A 45-minute meeting between Trump and Burnham, their foreign ministers, national security advisers, ambassadors and chiefs of staff concluded before the press was invited in for a 12-minute conference. Trump offered generalised (\u201cI think he\u2019s going to be good\u201d), even flatulent (\u201ca natural businessperson\u201d) comments of approval. As, of course, he once did about Keir Starmer.<\/p>\n
Perhaps nowhere more than in this incipient relationship might Burnham\u2019s likeability \u2013 a quality not disputed by even his most hostile critics \u2013 be of material benefit: Burnham may disarm with charm. There was, Trump said, \u201cgood connection\u201d between them. He congratulated Burnham \u2013 confusingly \u2013 on a \u201cgreat election win\u201d. (Had he heard of Makerfield<\/a>?) \u201cThat was a big one.\u201d <\/p>\n Conspicuous by their absence was mention of Burnham\u2019s accent, Trump\u2019s mother, the king \u2013 or indeed, the late queen.<\/p>\n It was while Burnham was airborne on his way to New York that the diplomatically significant RAF support<\/a> for Saudi Arabia in its war against the Houthis in Yemen was announced. That move was conceived with an eye on the American response, and Burnham duly reminded Trump that \u201cwe accepted a call from Saudi Arabia\u201d.<\/p>\n Seeking to de-escalate tensions with the White House, Burnham flagged his response as evidence that Britain will \u201cplay our part\u201d in peace in the Middle East.<\/p>\n It is never clear the extent to which Trump\u2019s apparently casual remarks \u2013 recently over the sovereignty of the Falklands or the status of Northern Ireland \u2013 are also vindictive. (Were his comments about the Falklands because of Britain\u2019s unhelpfulness over the Chagos Islands?) Maximalist demands often lead to compromise.<\/p>\n Some awkward issues were avoided publicly, such as the possibly provocative invitation from Canada\u2019s finance minister for the UK to join the new EU-Canada alliance<\/a> \u2013 or, indeed, the bromancing Evertonians Burnham and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney at the football<\/a> recently. <\/p>\n Other awkward issues were publicly negotiated. It is perhaps auspicious that one policy predictably unpopular with this White House \u2013 sanctions against Israeli settlements \u2013 has been managed so deftly. Trump deflected the question<\/a> when asked alongside Burnham. <\/p>\n It may help that where Starmer inherited an imperial Trump at his most powerful, Burnham finds a weaker president \u2013 and one who will probably be weaker still after November\u2019s midterm elections<\/a>.<\/p>\n Starmer inherited a war. His prime ministerial predecessors Herbert Asquith had gone to war in 1914 to defend Belgium against external aggression, Neville Chamberlain went to war in 1939 to do the same for Poland, and Boris Johnson in 2022 (effectively) did similar for Ukraine. Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and Starmer also inherited Ukraine.<\/p>\n But Burnham has inherited Iran, which included as collateral damage Starmer\u2019s carefully constructed relationship with Trump. Not acceding to US requests to use the airbases they already shared was Starmer\u2019s most significant mis-step, notwithstanding the public and party praise he received for it.<\/p>\nAvoiding awkwardness<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/292659\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n