The dynamics of the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the two nations are set for a dramatic test.

The influence of American political trends on British politics is nothing new. For years, the Conservative Party has maintained strong connections with US think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, an organisation that Margaret Thatcher was closely involved with. Since turning our back on the EU, this influence from across the Atlantic has only accelerated.

The trade deal with America that was supposed to mitigate our economic losses post-Brexit has yet to materialise. Boris Johnson’s government pursued a free trade deal with the last Trump administration, but it collapsed due to concerns about US agricultural standards, such as hormone-treated beef, and chlorine-washed chicken.

Then a win for Joe Biden in 2020 put a stop to it altogether. Yet the Americanisation of British politics has rumbled on, as seen through aggressive culture wars, gradual privatisation of our health service, dark money from US think tanks, and more.

So, what happens now with a Labour prime minister and a far-right president-elect working in tandem? The dynamics of the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the two nations are set for a dramatic test.

Will Keir Starmer simply suck up to Trump, adhering to the usual Foreign Office protocol on the US, or will he show some spine, stand up to him, and focus on collaboration with European allies?

There is speculation that Starmer might try to appease both sides. Such approach is favoured by Peter Mandelson, the frontrunner for the US ambassador role, who has expressed hope that Starmer can “have its cake and eat it” by staying on good terms with both sides.

Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, suggested Britain might find itself in a position to benefit from both US and EU relationships.

However, some argue that this balancing act would be difficult and warn that navigating US trade negotiations without the EU’s support would be a tough challenge, especially with Trump’s demands on tariffs and trade.

In a recent article, the Times political editor Steven Swinford argued that the UK will need to ‘tread carefully’ on Trump tariffs to avert a trade war, with the president-elect proposing blanket tariffs of up to 20 percent on all imports, a move that, according to the report, could cost the UK £21.5 billion and drive-up inflation.

Swinford notes how officials have drawn up plans to retaliate with tariffs on US imports to the UK but how the newspaper has been told that ministers do not want to take a “protectionist” approach, which they fear could provoke Republicans and achieve little.

“They are also concerned that any reaction could lead to more punitive response from Trump,” the report states.

At a time when Starmer had begun working to mend fences with Europe, after years of acrimony under the Conservatives, he’s come under pressure from the US to pick a side.

Trump’s economic adviser Stephen Moore issued a warning that the UK needed to make a choice between the ‘socialist’ EU and US and would suffer from tariffs across the Atlantic unless it accepted a trade deal with Trump.

This puts pressure on Starmer, who has already faced criticism from pro-EU campaigners for ruling out a return to the single market, customs union, and free movement of people.

Growing calls for a major change in policy on EU membership

The re-election of Trump has spurred growing calls for the UK to reconsider its relationship with the EU. A petition calling for Britain to apply to rejoin the EU has gained tens of thousands of signatures, with pro-EU campaigners like Mike Galsworthy, chair of the European Movement UK, arguing that the public is ready for a new conversation about Europe.

This week, former Green Party MP Caroline Lucas took over as joint president of the European Movement UK. Emphasising the importance of rebuilding the relationship with the EU, Lucas said: “The prospect of Donald Trump in the White House should focus minds on the importance of being guided by our values, and on urgently rebuilding our relationship with the EU as the best way to ensure economic security and climate resilience.” 

But if Starmer and foreign secretary David Lammy’s initial reactions to Trump’s win are any indication, it seems they may be more inclined to take a more conciliatory approach. Both quickly extended congratulatory messages to Trump. In a move many found excessively gushing, Starmer effused somewhat too enthusiastically:

“Congratulations President-elect Trump on your historic election victory. I look forward to working with you in the years ahead.

“As the closest of allies, we stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our shared values of freedom, democracy and enterprise.

“From growth and security to innovation and tech, I know that the UK-US special relationship will continue to prosper on both sides of the Atlantic for years to come.”

Lammy, who had previously called Trump “deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic” and a “neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath,” went even further, telling the BBC that the president-elect was “someone that we can build a relationship within our national interest.”

He even praised Trump’s election campaign as “very well run”, adding that: “I felt in my bones that there could be a Trump presidency.”

These sycophantic comments did not go unnoticed. Right-wing commentators naturally seized on the so-called ‘hypocrisy,’ with publications like Spiked labelling Lammy a “liability for Britain” and accusing him of being “Trump-deranged.”

The reaction nonetheless raised the question – Will Labour be able to rise to the challenge of managing the US-UK relationship without simply becoming another pawn in Trump’s geopolitical game? Or maybe, the real challenge is to know what game Trump is actually playing, given that he himself doesn’t seem to know half the time.

