Much as Starmer’s
government has attempted to deal with Farage and domestic right wing
populism by bending towards it (some might say falling over towards
it), Starmer has tried to deal with Trump in a similar manner. One
obvious example is inviting him for a state visit. Another was
probably the appointment of Peter Mandleson as US Ambassador.
The reasons for
trying to keep on the good side of Donald Trump are obvious. He is
effectively the all powerful monarch of one of the two most powerful
countries in the world, and getting on the wrong side of him is
likely to have significant costs for any smaller nation that does so.
Trump’s main weapon for imposing these costs is tariffs. For
example, he has imposed
50% tariffs on Brazil because they have dared
prosecute a former right wing President who attempted to overturn
by force an election he lost.
One problem that is
common with both strategies, either appealing to voters attracted to
Reform and appealing to or flattering Donald Trump, is that this
alienates the majority of your voters who dislike right wing
populism. Mandelson’s close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and
his support for him even after he had been convicted, was
unacceptable to UK public opinion, but it meant he had a lot in
common with Donald Trump, who also was a close friend of Epstein.
This fact also probably meant that Mandelson and Trump had
personality traits in common, which again would make the task of
flattering and persuading Trump easier. It was almost certainly one
of the reasons Mandelson was appointed in the first place. It is
probably no coincidence that McSweeney, who is one of the architects
of Labour’s attempts to copy Farage on immigration and asylum
policy, is
said to have been keen in appointing Mandelson.
Mandelson’s
support for Epstein was not acceptable to the UK public, anymore than
Prince Andrew’s friendship was. I personally have had little time
for Mandelson ever since I briefly met him when I was a student. I
can also see why much of the media would like to treat Mandelson’s
departure in isolation, rather than as anything to do with Donald
Trump. But this seems quite wrong, and potentially hypocritical, to
me. Mandelson was appointed in good part because Donald Trump had
been elected as POTUS. If Kamala Harris had become POTUS, it seems
unlikely Mandelson would have got that job.
If you think
Starmer’s judgement was bad in appointing Mandelson, then surely
you need to address the fact that his appointment was part of a
strategy to deal with Donald Trump. You might need to explain why you
think Mandelson’s appointment was a mistake, but yet giving Trump a
state visit is OK. After all, Trump has not only had a close
relationship with Epstein but, unlike Mandelson, seems to have had
similar sexual predilections. There is also the small matter of Trump
encouraging a coup to overturn the election of the previous POTUS,
and generally turning the US into a fascist state.
Are there risks
beyond alienating domestic public opinion in the strategy of trying
to flatter and appease Donald Trump? I can think of two major additional problems, which again link to problems with following right wing
populists on immigration and asylum. The first is that the more the
UK government treats Trump as just another POTUS, rather than the
dangerous fascist that he is, the more difficult it is to criticise
Reform when they copy Trump’s policies. One of Reform’s major
weaknesses is that its members, who are getting elected in increasing
numbers, actually like and often try to copy what Trump is doing.
Most UK voters, by contrast, do not. Explicitly branding Reform as
Trump surrogates is a powerful weapon to use against them, but one
the UK government has not used because I suspect they worry about
Trump’s reaction. The parallel here is how the government, by
constantly talking up the issue of asylum or immigration, plays into
Farage’s hands.
The second reason is
that it normalises Trump in the minds of decision makers and the
media as well as voters. An event of far greater importance to the UK
than Mandelson’s departure happened this week, and that was Russia
firing a large number of drones at Poland. Most were unarmed, so it
is highly unlikely that they all wandered into Poland by mistake when
their intended target was Ukraine. Poland certainly doesn’t think
it was an accident. Instead this looks like a deliberate act by Putin
to test the water. The muted reaction from Poland’s NATO allies (as
Phillips
O’Brien notes NATO could not even call it an attack)
together with the remark that it could be a mistake from Trump
himself, might suggest to Putin that the water is rather inviting
from his point of view.
If Putin did in the
next few years try and invade one of the Baltic states, for example,
it seems likely that the United States would do what it could to stop
NATO responding. The more other NATO country leaders have a mindset
that involves trying to placate Trump, the more vulnerable they
become to Trump acting as Putin’s inside man. The parallel here is
that the more government ministers say that dealing with asylum
seekers is one of the most important issues facing this country, the
more they as well as voters will believe it. It leads ministers to
take actions that do harm to individuals and also to the other goals
of government, like
increasing living standards.
At the end of the
day this is an issue of getting the balance right at any moment of
time rather than a binary flip to a policy that does the complete
opposite. Europe cannot afford to completely antagonise Trump right
now if only because Ukraine needs the modest support the US still
provides. Similarly Labour needs a distinctive policy on asylum and
immigration rather than one that is completely laissez faire. But as
with domestic policy, UK foreign policy towards Trump does seem to
have got that balance a bit wrong. The appointment of Mandelson and
Trump’s state visit suggest current UK foreign policy is too
unbalanced in favour of appeasing Trump.
We desperately need
Starmer and other ministers to say that while we need to work with
Trump, his values are not the values of the great majority of the
British people. This is the same as the need for Starmer and other
ministers to fight back against the rising tide of domestic racism
and intolerance. If Starmer has advisers who counsel against such a
fight back because it might offend Trump or lose a few votes those
advisers need to go, because in our current situation they are
dangerous. If Starmer and any ministers themselves believe it is best
to stay quiet for risk of offending Trump or some voters then I’m
afraid they are in the wrong place at a critical time, and should go.
And for god sake do something about overseas
funding, X and Musk.
Source link
