Keir Starmer ended last year with a “Trump love-in”, in his Mansion House speech. But Labour’s placatory approach to Trump is both bad policy and bad politics.
Ministers have ducked or walked back previous criticisms of Trump. That he is a convicted fraudster, adjudicated rapist and Nazi apologist now appears taboo in Westminster. Starmer and David Lammy went to Trump Tower to kiss the ring well before the election (deference rarely accorded to presidential candidates). There is talk of Trump becoming the first elected politician to be accorded a second state visit.
This reflects Labour’s overarching philosophy. Starmer has filled key roles with veterans of the Brown and Miliband eras. Heavily influenced by the perceived electoral success of David Cameron and George Osborne, they believe that winning public trust on the economy is everything. Voters will see the benefits of growth for themselves and reward Labour at the ballot box. Labour is, accordingly, totally focused on modelling a version of “economic competence” defined largely by fiscal rectitude. It’s a classic case of “fighting the last war”.
It makes sense to compromise across the board if fiscal rectitude would mean the UK gets off a bit lighter when Trump starts imposing tariffs or otherwise seeks to disrupt other economies. Policymakers often repeat the mantra that Trump is “transactional”, and seem to believe that if you give him something, he will give you something in return. Labour thinks it has things that Trump wants: the pomp and circumstance of a royal visit, willingness to be “tough” on immigration (as if every other mainstream party doesn’t say the same), and higher defence spending, as the Strategic Defence Review will likely recommend.
But it won’t work. First, flattering Trump’s ego can’t protect the UK from the global ramifications of his presidency. 2025 kicked off with panic in the global bond markets as investors predict Trump’s protectionism will stoke inflation. The UK’s borrowing costs have, as a result, reached a 16-year high. Second, Trump won’t be placated by weasel words and tea with the King. He may like to play the “businessman” but, as Angela Merkel recalled, his version is stuck in the 1980s New York real estate market. Trump needs to dominate and be seen to dominate. He has no concept of increasing prosperity through cooperation. Third, the Maga project is fuelled by conflict. There must always be an enemy: the “deep state”, “woke", immigrants, “decadent” Europe. No concession will ever be sufficient because the project isn’t interested in workable policy. It’s raison d’etre is constant conflict. They have no reason to compromise with Labour. In Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, Trump will always have preferable alternatives. Trump’s ally, Elon Musk, has already publicised his desire to oust Starmer.
Starmer’s conciliation policy, moreover, actively harms both Labour’s political hopes and UK democracy. The prime minister’s public obsequiousness legitimises Trump and the politics for which he stands. Trump is part of the global far-right. Musk’s support for Alternative for Germany and the UK far right comes as little surprise because Trump essentially stands for the same things as them. He embraces conspiracy theories, from QAnon to racist claims that immigrants “eat pets”, to an obsession with the “deep state”. He lies with impunity, appeals to the most extreme forms of nationalism and referred to attendees of an openly neo-Nazi rally as “very fine people”. His political appeal rests on demonising the marginalised. Meanwhile, his policies funnel wealth into the pockets of the super-rich. Legitimising Trump sends the signal that far-right felons are entitled to respect and subservience.
It also legitimises Trumpian political strategies in the UK. While Labour still thinks it can win on “economic competence”, Badenoch and Farage understand politics is increasingly about “vibes” rather than reality. The furore over “grooming gangs” exemplifies this: Labour sought to address the problem of organised grooming by implementing the Jay Report into sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Badenoch and Farage rejected this and, instead, demanded another inquiry, amplifying far-right conspiracy theories about the “mass rape” of white girls by Asian and immigrant men, when in fact most grooming gang offences are carried out by white men. Labour’s majority is wide but not deep: If a few thousand people in the right constituencies believe what they hear on social media, then Labour will lose the next election, regardless of economic growth. It should avoid legitimising “vibes”-based politics.
Labour could do differently, of course. Starmer can be a gatekeeper of the political mainstream. He can use his position to delegitimise Trump and the politics for which he stands. This would be good politics. Trump is hugely unpopular in the UK, and voters will likely react well to a little backbone. Afterall, Tony Blair’s political reputation fell apart because he was seen as a lapdog to a US president.
Rather than plead for small concessions (which are unlikely to come) Starmer must be prepared to spend money to protect British industry from the impacts of Trump’s policies and work more closely with Europe on trade and defence. The prime minister could go down as another centrist who waved in the far right, or the leader of the resistance. Both Labour’s and Britain’s interests lie with the latter.
