The special relationship that wasn't
What a week for Britain's 'special relationship'. Keir Starmer headed to Scotland to sit in near silence at a press conference with President Trump, as the US leader attacked implicitly or overtly his policies on energy and tax as well as tearing apart his 'friend' the mayor of London. Starmer delayed his announcement on the recognition of a Palestinian state until his visit was over. Unlike Macron, Starmer's declaration came with conditions attached, partly in the hope of staying as close as possible to Trump. Even now No 10 hopes to be a 'bridgehead' between the US and the countries recognising a Palestinian state. Starmer's moves are made with the US in mind.
Why do so many prime ministers set such store by the so-called 'special relationship' with the US? They seek out the presidential embrace, while aware of the darkness that swamped their predecessors who did the same.
One of the great posthumous commentators on contemporary politics is the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook – a figure with whom I suspect Starmer would have had considerable affinity in his former role as a human rights lawyer. In Cook's diaries, published in his book, The Point of Departure, the then cabinet minister exposed brilliantly the shallow evasiveness of the 'bridgehead' role: 'Tony Blair's favourite image of Britain's relationship with the US is that we are its bridge to Europe…The concept of a bridge is perfectly tailored for New Labour as a bridge cannot make choices, but by definition is in the middle'.
The observation is illuminating on many levels. In some respects, Starmer has been unfairly criticised for lacking the clear sense of purpose and direction possessed by Blair on all fronts. It was Cook's view, at least, that Blair also avoided hard choices until he had to make them. At which point he went for the least daunting option. When he was forced to choose between Europe and the US over Iraq, he sided with President George Bush, with the full support of the Tory leadership and Conservative newspapers – his comfort zone. When the war went horribly wrong a lot of the fickle admirers turned on him. The special relationship did not lead to a comfort zone for Blair.
It never does for British prime ministers. When Clement Attlee won in 1945 the country was broke and urgently needed huge investment in public services, as it does now. Attlee found a way of raising the cash by negotiating a loan with the US, Britain's recent wartime ally. The terms Attlee secured were brutally punitive for the UK and hugely beneficial to the US. It is the reason why Britain's change making Labour government lasted nowhere near as long as the Conservative's equivalent elected in 1979 – the toll taken on the economy was great, as Attlee and his colleagues addressed the huge costs of repaying the loan.
A deeply divided Labour Party was in opposition for 13 years after losing the 1951 election. A main source of the division was Attlee's final attempts to reassure the US on its ambitions for defence spending. Attlee greatly increased expenditure on arms. The party split over the introduction of prescription charges to pay for some of the spending. Fast forward to now: what services will be hit as the current government meets its plans to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, partly to please Trump?
A few years after Attlee left No 10, Anthony Eden became the next prime minister to fall, partly over assumptions about the US. When Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal, Eden's immediate instinct was to respond with force. He was a brief hero for the summer of 1956, as he outlined his plans for war. By the end of the summer President Dwight Eisenhower made it clear he would not back Eden. The British prime minister was taken aback but dared to hope for neutrality from his partner in Washington. Eisenhower was not neutral. He opposed the prime minister's military plan. The then chancellor, Harold Macmillan, also discovered that the US would hit the fragile British economy if Eden went ahead.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Without the US, he could not do so. He was gone by January of the following a year, a fall in some ways more dramatic than that of Liz Truss. Eden could not survive after his misplaced faith in the special relationship destroyed him.
After this, British foreign policy became a little more realistic. Macmillan had seen first hand that the US could not be relied on. He sought and failed to join what was then the Common Market. In the 1960s, Harold Wilson also tried to sign up, again without success. But he demonstrated Britain could be independent of the US when he did not offer military support in Vietnam. President Lyndon B Johnson was furious, but Wilson held his ground. The current government's ministerial historian, Nick Thomas-Symonds, cites Wilson's decision as the bravest foreign policy move of any Labour prime minister. Wilson's successor, Edward Heath, was not remotely bothered by the special relationship, and instead negotiated Britain's membership of the Common Market.
As with domestic policy, Margaret Thatcher changed all assumptions. Her friendship with President Ronald Reagan was part of her image as the Iron Lady, bestriding the world stage. In the 1980s Blair and Gordon Brown watched her on a TV screen in their cramped shared office as she was feted in Washington. In contrast their leader, Neil Kinnock, was treated dismissively when he made to the US. Blair concluded that a Labour leader could never win elections if at odds with a US president. The seeds of Iraq were sown in the 1980s. But there was a twist. When Thatcher turned to Reagan for support at the start of the Falklands War he hesitated. Even when the 'special relationship' was based on genuine rapport, Reagan did not deliver when Thatcher needed him.
