Why Trump is Starmer’s worst nightmare

Sir Keir Starmer routinely describes his friendly relations with Donald Trump as a great asset to the UK.

Trump himself though, is a living nightmare for the British prime minister and his ambitions to revive his and his party’s fortunes.

One reason is that every time Trump executes one of his “I-can’t-believe-he-just-did-that” policies, nothing that Starmer says or does is heard by anyone.

Starmer was, for example, hoping to usher in the new year by advertising all the ways he is bringing down the cost of living.

But did you notice him in Reading this morning when he boasted about his railway fares freeze and discounts?

Because anything Starmer wants to say about pretty much anything is being drowned out by Trump’s seizure of the Venezuelan president, in just the latest manifestation of what you might call a new American exceptionalism – which is a euphemism for Trump sticking two fingers up at allies like the UK, who think the United Nations and international law are worth cherishing and preserving.

So even if Starmer has finally come up with a story to warm your cockles about how he can restore hope to this proud nation – though there was little sign of that in his 45-minute BBC interview on Sunday, Trump is doing his damnedest to prevent any of us knowing about it.

Because if Trump’s not sending in Delta Force to kidnap a head of state, he’s imposing record tariffs or denigrating climate change anxieties as stuff and nonsense.

And given that most British governments struggle to walk and chew gum at the same time, Trump’s assault on the global order is almost certainly crowding out Starmer’s and the government’s ability to formulate and execute a compelling recovery programme for the UK in any case.

Worse still for Starmer himself, it seems highly implausible that many of you will give him the benefit of the doubt on any of this, because foreign policy is just something voters regard as a basic part of a PM’s job description – and voters don’t tend to reward premiers for just doing the job.

Memo: They didn’t even reward Churchill for winning the Second World War.

There is an insult for Starmer to add to all this indignity, namely that his calculated refusal to criticise Trump, for what looks like a coach and horses driven through international law, alienates many actual and potential supporters on the left.

His Trump-philia encourages them to wear a Green or Lib Dem badge.

So given that being Trump’s pal isn’t paying great dividends to Starmer, and given he devoted the earlier part of his professional life to human rights law, you might wonder why he can’t bring himself to utter a word of direct criticism of the American president.

The reality is that Starmer is correct, that to do so would be self indulgent – because Europe’s military frailty means there would be no prospect of Ukraine avoiding humiliation by Putin if Trump were to take umbrage and abandon Kyiv.

So there is a plausible case that Starmer’s avoidance of conflict with Trump sacrifices narrow party and personal interest for the security of the nation.

But will that always be rational?