Come 20 January 2025, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the President of the United States, again. This is not an outcome that we Liberal Democrats desired, but it cannot go unrecognised, particularly as it was part of an anti-incumbency wave that characterised the ‘year of elections’. However, it does not mean that we should accept the actions of his incoming administration without question or complaint, especially those which have a direct impact upon the United Kingdom.
Several newspapers, principally of the right of the UK’s news landscape, have reported two prospects that would constitute likely hazards. The first is the spectre, as raised by Ambassador-designate Lord Peter Mandelson, of Nigel Farage being invited to serve as a bridgebuilder between Labour and Trump during talks for a UK-US trade deal. And the second is the possibility that Donald Trump will be offered an invitation to a state visit to the United Kingdom, including a royal reception.
While Farage’s potential role in trade talks has been dismissed by Downing Street insiders, Labour’s approach to engaging with Trump diplomatically may be too ingratiating or enabling. This may be best demonstrated when David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, walked back his comments that Trump was ‘no friend of Britain’, a ‘tyrant’, ‘a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath’, and ‘deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic’, seemingly having been swayed after one dinner with him.
Donald Trump’s policy has been repeatedly summed up in two words: America First. In general principle, for the United States to succeed, other nations must lose, even allies such as the UK; to him, there is no such thing as mutual benefit. However, specifically for Labour in power, the second Trump administration’s priorities will be diametrically opposed to their stated objectives in government and their longstanding principles as a party. For example, while Labour has pledged to invest in renewable energy, Trump wants the US and the rest of the world to ‘drill, baby, drill’. Will Labour commit to their manifesto promises, or will they do whatever it takes to ‘get along’ with Trump?
Such is Labour’s approach to Trump during the transition period that the prospects mentioned earlier are so unnerving.
While the first has been half-heartedly denied, it is nonetheless important to stress why it would be disastrous to carry it out. As an MEP, Farage served only to grandstand about how the European Union did not work, rather than addressing his constituents’ concerns or helping to formulate legislation (a pattern he is seemingly repeating as MP for Clacton). And in campaigning for Brexit, he contributed to damaging the UK’s relationship with its largest and closest trading partner. On top of this dismal diplomatic record, putting Farage in a key position would help feed his political stature. A contributing factor to David Cameron’s decision to call the EU membership referendum was concern regarding the impact that UKIP would have upon the Conservatives’ election prospectives. Given Labour’s poor polling at present, why should they Farage another shot in the arm. We must ensure that this proposal does not materialise.
For the second, Trump’s state visits to the UK during this first term saw – apart from his blatant disrespect for our late Queen – protests thousands strong take place in London and around Windsor Castle. Given his actions as President, including the clearances for the infamous St John Chapel photo op, and his demagogic rhetoric as a presidential candidate, is it beyond the realms of possibility that he would demand that Starmer have British citizens exercising their rights in their home country brutalised, all for the sake of ‘getting along’?
This, and the fact of his undeniable criminality, should preclude Trump from personally being received diplomatically by the UK. However, it need not mean cutting off all relations with the US. Rather than Trump, the UK should instead invite Macro Rubio, the prospective Secretary of State. Putting aside his personal politics, he is one of few of Trump’s Cabinet nominees with positive experience relating to his portfolio, and engaging with the US’s chief diplomat would not be outlandish.
With the second Trump administration’s agenda likely to prove deleterious to the global economy, global security and the wellbeing of humanity and the planet, we Liberal Democrats appear to be the only party willing to oppose it. With the Conservatives and especially Reform UK cheerleading Trump’s culture war games and red meat policies, we are the only UK party able and willing to offer substantive opposition and to hold this government accountable for its forelock-tugging engagement with it.
* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Remembering Don Cupitt and his television series The Sea of Faith
How to improve the regulation of political polling - The Week in Polls
Why the government are getting it wrong on local government reorganisation
Rwanda scheme ICT costs revealed
John Mc
Simon R
David Evans
David Raw
11 Comments
This is a very helpful outline of the state of play as we try to get our bearings in the face of the horrors to come.
Trump is the democratically elected leader of a major trading and military partner. However much we don’t like him, the government has no choice but to engage with him. Circumstances are different to what they would have been if Harris had won, and this will have an impact on what we can do. He blusters and is very transactional; it will probably be better to avoid red lines and confrontations, and accept that getting the best for the UK (and the planet) is based on a series of complex negotiations.
Preventing Farage exploiting this situation is difficult. He is going to hold himself out as the guy who could make the US relationship work come what may, and what Trump tweets in this respect is largely beyond our control. I don’t envy Mandelson.
IN the long term we have to recognise that the US is a less reliable partner than it once was and significantly increase our defence spending to ensure we are safe from Russia.
2025 would undoubtedly be better without Trump – but he is here, and there is no sense getting down about what we cant control
Normal convention on State Visits of US Presidents has been that they were invited during their second term. Why on earth Theresa May made an exception for Trump is beyond me. He wasn’t even nice to her. Anyhow, he’s had it now and shouldn’t be offered another one, unless he achieves something quite extraordinary that the UK would welcome. Examples might include a two-State solution in Palestine AND peace between Russia and Ukraine.
We need to be smart in our dealings with Trump and use the fact that he is half Scottish to our advantage. We do not need to like him or his policies to want to gain as many benefits from US trade and inward investment as possible.
What might be the benefits brought to the regular citizens, and their children, of the states involved in state visits?
I don’t know why we continue to see references to a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. The Palestinians do not want a two state solution. They refused their own state in 1948 and that has been their position ever since. What they want is for Israel to commit suicide, which it isn’t going to do.
” The Palestinians do not want a two state solution”
It would depend on the details. The only viable two state solution would have to be based on a return to pre 1967 borders. Even that would be difficult for the Palestinians because there would be no easy passage between Gaza and the West Bank.
In any case Israel isn’t offering anything even close to that!
So there is at least one area of agreement. Neither side wants a two state solution which the other would accept.
So what’s the alternative? No solution at all?
I should state that today, Donald Trump has projected his pathological phobia of renewable energy onto the UK by calling on Starmer to dismantle the North Sea windfarm and to expand oil drilling. Whether Starmer would be willing to acquiesce to such a demand for the sake of good relations with Trump is very much the issue at hand.
WE must be strong in our relationships with the Trump administration. That begins by telling them that what we do within our own borders, like the North Sea, is our own business not theirs. As to Trump being tansactional, we will have to negotiate on trade matters, but we must start from a strong position. Demagogs tend to respect strength, that is why Trump likes Putin. As to Farage, he is only interested in himself and his party and using him will only give him more opportunities to increase support from the general public; we should leave him out of power and simultaneously expose his wild ideas on all sorts of things as evidenced in his party manifesto.
We should be proposing a policy platform British Gaulism in the face of Trumpism.
The UK has always been far more subservient to the US than any other Western nation. Witness Blair on Iraq, May racing to invite Trump’s state visit, and now Streeting offering to work with Musk despite Musk’s appallingly insulting behaviour. Our supine behaviour pre-dates Musk and Trump.
Why so? Is it because the US have us in a stranglehold – Because our wonderful so-called “independent nuclear deterrent” could become worthless in an instant if our US suppliers so chose?