For the UK, a US presidential election is hugely important – the US-UK “special relationship” is at the heart of the UK’s foreign and defense policy. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, the outcome of this crucial election will make a huge difference to their political prospects.

Conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as the different political positions (and temperaments) of the two leading presidential candidates, make foreign policymaking very difficult. So what do Starmer and Lammy expect from the next president?

The first answer is that they want the same thing as most people: for it to end. The period leading up to an election generally means that the opportunity to make active or decisive political decisions is closed. No incumbent wants to make a decision that will be immediately countered by his or her successor. Tradition dictates that delicate and divisive political decisions are left to await the new leader.

The second thing Starmer and Lammy are probably hoping for is someone in the White House who shares their worldview and with whom they can work easily. The United States and the United Kingdom special relationship is so entrenched, and the two nations are so entangled, that they can withstand poor personal relations between the prime minister and the president. But a friendly relationship, where both leaders share similar goals, keeps the wheels turning much more smoothly.

When you have an active war zone in the Middle East and another on the edge of Europe, this kind of pause can have terrible consequences for everyone involved, including your international friends and allies.

Harris versus Trump

For Starmer and Lammy, the easier of the two candidates to work with is Kamala Harris. To be fair, the same would almost certainly be true if the British Prime Minister were a Conservative. It’s not that Harris has identical goals to those of the Labor government (or the Conservative Party, for that matter). This is because it shares certain points in common with the new government and is considered by many to be a “safe pair of hands”.

Harris is not expected to radically alter U.S. foreign policy goals, nor is he expected to change course on Ukraine or Israel. While this may be politically uncomfortable for many, particularly those horrified by the scenes of suffering broadcast daily in the Middle East, it is a more palatable image to Starmer and Lammy, and to many other European countries, than the alternative.

Trump is, to some extent, a famous person. He has been president before, so his priorities and goals are well known. However, his character and allegiances are not popular with many Western leaders.

His relationship with and sympathy for Vladimir Putin makes many people in Western Europe nervous about his plans for further action in Ukraine. Asked whether he had spoken with Putin since leaving the White House, Trump refused to sayadding: “If I did it, it’s a smart thing. »

Trump’s skepticism towards NATO this could also pose a challenge for the UK. Others are unsure what actions Trump might take regarding Israel and the Middle East conflict. In early October, Trump told the Israeli-American Council that Israel had “a great protector in me.”

The United States’ unwavering support for Israel is unlikely to diminish, regardless of who becomes president. However, wars and foreign affairs usually require delicate negotiations and management – ​​something Trump is not famous for. However, a more radical approach may be needed after years of uncertainty.

The special relationship

This special relationship is anchored in American and British government structures. Foreign policy and defense policy are directly influenced by the views of the White House and the Pentagon, and intelligence is often shared between the two countries.

Although they do not share all their intelligence or coordinate all their foreign and defense policies, the United Kingdom takes a great interest in the policies and actions of the United States – and the United States pays some attention to the opinions and the policies of their junior partner. It may not be a balanced relationship, but it is a long-standing relationship based on years of close working relationships and trust.

Anecdotally, Labor prime ministers tend to work better with Democratic presidents than with Republican presidents. They may be closer politically, it may be due to circumstances or personality – but it seems to ring true when considering the relationship between former presidents and prime ministers.

That said, the most harmonious relationships, those that are rooted in friendship or demonstrate close political alignment, tend to be between conservative prime ministers and Republican presidents – think John Major and George Bush Sr. or, more famous, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

There are of course always exceptions to these “rules”, so a Harris-Starmer relationship is not guaranteed to be a happy one. Conversely, a Trump-Starmer relationship need not be rocky, even if the Trump campaign has recently accused the Labor Party volunteer intervention in the US election – not a promising start to a possible second Trump term.

Looking at the candidates’ public personas, it’s hard to see how Starmer and Lammy could easily handle Trump. But if he wins, there will be no choice but to work with him as best they can.