Keir Starmer

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares166 Views

    Keir Starmer says good relationship with Donald Trump based on shared family values

    by

    Keir Starmer has spoken about his good relationship with the US president, Donald Trump, and their shared family values.To mark the first anniversary of the Labour government coming to power on Friday, the prime minister spoke to the BBC podcast Political Thinking and said it was “in the national interest” for the two men to connect.“We are different people and we’ve got different political backgrounds and leanings, but we do have a good relationship and that comes from a number of places,” he said.“I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about. For both of us, we really care about family and there’s a point of connection there.”In the interview, Starmer said he had a “good personal relationship” with Trump, and revealed that the first time they spoke was after the then-presidential candidate was shot at during a campaign rally in July last year.He said Trump had reciprocated with a personal phone call a few days after Starmer’s brother Nick died on Boxing Day.Addressing recent political turmoil, Starmer said he would always “carry the can” as leader after coming under fire over a climbdown on welfare reforms and that he would “always take responsibility” when asked questions.“When things go well … the leader gets the plaudits, but when things don’t go well, it is really important that the leader carries the can – and that’s what I will always do.”Starmer also backed Rachel Reeves and said she would be chancellor “for a very long time to come”, after she was visibly tearful in the House of Commons.The scenes came after the government U-turned on planned welfare changes that put an almost £5bn hole in the chancellor’s plans.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionReeves said she had been upset by a “personal matter” before prime minister’s questions on Wednesday.Appearing on broadcast media on Friday, one year to the day since the 2024 general election, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, was asked on BBC Breakfast to score the government out of 10. “I don’t think it is for cabinet ministers to mark themselves and mark their own homework,” she said. More

    More stories

    • 213 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      The Donald laps it up as Nato leaders compete to shower him with sycophancy | John Crace

