You can say that the evidence of Labour volunteers dipping into America’s election to campaign for Kamala Harris may not do the Labour government’s diplomatic interests any favours if Donald Trump wins. You can add that the intervention has not been very competently overseen, either legally or politically. You can even point out that proud citizens of a self‑governing republic may not take kindly to being told how to vote by visitors from what was once the colonial power.
But it is, at worst, a mistake, not a crime. In principle, there is nothing wrong in Labour activists volunteering for the Harris presidential campaign. US elections are the most publicised and consequential on the planet. They affect and capture the interest of millions around the world, not just America. Providing the volunteers observe the rules, and bring self-awareness to what can be a delicate role, their participation, as long as it is public and at the margins, is a tribute to American democracy, not a threat.
That is all that appears to have happened here. Labour sent senior officials to the Democratic national convention in August. It has encouraged a few dozen volunteers to campaign in swing states as election day nears. It insists it has not paid them, though the Trump campaign charges that Labour may have done so. It is a much bigger story in the UK media than in the US. It is really a storm in a teacup.
What is more, participation of this kind has a long pedigree and a varied catchment. It stretches from Norfolk-born Tom Paine in the 18th century to Nigel Farage and Liz Truss in the present day. For many years, supporters of a range of UK political parties – not Labour alone – have attended and played roles in the American campaigns. US media such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are edited by British journalists, while titles such as the Guardian and the Daily Mail compete in US markets too.
It is absurd to shine the spotlight on Labour support for Ms Harris as suggestively and exclusively as has been done this week by some parts of the UK media. As long as the volunteers do not break the law or behave dishonestly, these can be useful exchanges. Labour officials attended the Democratic convention in the summer. So what? A few hundred Labour supporters are volunteering in the swing states. So what again?
All this is as nothing when compared with industrial-scale efforts by Russia and other states to disrupt and influence US elections clandestinely. After the 2016 election, Russian agents were accused of hacking, theft, false accounting, identity theft and money laundering to promote Mr Trump’s cause and damage Hillary Clinton during the campaign. In 2020, US officials reported the massive scale of Russian “influence operations” in Mr Trump’s support and against Joe Biden. In the run-up to this year’s contest, the justice department said there was a “clear and present danger” of foreign interference in 2024, headed by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, all in support of Mr Trump.
Labour would undoubtedly have been wise to consider more carefully whether any involvement would be to the net advantage of the UK government or not. If Mr Trump wins next month, it may prove a chicken come home to roost. But any Labour involvement is entirely open. The worst that can be said about it is that it is – again – a bit naive.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
