Labour went cap in hand to Trump. What emerged was a blatant humiliation

Thank you for subscribing!

Labour asking Washington how to handle patriotic anger over borders and grooming gangs is a confession, not a conversation, writes the US columnist

A British Government that treats patriotic alarm over borders, grooming gangs and free speech as a threat asked Donald Trump's State Department how to contain that threat. You read that right. The request is a blatant humiliation and a confession. Labour's incoming team went to Washington for advice on governing the British people.

Days before Andy Burnham entered Downing Street in July, Ambassador Sir Christian Turner met State Department officials, including Under Secretary Sarah Rogers. Sources familiar with the meeting, first reported by PoliticsHome, say British officials asked Rogers how to combat the "radical right." They cited the speeches she had given weeks earlier in London at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.

They cited her speeches. Then they asked her how to fight the people those speeches described.

In London, Rogers had warned against speech restrictions and open-border policy. She told Britons to reject helplessness and decline. She said Britain would recover because of the character of its people, and she predicted a political correction comparable to 2016 in the United States. Whitehall then invited the author of that diagnosis to help it manage the political consequences.

Rogers urged transparency and honesty to rebuild trust. She discussed the abandoned Rwanda scheme as relevant. She did not, on the available reporting, tell Britain to revive it. She also noted the political force around Rupert Lowe's crowdfunded grooming-gang inquiry, expressed concern about how that inquiry was conducted, and suggested the Government release official transcripts of major cases. Lowe himself was not labelled part of the radical right in the room.

He did not need to be. Twenty thousand members of the public had already put up more than £600,000 because they did not trust official Britain to finish the job. Obtaining transcripts of historic cases can still cost tens of thousands of pounds. An official inquiry exists. That did not stop the Government from treating an independent, survivor-facing effort as a political problem to be contained.

This is the loaded fact at the centre of the story. The scandal is not that Americans have opinions about Britain. The scandal is that Labour officials defined the danger as the public's demand for borders and for the record of organised child rape, then sought American counsel on how to handle that demand.

That is the furthest thing from the Special Relationship as Churchill or Thatcher understood it. The alliance exists to deter enemies and to keep two sovereign nations strategically aligned. It does not exist so that one partner can ask the other how to quiet its own electorate. The misguided Labour Government is not a client. Parliament is not a focus group. The British people are not a communications challenge to be workshopped in Washington.

The irony is even more astonishing. For years, European officialdom has treated the Trump administration as the source of the "radical right" it claims to fear. When Labour needed a frank account of why trust had collapsed, they went to that administration anyway. They went because Rogers said out loud what too many in Westminster still treat as unsayable: speech controls, uncontrolled migration, and institutional failure have political consequences.

Secure borders are not an American fashion. They are a condition of sovereignty. Free speech is not Maga doctrine. It is an English inheritance. National identity is not extremism. It is the basis of democratic Government. A state that files those instincts under "radical right" is not fighting extremism. It is fighting the country.

The Foreign Office said allies meet regularly to discuss shared priorities. Of course they do. Allies discuss Russia, China and the defence of the North Atlantic. They do not normally ask one another how to defeat voters who noticed that girls were sacrificed to official cowardice and that the border was treated as a slogan.

Burnham inherits the Crown, Parliament, the common law, and an American alliance that remains strategically indispensable.

None of those assets will survive a governing class that has more energy for managing dissent than for telling the truth. Democratic legitimacy is not restored by better messaging. It is restored when the state enforces the border, publishes the record, and stops treating patriotism as a pathology.

I say this as an American who loves Britain and desperately wants to see it re-establish its sanity and global position: Britain should not need American instruction in how to govern a free people. It needs a Government that trusts the public enough to speak plainly at home. Until it does, journeys of this kind will keep looking like what they are: a political elite that has lost confidence in the nation it is meant to serve, asking the ally it spent years lecturing how to keep that nation in line.