      by

      Sometimes it pays to be a narcissist. To bend reality to your own worldview. To live almost entirely in the present. Where contradicting yourself is not a problem because two opposing statements can both be true. On the way to Nato you can question article 5. On the way back you can give all the other Nato leaders a patronising pat on the head. And everyone is grateful for it.There again it also helps if you are the most powerful man in the world. Donald Trump is not just tolerated, he is actively indulged. Prime ministers from other countries go out of their way to compete with one another in outright sycophancy. Flattery that started off as contrived now sounds dangerously sincere. Almost as if they genuinely believe it. Thank you Agent Orange for all you have done. We don’t know where we would be without you.And The Donald just laps it up. Feeds on it. At the recent Nato summit he looked like a pig in shit. Living his best life. Whatever sunbed regime he’s on, it’s working for him. If he lost any sleep over his decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, it doesn’t show. Just repeat after Donald: The mission was a complete and utter success and Iran’s programme has been put back decades. If the Pentagon says otherwise, it’s just fake news. Yet again, reality can be what you want it to be.Even when Trump temporarily loses it, he wins. Swearing is generally a no-no for any leader. A sign that you’ve lost control. But when Donald said Israel and Iran didn’t know what the fuck they were doing, he came out of it smelling of roses. Praised for his authenticity. Applauded for saying what the rest of the world is thinking. The Donald can do no wrong. He looks relaxed. God stand up for narcissists.Keir Starmer is no narcissist. And breathe a sigh of relief for that. The UK tried the narcissist route with Boris Johnson and that didn’t end well. Maybe we just aren’t a powerful enough country to get away with a sociopath in charge. Or, heaven forbid, maybe it was a matter of timing. Boris was the right man at the wrong time. That’s a horrible thought. Most of us would quite happily settle for a period of fairly boring politics. Where the government is serving the country rather than the ego of the person in charge. Where even when they are getting things wrong, they are at least trying to do the right thing.But that level of decency comes with a cost. Your psyche does not reward itself with a free pass. You worry about the consequences of your actions. Your toadying to The Donald. You worry about the people dying in Ukraine, Gaza, Israel and Iran. You worry when your domestic policies look like they are falling apart. Wish you had spent more time reassuring backbenchers. Had explained better the trade-offs you were making. Had not been so quick to take a quick cash-saving win by removing benefits from people who can’t wash themselves before going to work.Keir has tried to keep a lid on all this as leaders always do. Pretend that he’s fully in charge of the situation. That everything is going according to plan. But always the tell-tale signs leak out. Starmer’s eyes betray him. They have a deadness to them, the life squeezed out. His face pasty and pallid. A man desperate for a breather, a moment to relax away from the treadmill.Yet always there is one thing more. Another summit, another speech, another bilat, another crisis at home. This wasn’t how he imagined his first year in Downing Street. The pressure and the pace is relentless. The treadmill going ever faster and there’s no getting off. He aches in the places where he used to play.Just hours after returning from The Hague, Keir was giving a keynote speech to the British Chambers of Commerce. It was one that he and they will quickly forget. A routine, box-ticking affair. An annual date, along with the CBI, in any prime minister’s diary. It wasn’t meant to be this way, mind. Starmer knows better than anyone that Labour has to work twice as hard to show that it is the party of business. But this time he couldn’t fake it to make it. He’s no visionary. He can’t access people’s hearts. Only their reason. And that only intermittently.Keir began by thanking the BCC for all it had done for the country. He knew it had been a tough year and he had asked a lot of business, but the good times were round the corner. Possibly. There was the new infrastructure strategy. Now there was also a new trade strategy which sounded very much like the old one. Which was to keep on doing the trade deals we can, as with the partial deals with the EU, US and India, and try to do some new smaller deals with other nations. The applause from the audience was barely audible. They didn’t sound desperately impressed. They can tell when a speaker is out on his feet and is phoning it in.Just over an hour later and Starmer was in the Commons for a statement on the G7 and Nato summits. Here he was much more like his chipper self. Not so much in his opening remarks about how the west was making a dangerous world safer, but in his reply to Kemi Badenoch.The Tory leader just gets worse and worse. Half-witted, sulky and tone deaf. Kemikaze seemed to think the UK should no longer bother to send its prime minister to these international meetings. That Keir had only gone for the craic and to avoid her at prime minister’s questions. As if. Facing Kemi over the dispatch box was his half an hour of R&R in the week.Starmer dismissed her with barely concealed contempt as neither serious nor credible. An am-dram politician. Even the Tories were aghast. Mark Pritchard openly criticised his leader. He spoke for many on his own benches.Kemi had achieved the seemingly impossible. She had revivified a tired prime minister and united both Labour and opposition MPs against her. There is only one politician who looks a genuine leader in the Commons and it is still Starmer. He may have his hands full with a rebellion over the welfare bill, but as long as Kemi remains the leader of the opposition, he has nothing to fear from the Tories. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Attorney general warns UK joining war on Iran may be illegal

