How the New Cabinet Can Ensure Public Support for Foreign Policy

The UK has a new Prime Minister and Cabinet. Andy Burnham has assumed the role and appointed his top team. If reporting is to be believed, his agenda will be broadly domestic in focus, in contrast to his predecessor, uncharitably termed “never-here-Keir” by detractors for his frequent trips abroad.

But foreign policy will find him regardless, as it has all his predecessors. Today, the cost of living is bound up with energy markets and global supply chains. His government has inherited defence spending commitments that will require difficult fiscal choices. The world beyond Britain's shores looks no more predictable now than it did twelve months ago, with war still raging in Europe, a broken ceasefire in the Middle East, and an administrationin Washington that continues to unsettle its allies. Tackling illegal migration effectively requires international cooperation.

Burnham may be hoping his new team, Ed Miliband in the Foreign Office, John Healey in the Treasury, Wes Streeting in the MoD and Shabana Mahmood remaining in post at the Home Office will be able to put in the legwork required to deliver on foreign policy priorities which are broadly set. However, trust in the government to make foreign policy decisions in the public's interest has fallen over the past year from 47% to 37%, and a majority of Britons now actively distrust it. This is the backdrop against which the new Cabinet will have to act, and our data suggests that winning public consent for the choices ahead cannot simply be assumed.

Our 2026 Annual Survey of UK Public Opinion on Foreign Policy and Global Affairs reveals four key messages for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet if they are to make a success of the foreign policy agenda.

1. Set direction from the centre

After years of growing interest in foreign policy Britons are feeling increasingly confused and distrustful of the world. This has been shaped by continuing conflicts, but also a precipitous drop in trust in the United States, from 53% two years ago to just 27% now. The public understand the need for national security, which is named a top three foreign policy priority by 47% of Britons, nine points clear of any other option. Britons recognise that the world is increasingly unsafe but also are less clear on what Britain’s place is on the global stage. This is a broad question about our alliances, our preparedness, our resilience, and the threats we face.

The hopes of many Labour supporters are in part founded on the expectation that Andy Burnham will be a stronger communicator than his predecessor. But there are tough choices to come. As domestic and foreign policy become increasingly intertwined, spending on defence may require cuts to other areas, continuing the EU reset will have implications across the domestic agenda, and ensuring national resilience is a cross-departmental task.   Our research shows that there are significant demographic differences – especially as far as age is concerned – when it comes to some of the most controversial foreign policy questions. For example the UK’s relationship with China, where young people are much more prepared to trust China than their elders.  Explaining where the UK Government comes out will require all the communication skills of the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary.

It will be up to the Prime Minister to tell the bigger story of why these choices need to be taken, manage the inevitable trade-offs and make sure that ministers are working in tandem towards these goals.  

2. Be honest with the public about the trade-offs required

On the steps of Downing Street Burnham’s only reference to foreign policy was to meet commitments to international partners on defence spending. While it may have come as a surprise to many, John Healey’s appointment as Chancellor strongly suggests that the Burnham Government intendsto make good on commitments to get to 3% of GDP spent on defence by the next Parliament.

The good news is that a majority of the public are in favour of increased spending with 60% supporting increasing spending to 3% either immediately or in the coming years. However, that support significantly evaporates when any trade-offs are introduced. A majority oppose funding the increase through NHS cuts. A plurality oppose funding it through education cuts. Even tax rises, the option people are least resistant to, are still opposed by more Britons than support them. Welfare cuts fare only marginally better and remain net negative too.

The lesson is that the public may be in favour of ambitious policies at a surface level, but their willingness to make sacrifices is limited. The same is true for relations with the EU. While 70% support closer trade ties with the bloc, that drops to just 31% if it means fishing concessions and 22% if it limits trade with non-EU nations.  Policymakers may find some of these judgements perverse, but the data is clear.

John Healey resigned as Defence Secretary in June over the funding for the Defence Investment Plan, and now sits as Chancellor holding the purse strings he once said were too tight. The new ministerial team will need to put in leg work before any spending review, explaining what trade-offs are required, and why they are to the benefit of the country.

3. Meet the public where they get their information, and know when it’s better not to be the messenger

Our survey also points to a shift in how, and whether, the public hears any of this debate at all. TikTok is now the primary source of foreign policy information for 42% of 18 to 25 year-olds, against just 1% of over-66s. At the same time, the number of people reporting that they feel informed has fallen by 17 points in a year. At the same time, 55% of Britons distrust the government to pursue foreign policy in the national interest.

In the face of an increasingly disengaged and sceptical public and difficult choices ahead, perhaps the hardest task for government will be communicating effectively about foreign policy on the domestic stage. What are the threats we face? What is Britain’s place in the world? What alliances must we prioritise? What benefits do these choices bring? And why should a public with squeezed finances care about any of this?

Telling this story will require a range of approaches. As our research shows, there is a need to meet young people where they are getting their news to make sure it is the right answers they hear to those questions.  The same applies across all demographics: the op ed pages of the broadsheet newspapers may be important, but they are by no means sufficient to make the case.

We are all well aware our adversaries are on Tik Tok, Facebook, and across social media, telling a story that serves their interests, not the UK’s. If government wants to have any public buy in for its decisions, it needs a strong and convincing counter story.

With trust in government low, there should also be consideration on who is the appropriate messenger for this story. In some cases, it will be the Prime Minister, in others Ed Miliband or John Healey. But government will need to bring along a wider selection of messengers, figures in the military and security apparatus, local community leaders, business figures,and even Tik Tok influencers to ensure they can inform the public of who we are, and what we must do in an increasingly unstable and uncertain world. In all cases, our research confirms that sustainable public consent calls for consistency of messaging and transparency in communication, whoever the spokespeople are.

‍