So today UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with President Bush. He also wrote an article in the Washington Post (free registration required) and will be meeting with Congressional leaders of both parties and the U.N.

Do you believe that the relationship between the US and the UK will change with Brown as Prime Minister or will it be much the same as the relationship that existed with Blair as PM?

Please explain your answer.

Do you believe that the relationship between the US and the UK will change with Brown as Prime Minister or will it be much the same as the relationship that existed with Blair as PM?


I think the state relationship between the US and the UK will remain fundamentally the same in matters like intelligence sharing and the like. That relationship hasn't wavered much over the years regardless of who was President and PM. I don't however think that Brown and Bush will build the same personal relationship that Bush (and Clinton for that matter) had with Tony Blair. Bush is ending his term and Brown just beginning his so I don't think we'll see the same kind of friendship between the two of them. I know that Bush isn't the most popular person right now in the UK and it would make political sense for Brown to keep a little distance between them. Overall though, I don't think that will make much difference.


Aquilla

Britain's relationship with America is generally very important to Britain and far less so to America. Any danger to the US / UK relationship is more likely to come from a US president who believes that unilateralism or isolationism are the best way forward for America (or simply just isn't concerned about Britain), rather than a British PM - regardless of his political stripe.

Above and beyond that, in general, the British share mainstream American views on the role of government, democracy, human rights etc - so will always be fairly likely to agree with American decisions - or, at the very least, understand them.

However unpopular an American administration may be in Britain - and Bush is pretty unpopular (as he is viewed as co-architect of the Iraq war with Blair and much like America, we are losing troops there that we would rather see return home alive), we still gain hugely from being in a close relationship with America - and any Prime Minister knows that and would not want to risk alienating America.

However, Blair often appeared quite subservient to Bush (or the British media portrayed him as such) - which was something of a turn-off for the electorate - and indeed some of his decisions (on a wide range of issues) were widely (although possibly inaccurately) viewed as setting American interests above British interests - something that would be perfectly normal for an American President to do, but rather worrying if it's a British Prime Minister.

So Brown needs to be both close and co-operative with the US - because that is one of the central principles of British foreign policy, but also to make his own decisions if he feels that the American administration is making a mistake - something that is not always easy to do.

Ideally Brown - and the Labour party would probably rather work with a Democratic rather than Repulican administration, however, necessity tends to dictate that British governments are realistic and work with whoever is in power in America.

Do you believe that the relationship between the US and the UK will change with Brown as Prime Minister or will it be much the same as the relationship that existed with Blair as PM?

The relationship between the two countries will stay about the same as it has been ever since the end of WWII, and especially since the Suez crisis of the 1950s - cordial and mutually supportive, but with Britain by far the biggest beneficiary and by far the junior partner.

All the talk of Blair domestically - that he squandered some notional political capital, or could have influenced the decision to go to war in Iraq if he'd wanted to - is just British self-aggrandisement. Even Britain's most recent "finest hour" when we "went it alone" - the Falklands War, was only possible with enormous covert logistical and intelligence support form the USA, and Thatcher - for her own purposes (largely for electoral gain) - was quite happy to keep that very quiet to make it look like the British were still a major world player on their own.

We were and are a major player, and the British Army are about the only outfit then or since that would have been able to fight and win that war, but we need to stop kidding ourselves that we can do anything very significant unilaterally without either the active support, or passive acceptance, of the USA.

Blair wasn't Bush's poodle any more or any less than any other British post-war PM. He did wag his tail and roll over to have his tummy tickled a lot more than most Brits were comfortable with but then all any British PM has any control over is how much they yap and wag their tail (or growl and snap). American presidents are always going to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

So far, I'm pleased to say, Brown has shown signs of being less of a fawning Shi-Tzu or Chihuahua - the kind of pointless yapping thing an actress/model/whatever might carry in a handbag - and more of a mature and sensible working dog (a Labrador or a Border Collie, maybe?). It's still clear who's the master and who's the pet, but at least there's some semblance of dignity this time around.

Mostly that has to do with his personality, I think, but he's also no less politically clever than Blair (domestically a lot more so, I hope - he certainly seems to have learned from watching Blair's mistakes, and it's a rare enough quality in politicians to learn from their own mistakes, let alone anyone else's) and is smart enough to realise that he's not going to get plaudits from anyone very much by making a big show of being close personal friends with a President who has more or less lost his domestic mandate. Even by lame duck standards, this president has two bag legs and no pond.