      by

      Britain’s attorney general has warned ministers that getting involved in Israel’s war against Iran could be illegal beyond offering defensive support, it has emerged.Richard Hermer, the government’s most senior legal officer, is reported to have raised concerns internally about the legality of joining a bombing campaign against Iran.An official who has seen Hermer’s official legal advice told the Spectator, which first reported the story, that “the AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies”.Keir Starmer is considering whether to provide the US with military support if Donald Trump decides to bomb Iran, and whether to approve the use of the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean for the attack. Hermer’s advice could limit the degree of UK support for the US.A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said: “By longstanding convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed.“The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice.”The prime minister chaired an emergency Cobra meeting on Wednesday to discuss a range of scenarios and ongoing diplomatic efforts. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, is to meet his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, in Washington DC on Thursday as the US weighs up its options.Trump has yet to make a final decision on whether to launch strikes against Iran. The Guardian reported that the president had suggested to defence officials it would make sense to do so only if the so-called bunker buster bomb was guaranteed to destroy the country’s critical uranium enrichment facility, which is between 80 and 90 metres inside a mountain at Fordow.Israel and Iran have been exchanging fire for days after Israel launched airstrikes which it said were aimed at preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials claim the country’s nuclear programme is peaceful and that Israel has caused hundreds of civilian casualties.Taking Fordow offline – either diplomatically or militarily – is seen as central to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons after the International Atomic Energy Agency found the site had enriched uranium to 83.7% – close to the 90% needed for nuclear weapons.Miatta Fahnbulleh, an energy minister, said Starmer would take any decisions with a “cool, calm head” and be guided by international law.“Legal advice is for the prime minister, and I think that’s where it will stay – and you can understand why I won’t comment on that. But what I will say is that we have a prime minister who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law,” she told Times Radio.“No one wants an escalation. No one wants this to erupt into a major conflict in the region that is hugely destabilising for every country involved, and for us globally. So the most important role that the prime minister can play, and is playing, is to be that cool, calm head to urge all partners around the negotiating table and to find a diplomatic route out of this.”However, the shadow foreign secretary, Priti Patel, said the UK could “hide behind legal advice at a time of crisis”.Asked if she believed Hermer was right to sound a warning, Patel told Times Radio: “I don’t think we can hide behind legal advice at a time of crisis and national security when we have to work alongside our biggest ally in the world, the United States, when they look to us for potentially … setting out operational activities through our own military bases.”The UK had not received a formal request from the US to use Diego Garcia in the south Indian Ocean or any of its other airbases to bomb Iran as of Wednesday night.Diego Garcia was recently the subject of a new 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius that left the UK in full operational control of the military base. In practice, Diego Garcia is mainly used by the US, but the fact that it is ultimately a British base means that Starmer would have to approve its use for an attack on Iran.The US is also thought likely to want to request the use of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus for its air tankers, used to refuel B-2 bombers. The UK has deployed 14 Typhoon jets at Akrotiri to protect its bases and forces and to help regional allies, such as Cyprus and Oman, if they come under attack. More

    • 250 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on UK military strategy: prepare for a US retreat – or be left gravely exposed | Editorial

      by

      With the prime minister’s Churchillian claims that “the front line is here”, the public might expect a military posture that meets the drama of the moment. Yet the promised rise in defence spending – from 2.3% to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 – suggests something less than full-scale mobilisation. The strategic defence review is systematic and detailed, but it remains an exercise in tightly bounded ambition. It speaks of daily cyber-attacks and undersea sabotage, but proposes no systemic institutional overhaul or acute surge in resilience. Given the developing dangers, it is surprising not to spell out a robust home-front framework.Instead, it is a cautious budget hike in the costume of crisis – signalling emergency while deferring real commitment for military financing. The review suggests that the more ambitious spending target of 3% of GDP, still shy of Nato’s 3.5% goal, is delayed to the next parliament. The plan is not to revive Keynesianism in fatigues. It is a post-austerity military modernisation that is technocratic and geopolitically anxious. It borrows the urgency of the past without inheriting its economic boldness.The review marks a real shift: it warns of “multiple, direct threats” for the first time since the cold war and vows to reverse the “hollowing out” of Britain’s armed forces. But in an age of climate emergencies and democratic drift, UK leadership should rest on multilateralism, not pure militarism. Declaring Russian “nuclear coercion” the central challenge, and that the “future of strategic arms control … does not look promising”, while sinking £15bn into warheads, risks fuelling escalation instead of pursuing arms control.Given the war in Ukraine, there is an ominous warning about changing US “security priorities”. This calls into question the wisdom of being overly reliant on America, which is now internally unstable and dismantling global public goods – such as the atmospheric data that drones rely on for navigation. Left unsaid but clearly underlying the report is the idea that the old defence model is no longer sufficient – for example, when maritime adversaries can weaponise infrastructure by sabotaging undersea cables, or where critical data systems are in commercial hands. It cannot be right that Ukraine’s sovereignty depends on the goodwill of the world’s richest man. But the private satellite network Starlink keeps Ukrainian hospitals, bases and drones online, leaving Kyiv hostage to the whims of its volatile owner, Elon Musk.The menace of hybrid warfare – including disinformation, cyber-attacks, economic pressure, deployment of irregular armed groups and use of regular forces – intensified in the last decade. This should see Britain forge deeper institutional ties with European partners, not just military but in infrastructure and information technologies. This would allow for a sovereign digital strategy for European nations to free them from dependency on mercurial actors.Though the review gestures toward greater societal involvement, it stops short of articulating a whole-of-society doctrine like Norway’s. This, when some analysts say the third world war has already begun with a slow, global breakdown of the post-1945 institutional order. The defence review should be about more than missiles and missions. It must also be about whether the country can keep the lights on, the gas flowing, the internet up and the truth intact. This review sees the threats, but not yet the system needed to confront them. In that gap lies the peril. More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Britain’s new aid vision: less cash, more spin. The cost will be counted in lives | Editorial

