The Trump-Starmer love-in is deeply embarrassing for Labour

The Left attack the Tories for just talking to the president – this meeting shows them up for the fools that they are

It might have been a difficult encounter, but afterwards, neither Donald Trump not Keir Starmer gave any hint that that was the case.
The two-hour private meeting between the GOP candidate and former president and Britain’s new prime minister in New York could have well have been awkward. Starmer could have been put on the defensive as Trump raised the small matter of foreign secretary David Lammy’s previous description of him, in a breathless, student-y, not to mention a historic sort of way, as a “Neo-Nazi sociopath”.
Lammy, shortly after Starmer had carried out his threat to appoint him as foreign secretary, went on to justify his words but undertook to work with whoever was elected as president in November, which was very magnanimous of him.
Starmer might also have been put on the defensive by the recent comments of Labour’s other professional Trump critic, London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has basked in the adoration of supporters for sticking it to The (Orange) Man repeatedly since Trump was first elected president in 2016. This week, perhaps out of concern that the American election might pass without his playing a central role in the drama, warned US voters that “the world is watching” and they had better not elect someone of whom Khan did not approve.
No doubt Trump was aware, even as he broke bread with Starmer, of the view the Labour Party holds of him. Given his reputation for less-than-diplomatic language, it is extraordinary that ahead of their dinner, Trump had only good things to say about Starmer: “I actually think he’s very nice. He ran a great race, he did very well, it’s very early.” Then, perhaps exposing a glaring weakness in the team who brief him on UK current events, Trump added: “He’s very popular.”
For Starmer’s part, it is reassuring that he managed to avoid the playground performative soundbites that his party colleagues find too difficult to resist. The prime minister declined to side with either Trump or his Democrat opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris. Instead he pledged to work with whoever emerges as the victor in November and will seek to strengthen the special relationship between the UK and the US. 
This is exactly what UK prime ministers are supposed to do. The notion that a prime minister’s own political preferences are somehow important enough to express publicly is a quaint and immature one that risks compromising the national interest. On this occasion at least, the prime minister’s mantra – country before party – has been fully honoured.
But this will carry no weight with Labour’s usual suspects, who have dined out on their loathing of Trump ever since he upset just about everyone by winning the presidency in 2016. This week’s meeting – at Trump Tower, of all places – comes just days after Starmer’s love-in with Italian prime minister Georgia Meloni and his subsequent positive comments about Italy’s scheme for processing asylum seekers in Albania.
But performative outrage became a core part of Labour politicians’ prospectus during those long years of opposition. Consider Lammy’s embarrassing tirade this week to the United Nations, when he turned what should have been a united international condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine into a tirade about the transatlantic slave trade and, more importantly, about Lammy himself. This was taking virtue-signalling to an international level, leaving professionalism at the door but presumably playing better in Lammy’s Tottenham constituency.
And remember when former House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, sought to win the approval of the Labour Party and sections of the public – constituencies that Speakers should have no interest in courting – by declaring that he would not allow a visiting President Trump to use Westminster Hall as the venue for a speech. 
We should be grateful that Starmer has resisted the temptation to indulge in similar grandstanding. This is a leader who clearly has little fear of the inevitable criticism he will face from the Left of his own party, and the sensible part will recognise the truth of his judgment that the decision on who to elect lies solely with the American public.
Back home, he might take a few moments to consider the implications of a Trump victory for Britain, and how the 47th president might view a government whose foreign secretary is incapable of behaving in as professional a manner as his boss. Or even as professionally as Donald Trump.