Comment: How should Keir Starmer handle Donald Trump? Published on: 31 January 2025 Writing for The Conversation, Dr Martin Farr comments on how Keir Starmer should handle Donald Trump 鈥� and how it's going so far , The pairing of British prime minister Keir Starmer and US president Donald Trump connotes many imponderables. The only certainty happens to be the most significant: they will be in office together for four years. It is rare for a prime minister and a president to have the luxury of knowing 鈥� barring extreme unpredictabilities, such as death or incapacity 鈥� they have a full term in harness. And personal chemistry matters. Trump emphasises (rather too much for the liking of America鈥檚 allies) the deal, the handshake, the gaze; the bond that only the lonely, only those who lead, can have. Starmer emphasises level-headedness (although his government has not been particulary conspicuous in evincing it). Opposites may well attract, but the precedents for coterminous presidents and prime ministers are not encouraging. John Major and Bill Clinton, elected seven months apart, spent 1992 to 1997 together. But in the very definition of what not to do before an election, London had made its preference for the result of the election in America known 鈥� and the other guy won. The Conservative and the Democrat were no more than coolly cordial thereafter. On his re-election in 2001, Tony Blair knew he had George W. Bush for at least four years 鈥� it turned out to be eight 鈥� but the consequences for him were once the two decided to partake in a war on 鈥渢error鈥�. In 1964, Harold Wilson and Lyndon Johnson were elected almost simultaneously, and spent 1964 to 1968 together. Though they were Labour and Democrat, and therefore from sister parties, it was not a harmonious pairing. Wilson鈥檚 meddling in, but lack of support for, Johnson鈥檚 war in Vietnam was a source of unbridled irritation in the White House. Trump and May The last time Trump became president, Theresa May was prime minister and she travelled with undisguised haste to the White House. There she achieved a highly untypical diplomatic coup in getting Trump to commit publicly to Nato (that bars should be so low was a general feature of the presidency). Their subsequent relationship was, however, . No prime minister has been less likely to gaze, to bond (), and the president held her as having mangled Brexit, a bid for freedom with which he was keen to associate himself. Before the US election, Starmer displayed a unfamiliar deftness of touch, and banked some credit. His immediate phone call to candidate Trump following an attempt on his life in July was both bold and smart. There followed the fabled . It was more typical for Starmer that when it emerged, in a most unfortunate echo of 1992, Labour activists 鈥� and Starmer鈥檚 own pollster 鈥� were working on the Kamala Harris campaign, Trump鈥檚 people cried foreign interference and threatened legal action. And the two in Starmer鈥檚 team who will have the most exposure to the new administration have both been publicly rude about Trump. David Lammy, now foreign secretary, 鈥渄eluded, dishonest, xenophobic [and] narcissistic鈥� in 2019. Peter Mandelson, nominated but not yet confirmed as the UK ambassador to the US, has about Trump being a 鈥渂ully鈥� and a 鈥渄anger to the world鈥�. To appease opposition in DC on his appointment, Mandelson has since turned on a sixpence (or perhaps a dime). This is, at root, about Trump. No other president would have attracted such comments from frontline politicians. But from TV studio to TV studio, Lammy and Mandelson will have those quotes hung about their necks as if they were modern-day ancient mariners. Starmer鈥檚 innate caution in public utterance, in this area at least, has inured him. Indeed, the repercussions of his unusual boldness in over a career diplomat may discourage Starmer from ever thinking imaginatively again. Most members of the Trump administration would be naturally hostile to a Labour government even without its leading figures insulting their boss or campaigning for his opponent. Certainly, the grounds for disagreement are great: the threat of tariffs, demanded increases in defence spending, the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, co-operation with China and support for Ukraine. Thus Morgan McSweeney 鈥� architect of Labour鈥檚 2024 victory, planner of its re-election and Starmer鈥檚 chief of staff 鈥� flew out to meet Susie Wiles, his equivalent in the White House. (It did not, a person privy to such information told me, go well. Voices were raised.) Elon Musk, this moment鈥檚 most prominent presidential acolyte on X, 鈥淪tarmer must go鈥�, adding for good measure, 鈥淗e is a national embarrassment.鈥� It is indeed embarrassing 鈥� for Starmer 鈥� but he will be consoled with the well-founded suspicion that the life-expectancy of Musk and Trump鈥檚 tech bromance will be much less than four years. Cause for self-reflection The return of Trump, emboldened and more powerful than before, has effectively forced the posing of the age-old question: over which expanse of sea should Britain gaze 鈥� the Channel or the Atlantic? Churchill thought it should 鈥� and that only Britain could 鈥� . Hence, perhaps, about the possible destination of his first international trip: 鈥淚t could be UK. Traditionally, it鈥檚 been UK.鈥� It hasn鈥檛. Only Jimmy Carter, in 1977, and Joe Biden, in 2021, visited the UK first 鈥� and then because of summits. More than a few presidents (most recently Ford and Johnson) didn鈥檛 visit at all. But even what might have been a supportive comment was laced with arsenic: 鈥淟ast time, I went to Saudi Arabia because they agreed to buy 450 billion dollars鈥� worth of United States merchandise 鈥� And if that offer were right, I鈥檇 do that again.鈥� Which at least may free the British government to be as unsentimentally transactional. Trump and Starmer achieved big victories, albeit when painted in the most flattering terms. Starmer鈥檚 came on a historically low combination of vote share and voter turnout, Trump鈥檚 with fewer votes than Biden. But Trump will like that Starmer won a large majority. When May managed to lose hers in 2017, what little respect Trump had for her went with it. Starmer would much rather have had four years with Biden, and even more with Harris, another public prosecutor of the left. But he has to deal with the transatlantic relationship as it is, rather than as he would wish it to be, and this one is most unlikely to be special. Starmer is, moreover, a realist. Which is why he鈥檒l also know that the second Trump presidency will be much more consequential than the first. Caution may have limited effect. , Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}