      by

      Last week, the government justified cutting the UK’s development budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income – the lowest level in more than 25 years – by claiming Britain’s role is now to “share expertise”, not hand out cash. With a straight face, the minister responsible, Jenny Chapman, told MPs on the international development committee that the age of the UK as “a global charity” was over. But this isn’t reinvention – it’s abdication, wrapped in spin. No wonder Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who is chair of the committee, called Lady Chapman’s remarks “naive” and “disrespectful”. Behind the slogans lies a brutal truth: lives will be lost, and Britain no longer cares. Dressing that up as the “new normal” doesn’t make it less callous.Kevin Watkins of the London School of Economics analysed the cuts and found no soft-landing options. He suggests charting a sensible course through this wreckage, noting that harm from the cuts is inevitable but not beyond mitigation. Dr Watkins’ proposals – prioritising multilateralism, funding the global vaccine alliance (Gavi) and replenishing international lending facilities – would prevent some needless deaths. Ministers should adopt such an approach. The decision to raid the aid budget to fund increased defence spending was a shameful attempt to cosy up to Washington. The cuts were announced just before Sir Keir Starmer’s White House meeting with Donald Trump, with no long-term strategy behind them. It’s a deplorable trend: globally, aid levels could fall by $40bn this year.The gutting of USAID, the world’s biggest spender on international development, by Elon Musk, was less fiscal policy than culture-war theatre. Foreign beneficiaries don’t vote, and liberal-leaning aid contractors lack clout, so dismantling USAID shrinks “globalism” while “owning the establishment”. But the real casualties lie elsewhere. Memorably, Bill Gates said the idea of Mr Musk, the world’s richest man, “killing the world’s poorest children is not a pretty one”. Countries that built health systems around USAID now face a reckoning. It wasn’t just cash – it sustained disease surveillance, logistics and delivery. Ironically, much of it never left American hands, absorbed by US private interests.In the UK, University of Portsmouth researchers say aid increasingly serves foreign policy, not development. It’s not just ineffective – it’s cynical. Aid should change lives, not wave flags. All this as poor nations’ debt crisis deepens. Without global reform, the Institute for Economic Justice warns, African nations face a cycle of distress blocking investment in basic needs. The UK recasts withdrawal as progress – holding up Ethiopia and Zimbabwe as model partners. But Georgetown University’s Ken Opalo makes a cutting point: in diplomacy, when the music stops, those who outsourced ambition get exposed. Aid dependency, he argues, has hollowed out local ownership. With little planning, many governments now face a choice: take over essential services or cling to a vanishing donor model.Politicians should choose their words carefully. The former Tory development secretary Andrew Mitchell rightly criticised Boris Johnson’s “giant cashpoint in the sky” remark for damaging public support for aid. Labour ministers are guilty, too. Britain has replaced moral leadership with metrics, and compassion with calculation. The policy’s defenders call it realism. But without vision, it’s just surrender – leaving the world’s poor to fend for themselves, forced to try to survive without the means to do so. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Flattery gets Starmer somewhere as The Donald stays awake to toot tariff deal | John Crace

