
How did the PM perform at conference?
Reform ‘taking country down road of toxic division’
Sir Keir also refused to say whether he thinks Mr Farage is dangerous, saying: “I think the fight at the next election is going to define us as a country for years to come.
“I think it’s a dangerous moment for the country.”
He said he would not “get into labelling the man”.
“I’m talking about the ideas and what he stands for and what I stand for,” he added.
“I think that taking our country down the road of toxic division where you don’t want to fix problems because if they’re fixed, you lose your reason to exist, I think that is dangerous for our country.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:57
Starmer’s ‘anti-Reform party’ gamble
Farage: Starmer unfit to be PM
Mr Farage reacted to Sir Keir’s speech by accusing him of being “unfit to be the prime minister of our country”.
“I used to think the prime minister was a decent man, somebody that I could talk to and chat to,” he said.
“We might disagree on our worldview, but I thought he was a profoundly decent human being. I am completely shocked at his behaviour.
“I hope when he wakes up tomorrow morning he feels ashamed of what he has done. This is a desperate last throw of the dice for the prime minister who’s in deep trouble, a prime minister who can’t even command the support of half of his own party.
“But I’m sorry to say, I now believe he is unfit to be the prime minister of our country.”