By way of contrast to the government, the response of London mayor Sadiq Khan to Trump’s return to power demonstrates how worried some within the party are and are not afraid to share it. Khan, who has clashed with Trump before, withheld any congratulations and instead issued a statement highlighting worries over the state of democracy, women’s rights, and international stability.

The statement read: “I know that many Londoners will be anxious about the outcome of the US Presidential election. Many will be fearful about what it will mean for democracy and for women’s rights, or how the result impacts the situation in the Middle East or the fate of Ukraine. Others will be worried about the future of NATO or tackling the climate crisis.

“The lesson of today is that progress is not inevitable. But asserting our progressive values is more important than ever – re-committing to building a world where racism and hatred is rejected, the fundamental rights of women and girls are upheld, and where we continue to tackle the crisis of climate change head on.”

Bolder reaction from the Lib Dems

Other political figures have been more critical of Trump. When the results came in, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey called Trump a “destructive demagogue” and suggested that the UK should act as a “critical friend” to the US. He called for the government to deepen trade ties with the EU as potential US tariffs loom, and for a London summit on Ukraine for European leaders to co-ordinate before Trump takes office.

For the political right of course, Trump’s victory is cause for celebration. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, floated the idea of Trump addressing Parliament. Predictably, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who celebrated Trump’s presidential victory with him at a party in Florida, hasn’t held back, saying that the UK should “roll out the red carpet” for the US president-elect.

And the result has certainly emboldened Farage supporters.

“Donald Trump’s victory means Nigel Farage ‘has a shot’ at being prime minister at next election – ‘It is very plausible!’”, headlined GB News.

And right-wing media outlets in Britain have certainly jumped on the chance to frame Trump’s victory as an opportunity for Britain to assert its independence from the EU. Murdoch’s Times devoted its front page to the thoughts of Trump’s adviser, Stephen Moore, who argued that the UK must choose between the “socialist” European model and the US free-market system.

‘Dump the socialist EU, Trump aide tells Britain,” was its lead headline last Saturday.

Meanwhile, an Express ‘poll’ also attempted to stir the pot. “Blow for Keir Starmer’s EU negotiation plans as public say US is a more important ally,” was the headline on November 18.

There are real concerns about the country’s – and world’s – future under a Trump presidency, and how nations will respond. Trump’s vow to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement for the second time will place greater responsibility on countries like the UK to make bigger reductions on their climate pollution. But it could also lead some nations to reconsider the extent of their own efforts, questioning the value of their commitments when the world’s second-largest emitter is stepping back from its obligations.

Additionally, Trump’s threat to pull out of NATO and cut aid to Ukraine puts pressure on countries like the UK to increase defence budgets. Starmer is being urged to consider an emergency cash injection into defence and to accelerate Britain’s planned review of its military capabilities before Trump’s return to the White House. Admiral Lord West, a former chief of the naval staff who served as Labour’s security minister under Gordon Brown, said that Trump’s election presents an opportunity to demonstrate Britain’s willingness to step up on defence, amid the incoming US president’s criticism that European nations have failed to prioritise it.

For progressives, the world looks more precarious and lonelier than before, with the potential for economic strain from US tariffs and further erosion of democratic and environmental values. Ed Davey’s called for Starmer to hold a “Save Ukraine” European summit, warning that the second Donald Trump presidency risks having a “devastating” effect on European security, is one attempt to rally a coordinated European response to Trump’s presidency. But there are fears that Starmer lacks the political will to confront the US or take a harder stance on Brexit-related issues.

So, the headache for Starmer and his government comes down to this. For eighty years the ‘special relationship’ (admittedly more special for us than them) with the US has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy. However, there has never been a president like Trump before who denigrates the post-war international foundations on which both the US and the UK have invested so much political effort. By and large, for most of those years, British economic interests also dovetailed with those of the US. Trump’s trade protectionism and climate change denial means that is unlikely to be the case for much longer.
It would be good to see Starmer confronting and addressing these new political realities.  Unfortunately, one suspects that he will rely on Trump’s volatility and minimal attention span to avoid the need for decisive political action.

Right-wing media watch – ‘Tesco £1bn budget bill fuels….’ misinformation and vitriol by the Sunday Times

If we were handing out awards for the ‘most misleading headline of the year’ the Sunday Times would definitely be on the shortlist with this one.

‘Tesco’s £1bn budget bill fuels price rise fears,’ it splashed on November 10, followed by the subtext: ‘National insurance hike for Britain’s biggest private employer emerges as business anger grows.’

I must admit that I didn’t get any further because the rest of the article was hidden behind a paywall that I refuse to pay for, as if I did pay for all such paywalls, I would find myself out of pocket.  