      by

      Three days ago, Donald Trump promised an announcement that would be very possibly the greatest announcement in the whole history of announcements. Come Thursday morning, he said the US and the UK had reached a full and comprehensive trade deal.I guess a lot depends on what you mean by the words “greatest announcement” and “full and comprehensive”. As details of the deal began to emerge, it rather looked as if the UK had managed to negotiate a worse deal with the US than we had even two months ago. One that was hardly transformative. Just reversing some of the damage that had been done to the UK by the US starting a global trade war. Tariffs as a protection racket.Still, a deal is a deal. These days, Keir Starmer has learned you get what you can get. And it’s more than any other country has got so far. It remains to be seen if others come out of the White House with anything better. But Keir wasn’t the only one who needed a quick result. Trump did, too. He had a reputation to maintain as a deal-maker and Americans were beginning to get twitchy that none had been reached. It wasn’t clear if this was a victory for crack negotiating teams, or a sign that both the US and the UK had been a bit desperate. So both sides were keen to chalk the deal up as a win for themselves.Then there was the choreography to think of. A televised phone call between the president and the prime minister, before each gave separate press conferences. In both instances it was Agent Orange to go first. Presumably, because no one was sure he could stick to the script. When you do a deal with The Donald, there’s no guarantee he isn’t going to change his mind before the ink is dry. It would be no surprise if he were to announce new tariffs by the weekend.Cut to the Oval Office where, 45 minutes later than planned, Trump was on the phone to Starmer. Bizarrely, he started by talking about rare-earth minerals, which weren’t part of the deal. He seemed to have forgotten what had been agreed with whom. His minders set him back on track and there were warm words about one of America’s greatest and most cherished allies. You wondered why he had previously treated the UK with indifference if he cared so much.“This is an historic day,” said Starmer. All the more so because it had happened on VE Day. Keir could almost believe he was Winston Churchill addressing a jubilant nation after six years of war. At this point, it looked as if Agent Orange might drop off.Trump’s powers of concentration aren’t all they might be and he finds it difficult when he’s not the centre of attention. Keir did his best to stop the president from flatlining by showering him with flattery. The Donald had been the best. Everyone and everything would be nothing without him.At this, Trump began to perk up. The US and the UK had been working for years on a trade deal. People had said it couldn’t be done, he boasted. And yet he had done it in a matter of weeks. Truly, he was incredible. He didn’t seem to realise that he hadn’t negotiated a full trade agreement. Just a small side hustle encompassing a few sectors. There was a ripple of applause from the sycophants in the Oval Office when Trump managed to press the right switch to disconnect the call.The Donald then invited his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnik, to expand a little on the deal. Howie is reportedly a billionaire but he also delivers a pitch-perfect impersonation of a halfwit. It’s hard to imagine him in a room negotiating the sale of a secondhand car. “This was the president’s deal,” he cooed. “If it had been left to me, it would have taken at least three years. He did everything. He is the closer.” Imagine. Howie had just told the entire world he had been out of his depth in a puddle. Truly, the world is fucked if he is one of its masters.Next up was the British ambassador, Peter Mandelson. Bowing deeply. Full of reverence. Mandy was born for days like these. When all that is required is oleaginous smooth-talking masquerading as sincerity. Truly, The Donald was nothing short of a genius. He wasn’t fit to wipe the president’s shoes. Trump had achieved more than anyone else in the history of the world. Thank you, thank you. We have reached the end of the beginning, he sobbed. Everyone was getting in on the Churchill act this VE Day. Trump nodded. Mandy was right about him.Back in the UK, Starmer was just starting his own press conference at the Jaguar Land Rover factory. Britain was open for business, he said. No less than the whole future of the UK had been saved. Keir, alone, had altered the course of history. Some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. Keir had managed all three. This was bigger than VE Day. Bring out the bunting. Drink the pubs dry. We were entering a new era of prosperity.This wasn’t just a victory for the UK. It was a victory for Starmer personally. Some people had said he should stand up to Agent Orange. Put the phone down. Don’t give in to bullies. But Keir had emerged triumphant. His brown-nosing had achieved the impossible. Which was, er … not quite as good as the deal we had not so long ago. It was time for the king to get out his silk pyjamas, line up the Diet Cokes and the Haribos and prepare for his sleepover with the president. If Keir had to suck it up, then so could Charles. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump expected to announce framework of US-UK trade deal – UK politics live