There are good reasons to want the special relationship to work. Intelligence sharing is of mutual interest. The US has agency and economic might as no other. When it is possible to work with presidents it is obviously best to do so. But why do so many prime ministers, with the exception of Macmillan, Wilson and Heath, become victims of their hunger to be at one with the US, whatever the circumstances and characters in the White House?
Part of the answer lies in Britain's equivocal attitude to Europe. Another has to do with the sheer glamour as prime ministers head for the White House compared to, say, the hard grind of an EU summit. For Labour prime ministers being 'shoulder to shoulder' with a US president is a short term way of getting approval from right wing British newspapers. But they do not dare to see that the 'special relationship' traps them as they move knowingly towards their political incarceration.
[See also: A Trump shaped elephant]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Rachel Reeves making ‘even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss, says Kemi Badenoch
The Tory leader hit out at the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for their economic decisions as she drew a critical comparison to her predecessor at the top of the Conservative Party. 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes,' Mrs Badenoch wrote in The Telegraph. 'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch hit out at the Chancellor and the Prime Minister (Paul Marriott/PA) Short-lived Conservative prime minister Ms Truss's mini-budget spooked the financial markets in 2022 and led to a spike in mortgage rates. 'As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets,' Mrs Badenoch added. 'Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. 'Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other.' The Chancellor earlier admitted Labour had 'disappointed' people while in Government, but said that the Government had got the balance right between tax, spending and borrowing. Rachel Reeves said she could not please everyone as Chancellor (Yui Mok/PA) She told an audience at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival that balancing the books meant making tough decisions, even if the are unpopular. Appearing on the Iain Dale All Talk Fringe show, she said: 'The reason people voted Labour at the last election is they want to change and they were unhappy with the way that the country was being governed. 'They know that we inherited a mess. They know it's not easy to put it right, but people are impatient for change. 'I'm impatient for change as well, but I've also got the job of making sure the sums always add up – and it doesn't always make you popular because you can't do anything you might want to do. You certainly can't do everything straight away, all at once.' Ms Reeves pointed to Labour's £200 million investment in carbon capture in the north-east of Scotland, which she said was welcomed by the industry. The Chancellor defended Labour's windfall tax on energy companies (Andrew Milligan/PA) At the same time, Labour's windfall tax, she said, was not liked by the sector. 'I can understand that that's extra tax that the oil and gas sector are paying, but you can't really have one without the other,' she said. Defending Labour's record, she said her party had the 'balance about right'. 'But of course you're going to disappoint people,' she added. 'No-one wants to pay more taxes. 'Everyone wants more money than public spending – and borrowing is not a free option, because you've got to pay for it. 'I think people know those sort of constraints, but no-one really likes them and I'm the one, I guess, that has to sort the sums up.' Ms Reeves said Labour had to deliver on its general election campaign of change, adding that her party did not 'deserve' to win the next election if it does not deliver the change it promised.