So I, along with countless readers, are invariably left thinking, wow, times must be really tough for the UK’s biggest supermarket chain, which reported a bumper year in sales and profits for 23/24, making a pre-tax £2.3bn profit, up from £882m, while sales rose by 4.4 percent to £68.2bn in the year to February 24.

Still, a £1bn budget bill is a lot to pay for any multi-billion profit company, and if you accept the Sunday Times’ headline at face value, you could even start feeling sorry for Britain’s biggest and most profitable supermarket.

Naturally, other right-wing papers followed with the same misleading headline. ‘Fears of supermarket price raises as Tesco faces extra £1BILLION tax bill under Labour after Rachel Reeves’ National Insurance raid,’ splashed the Daily Mail.

Without the paywall barricade, I was able to dig deeper and benefit from the full context of the story.

The body of the article admits that the supermarket will have to pay £250 million more for each year of the next five years under a Labour government, according to analysis by Morgan Stanley.

So, £1bn is the total figure Tesco will pay over the next four years of the current parliament, equating to £250 million a year, around 11 percent of its profits for the 23/24 financial year. Significant, yes, but hardly the same ‘let’s make sure our readers despise Labour for ‘decimating’ businesses with national insurance hikes’ ring to it.

The Mail’s article refers to Sainsbury’s boss Simon Roberts earlier comments that the ‘tax bomb budget’ will cause higher food prices, and Marks and Spencer’s warning it was facing ‘pretty significant costs to mitigate against.’

Yet, curiously, Tesco, the focus of this sensationalist headline, had no such dramatic warnings to share.

A classic example of anti-Labour, corporate propaganda masquerading as journalism – definitely a runner for the ‘most misleading headline of the year’ award.

Smear of the week – Not a smear in sight for the farmers! 

Talk about double standards. This week’s smear of the week should be renamed ‘smear free zone.’

When environmentalists caused disruption in Central London in June, they were labelled “eco fanatics.”

“Clueless eco-mobsters argue with officer trying to clear the road,” cried the Daily Mail, citing a van driver fuming “get out the f***ing road.”

And let’s not forget that five Just Stop Oil activists received prison sentences of four to five years for their M25 blockade in 2022.

Meanwhile, this week’s standstill in Central London caused by angry farmers was a different story altogether. The Sun’s front page proudly proclaimed:

“Clarkson’s Farmy Army: Jez on march with 20,000,” alongside an image of a purposeful-looking Jeremy Clarkson, arms folded, ready to lead the charge against the newly dubbed “tractor tax.” Curiously, there wasn’t a smear in sight.

The farmers’ ire has rumbled on since the budget, when it was announced that they will have to pay 20 percent tax on inherited agricultural assets worth more than £1m from April 2026. Critics claim the new tax will destroy family farms. But Starmer has doubled down on his claim that the “vast majority of farms and farmers” will be unaffected by changes.

“… for a typical case, which is parents with a farm they want to pass on to one of their children, by the time you’ve taken into account not only the exemption for the farm property itself, but also the exemption for spouse to spouse, then parent to child, it’s £3m before any inheritance tax will be payable,” the PM has explained.

Familiar political faces including Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and Nigel Farage joined the thousands of unconvinced farmers who gathered in London. 

“I can feel myself that today is not just about inheritance tax. It really is farmers versus Starmer,” said a beaming Farage, much to the delight of the likes of GB News, which splashed:

“Farmers applaud as Nigel Farage joins protest against ‘destructive’ tax raid – ‘Sort them out, Nigel!”

The media’s hypocrisy didn’t go unnoticed.

“If you bring central London to a halt in order to campaign against catastrophic climate change then you’re a “barmy” eco “fanatic” who deserves to be locked up. If you do the same on to your multimillion-pound inheritance tax exemption then you’re a brave freedom fighter defying the odds,” journalist Adam Bienkov wrote on X.

“As thousands of farmers arrive in Westminster today, a reminder that some of the Just Stop Loil protest saw protestors give years in prison for their actions. How many wealthy farmers do we think will see the same punishment,” asked The Not Essential on Instagram.

Nope, sadly, the only thing under scrutiny is the eco agenda – the most pressing issue facing the world today – while the tractors roll through London unscathed, driven by farmers riding high on a wave of right-wing sympathy and support.

And finally, to finish with Jeremy Clarkson, who desperately back tracked on his 2021 admission that he bought his Cotswold farm for inheritance tax purposes by saying that he meant to say he acquired it for shooting (he didn’t say what or who) as if that made it a whole lot better. Imagine the fun the right-wing media would have had if Clarkson was   an ‘eco- warrior’ (difficult to imagine I know) caught up in a comparable contradiction. You can fill in the blank space.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.