      by

      Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, picking up from Martin Belam.Here is a timetable for what we are expecting today. We will be mostly focused on the US-UK trade deal announcement, but there will be some other politics too.9am: Keir Starmer gives a speech at the London defence conference. He is not expected to take questions.9.30am: Steve Reed, the environment secretary, takes questions in the Commons.10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, takes questions on next week’s Commons business.11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.Noon: Starmer and other political leaders join the king and queen in Westminster Abbey for the service to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day.After 12pm: After the two minutes’ silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, the Bank of England announces its interest rate.After 12pm: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs.3pm (UK time): Donald Trump is due to make his announcement in the White House about the US-UK trade deal. He posted this on his Truth Social account earlier.Afternoon: Starmer is expected to make a statement about the trade deal.There will be a ministerial statement in the Commons this afternoon on the US-UK trade deal, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, told MPs at the start of business questions. But he said he did not know yet when this would be.Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has accused the opposition of trying to “weaponise” tragedy after his Tory opposite number claimed farmers are taking their lives because of Labour’s inheritance tax policy.The government announced in the budget last year that more valuable farms will lose their exemption from inheritance tax. Older farmer have complained that, having planned on the basis that they will be able to leave their farms to their children without an inheritance tax liability, they have had little time to make alternative arrangements before the tax change comes into force in April next year.Speaking during environment questions in the Commons, Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, said:
      Before Christmas, I warned the secretary of state that a farmer had taken their own life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. He responded with anger and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health.
      This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their own lives because of the family farm tax. This is the secretary of state’s legacy, but he can change it, because it is not yet law.
      Will he set out these tragedies to the prime minister, demand that Labour policy is changed, or offer an appointed principal his resignation?
      In his reply, Reed said he was sorry that Atkins was seeking “to politicise personal tragedy in this way”. He went on:
      I think it’s immensely, immensely regrettable that she would seek to do that. None of us have been sure what happens in matters of personal tragedy. But I think it’s beneath her, actually, to try to weaponise it in a way that she has done this.
      This government takes the issues of mental health very, very seriously indeed. That is why we are setting up mental health hubs in every community so that we can support farmers and others who are suffering from mental health, which I would again remind her is a problem that escalated during her time in office the secretary of state for health, where she failed to address the problems people are facing.
      Keir Starmer used his speech to the London Defence Conference to announce a £563m contract for Rolls-Royce for the maintenance of Britain’s fleet of Typhoon fighter jets. “The work to maintain 130 Typhoon engines will take place at Rolls-Royce’s sites, supporting hundreds of jobs in Bristol and beyond,” No 10 said.He also said that British workers would gain from what he described as the “defence dividend” – the benefits to be had from the government’s decision to increase defence spending. Starmer said:
      Our task now is to seize the defence dividend – felt directly in the pockets of working people, rebuilding our industrial base and creating the jobs of the future.
      A national effort. A time for the state, business and society to join hands, in pursuit of the security of the nation and the prosperity of its people.
      An investment in peace, but also an investment in British pride and the British people to build a nation that, once again, lives up to the promises made to the generation who fought for our values, our freedom and our security.
      The phrase “defence dividend” is an allusion to the term “peace dividend” – which referred to the advantage Britain and other western countries gained at the end of the cold war when they could cut defence spending, meaning more government money was available for other priorities.What Starmer refers to as the “defence dividend” has been funded in part by huge cuts to aid spending. But Starmer has repeatedly sought to show that his policy will bring, not just defence gains, but employment gains too.Keir Starmer has said that acting in the national interest has been his priority in the talks on the UK-US trade deal expected to be announced later.Speaking to the London Defence Conference, Starmer:
      Talks with the US have been ongoing and you’ll hear more from me about that later today.