Times
42 minutes ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's not the issue. But nor were Johnson, May, Brown…
'The end is Nige.' That was how The Sun's front page reported my discovery, in 2017, that 'Nigel' had fallen off the official list of baby names. At the time, it seemed not just striking but symbolic: with Ukip at 2 per cent in the polls, and its former leader out of frontline politics, Nigel's best days really did seem to lie in the past. Last week, the list came out again. In the register office as in public life, Nigel was firmly back, with five boys both this year and last — one of whom even joined the Reform leader on the campaign trail in Clacton. Rishi was there, and Kemi too. But poor old Keir had disappeared. Again, the symbolism was irresistible. This time last year, Starmer was at his height as prime minister, delivering a muscular response to the riots that captured the national mood. But he has steadily become more and more disliked. Today, only 19 per cent of voters tell YouGov he is doing a good job, against 69 per cent who disagree. As of the latest polls, he is in the negatives even among Labour voters. • Top baby names in England and Wales revealed — but no new Keirs There are all sorts of reasons why this has happened — which you could fairly summarise as a bad hand, badly played. But what fascinates me is the familiarity of the Labour response. Back in the Boris Johnson days, and the Theresa May days, and the Gordon Brown days, any given setback would usually be accompanied by briefings about the flaws in the No 10 team. The prime minister, journalists would report, was deeply frustrated by the failures they saw, and would be reshuffling their team to get a personal grip. That, or the problem was that they had become overly dependent on — almost hypnotised by — a particular adviser or advisers. Now, with lessons learnt, we would see the real Boris. The real Theresa. The real Gordon. There are two intellectual traditions at work here — one old and one new. The new one is that a generation of politicians have grown up watching The West Wing, and in particular the scene where the struggling administration decides that it needs to cast off caution and pragmatism and allow Martin Sheen's president to be the campaigning, crusading figure who first inspired them: 'Let Bartlet be Bartlet!' goes the cry. But the second tradition is far older. Indeed, it's one of the oldest patterns in political history. In Britain, as in many other countries and cultures, it was not just treason but verging on heresy to criticise a divinely appointed king. So the discontented would always stress that their complaints were not about the wise and goodly monarch, but the evil counsellors around them. As late as the Civil War, the Roundheads blamed the outbreak of hostilities not on Charles I himself, but 'an abounding malignity in those parties and Factions; who doe still labour to foment Jealosies betwixt the King and this Parliament' — godless bishops, sinister Jesuits and treacherous nobles. It took six full years of war for them to adopt the literally revolutionary position that the blame truly lay with 'Charles Stuart, that man of blood'. Studying recent reporting, you can see exactly the same themes. We have had the briefing for and against the prime minister's favourite — aka his chief of staff. The reports of new blood being brought in to freshen things up. Accounts of how the prime minister will take a personal grip on the policy-making process, since decisions were reaching him too late in the day. (By miraculous coincidence, the main mistake cited, making cuts to welfare, was also hugely unpopular with Labour backbenchers.) We have had a cabinet awayday with excited talk of a 'progressive pivot', and rebuilding the government around the prime minister's personal obsession with 'life chances'. 'It was all very 'Let Keir be Keir',' claimed an anonymous minister. • Keir Starmer needs his authority back. Can a Blairite veteran help? But the problem for the government is that it's never the advisers. It's always the king. Just like it was for King John or Charles I or any of the others. Indeed, one of the peculiarities of the British state is that there are surprisingly few formal, institutional structures around the prime minister. Instead, Downing Street functions almost like a royal court, moulding itself around the personality of each new incumbent. And once set, that mould is surprisingly hard to break. Certainly, it is a lot easier to list the excitable articles about prime ministerial relaunches, revamps and resets than examples of such resets actually working. Ironically, for all her intractable reputation, one of the few to manage it is arguably Margaret Thatcher, who retooled her administration in 1981-2 after receiving perhaps the most wounding memo ever sent to a PM by their underlings. ('Your own management competence, like that of most of your colleagues, is almost non-existent … You break every rule of good man-management. You bully your weaker colleagues. You criticise colleagues in front of each other and in front of their officials…').As for 'let Keir be Keir', who will Keir actually be? We've been told, over the years, that the Starmer mission is all about service, or change, or radicalism, or necessary decisions. But it feels like a series of attempts to project a personality, and a narrative, on to a blank screen. Recently, on the train back from Kyiv, my colleague Josh Glancy asked Starmer about standing in the spotlight of history. The PM, he wrote, bristled impatiently: 'I don't do all this self-analysis bit. I thought you'd picked that up a year ago. You're still desperately trying to get in there. Come on.' Starmer's position is that his job is not to construct fancy theories. It is to sit down and do the work — to make decision after decision until there are no more problems left to solve. But all truly successful politicians tell a story about themselves. Whitehall, too, works best when everyone can buy into a single shared narrative, imposed from the centre. Starmer not only hasn't done that, but actively resists it. The result, to steal a put-down from Bismarck, is that he ends up seeming like a Sphinx without a riddle. And the government ends up with a majority but no mission. It may be that the PM can turn things around — that by the time he leaves office, maternity wards will be packed with little Keirs, Morgans and Angelas. But I can't help feeling that progressive Keir will soon be discarded alongside change Keir, growth Keir, and tough decisions Keir with kung-fu grip. Because if there's one lesson from history for our leaders, it's that the fault lies not in their advisers, but in themselves.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine. (PA Graphics) It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel. On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year. Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs. According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described anyone who sells the 'promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral' (Jacob King/PA) The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024. NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models. Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help. Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope. The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem. 'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing. 'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
