Analysis of: No 10 refuses to comment on Trump posting TV sketch mocking Starmer on social media – UK politics live
The Guardian | March 23, 2026
TL;DR
Britain's government scrambles to manage an imperial crisis it didn't start, revealing how capitalist states serve capital's interests while working people face soaring costs. The UK-US 'special relationship' means following Washington into war while workers pay at the pump.
Analytical Focus:Class Analysis Contradictions Material Conditions
This live blog captures the British state in crisis management mode during an escalating US-Iran conflict, revealing the fundamental class character of capitalist governance. While Prime Minister Starmer promises to examine 'every lever' to address cost of living pressures, the actual policy options under discussion—strengthening the Competition and Markets Authority, avoiding 'panic buying'—represent superficial interventions that leave the underlying structure of energy markets and imperialist military commitments untouched. The Green Party's Zack Polanski gestures toward more substantive measures like windfall taxes and rent controls, but these remain marginal to the government's response. The material reality confronting British workers is stark: energy prices are surging due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, petrol costs vary wildly across the country (suggesting profiteering), and the government admits it fears triggering panic at petrol stations. Meanwhile, the state prioritizes reassuring capital markets—note the presence of Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey at Cobra—over providing material relief to workers. The government's rhetorical attacks on 'profiteering' function as ideological cover, allowing ministers to appear responsive while avoiding structural confrontation with energy capital. Most revealing is the UK's subordinate position within the US-led imperial order. Despite Trump publicly mocking Starmer on social media, the Prime Minister maintains the fiction of a 'constructive' relationship. The No 10 readout of their call contains no evidence of British influence over US policy—merely agreement that the Strait should reopen. Britain finds itself drawn into potential military escalation (Iranian missiles targeting Diego Garcia) while having no apparent leverage over the conflict's trajectory. This illustrates the contradiction facing junior imperial partners: they bear the costs of empire while exercising little control over its direction.
Class Dynamics
Actors: British working class (facing energy costs), Energy corporations (potential profiteers), British state apparatus (Starmer government), US imperial leadership (Trump administration), Finance capital (Bank of England, markets), Small political opposition (Greens)
Beneficiaries: Energy corporations benefiting from price surges, Defence contractors involved in military operations, Financial institutions profiting from market volatility, Wealthy nations outbidding poorer ones for energy supplies
Harmed Parties: British working-class households facing energy and fuel costs, Populations in the Global South being outbid for energy, Iranian civilians facing potential infrastructure destruction, Jewish community targeted by antisemitic violence amid war tensions
The British state operates as an intermediary between US imperial directives and domestic capital accumulation needs. Working people have no seat at Cobra meetings where their fates are discussed; instead, the Bank of England represents finance capital's interests. The government's rhetorical concern for 'profiteering' masks its structural inability or unwillingness to challenge energy capital directly, opting instead for regulatory tweaks. Trump's public humiliation of Starmer demonstrates the hierarchy within the Western imperial bloc.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Global oil supply disruption from Strait of Hormuz closure, Energy price inflation affecting UK households, Market volatility responding to war threats, Uneven petrol pricing suggesting profiteering, Potential diesel import disruptions
Energy production remains under private corporate control, with the state limited to regulatory 'nudges' rather than direct intervention. The article reveals how the global energy market allocates resources through purchasing power—rich nations outbid poor ones—rather than need. The government's options are circumscribed by its commitment to market mechanisms: windfall taxes and price caps remain proposals from opposition parties rather than active policy.
Resources at Stake: Petroleum and natural gas supplies, Global shipping routes (Strait of Hormuz), Military infrastructure (Diego Garcia base), Household budgets across UK, Iranian energy infrastructure (threatened with destruction)
Historical Context
Precedents: 1970s oil crises and their political fallout, 2021 UK fuel shortage and panic buying, Britain's historical subordination to US foreign policy since WWII, Pattern of Western military intervention in Middle East energy regions
This crisis exemplifies the recurring pattern whereby imperialist military adventures generate economic shocks that are socialized onto working populations while profits remain privatized. The UK's position as junior partner in US-led imperialism—supporting interventions without determining their course—has been consistent since Suez 1956. The government's crisis response follows neoliberal logic: state intervention to stabilize markets and reassure capital, rhetorical concern for workers, but no fundamental challenge to corporate power over essential resources.
Contradictions
Primary: The contradiction between the UK state's need to maintain social stability (preventing cost-of-living crisis from becoming political crisis) and its commitment to both market mechanisms and US-led imperial policy that generates the instability.
Secondary: Rhetorical attacks on 'profiteering' while refusing structural intervention in energy markets, Claiming a 'constructive' US relationship while being publicly humiliated by Trump, Promising to protect British interests while being drawn into a war Britain cannot control, Market logic allocating energy to highest bidders while government claims concern for ordinary households
These contradictions are unlikely to resolve within the current framework. Short-term, the government will likely muddle through with minor interventions while hoping Trump de-escalates. The deeper contradiction—between the social need for stable, affordable energy and the capitalist organization of energy production—will persist, potentially intensifying if the conflict expands. Working-class pressure could force more substantial interventions (windfall taxes, price controls), but this would require significant political mobilization against the government's market-first approach.
Global Interconnections
This crisis illustrates the interconnected nature of imperialism, energy markets, and domestic class struggle in the 21st century. The Strait of Hormuz closure connects Middle Eastern geopolitics directly to British petrol stations, demonstrating how global supply chains transmit imperial conflicts into everyday working-class life. The Financial Times commentary quoted in the article inadvertently reveals the imperial character of energy markets: rich nations outbidding the Global South for fuel is presented as natural market logic rather than a form of resource extraction. The UK's position exemplifies what dependency theorists describe as a semi-peripheral role in the global system: powerful relative to the Global South, but subordinate to US hegemony. Britain provides military bases (Diego Garcia) and diplomatic support for US actions while bearing economic costs it cannot control. The 'special relationship' functions as ideological cover for this dependency, with Starmer maintaining the pretense of partnership despite having no apparent influence over Trump's decisions.
Conclusion
This moment reveals the limited options available to working people under capitalist governance during imperial crisis. The state's response—Cobra meetings with central bankers, regulatory threats to energy companies, efforts to manage public 'behaviour'—addresses symptoms while preserving the underlying structure. For workers facing energy cost pressures, the lesson is that meaningful relief requires challenging both the market organization of essential resources and the imperial commitments that generate instability. The Green proposals for windfall taxes and price controls represent modest steps, but even these face resistance from a government committed to capital's prerogatives. Genuine energy security would require public ownership and democratic control of energy systems, combined with an independent foreign policy that breaks from US-led military adventurism—transformations that require organized working-class power beyond what currently exists in British politics.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of imperialism as driven by capital's need for markets and resources directly illuminates how oil and strategic shipping routes generate inter-imperial conflict with global consequences.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's examination of how crises are used to advance corporate interests while socializing costs onto populations explains the dynamic of energy companies profiting while workers bear price increases.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the capitalist state as serving ruling class interests helps explain why the UK government's crisis response prioritizes market stability and capital's concerns over working-class needs.