      But make no mistake, I will always act in our national interest, for workers, businesses and families, to deliver security and renewal for our country.
      The conventional wisdom at Westminster is that trade deals are a good thing, and that voters welcome them. But the US-UK deal could challenge this assumption because at least some of its features may look like protection racket payments handed over to an administration using tariffs as an instrument of extortion.In a post on social media, Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor, says British voters might not necessarily applaud what has been agreed.
      The UK’s soon-to-be announced tariff deal with the US matters hugely for two reasons.
      First, it is the first since Trump announced his coercive global tariffs on the whole world. So it will be a template for further such deals with bigger manufacturing nations and areas like Japan and the EU.
      Second, it can only be judged against the yardstick of how far the UK has been forced to grant the US better terms of trade in response to the American president’s gangsterish bullying.
      The prospect of the UK being seen as a net winner from a deal that would abuse the meaning of “free trade” is nil.
      The question, soon to be answered, is how far we have surrendered – on access to the UK for US farmers, on reducing the tax for the likes of Google and Amazon – to save the bacon of our motor and steel manufacturers.
      Politically in the UK for the prime minister I am not sure how it will play out. British voters don’t like Trump. They won’t want Starmer to have capitulated to him.
      The Green party is joining the Liberal Democrats (see 8.05am) in demanding that MPs get a vote on the proposed US-UK trade deal (as well as the UK-India one). The Green MP Ellie Chowns posted this on Bluesky.
      Reports that Labour may scrap the Digital Services Tax to secure a trade deal with Trump are deeply concerning. I’m urging the govt to guarantee MPs get a vote on any such deal. MPs must have a say in decisions that affect our digital economy and ability to tax corporate giants.
      In 2021 the Labour party published a policy paper saying it would give MPs a vote on trade deals. It said:
      We will reform the parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements, so that MPs have a guaranteed right to debate the proposed negotiating objectives for future trade deals, and a guaranteed vote on the resulting agreements, with sufficient time set aside for detailed scrutiny both of the draft treaty texts, and of accompanying expert analysis on the full range of implications, including for workers’ rights.
      In the Commons, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has repeatedly pressed Keir Starmer to confirm that he will give MPs a vote on the proposed US-UK trade deal. But Starmer has refused to commit to this. When this last come up, he told Davey: “If [a deal] is secured, it will go through the known procedures for this house.”This was a reference to the CRAG (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) process – which does not guarantee MPs get to vote on treaties.Unlike Donald Trump, Keir Starmer does not have his own social media platform. He still uses X, and this morning he has been tweeting, not about the US-UK trade deal, but about the 80th anniversary of VE Day.
      Their victory will always be one of our finest hours.
      Today we come together to celebrate those who fought for our freedom.
      #VEDay80
      He has also posted a link to an article he has written for the Metro about the VE Day generation, and his own grandfather. Here is an extract.
      This is the thing about our greatest generation.
      Not only did they sacrifice so much, they often bore their burden in silence.
      I think of my own grandfather, who fought during the Second World War. We never did find out exactly what he saw. He simply didn’t want to talk about it.
      But this VE Day and every VE Day, we must talk about them. Because without their bravery, the freedom and joy of today’s celebrations may never have come to pass.
      Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, picking up from Martin Belam.Here is a timetable for what we are expecting today. We will be mostly focused on the US-UK trade deal announcement, but there will be some other politics too.9am: Keir Starmer gives a speech at the London defence conference. He is not expected to take questions.9.30am: Steve Reed, the environment secretary, takes questions in the Commons.10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, takes questions on next week’s Commons business.11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.Noon: Starmer and other political leaders join the king and queen in Westminster Abbey for the service to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day.After 12pm: After the two minutes’ silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, the Bank of England announces its interest rate.After 12pm: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs.3pm (UK time): Donald Trump is due to make his announcement in the White House about the US-UK trade deal. He posted this on his Truth Social account earlier.Afternoon: Starmer is expected to make a statement about the trade deal.Defence secretary John Healey has just appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, where he did not have much to add to his earlier comments about the prospect of a UK-US trade deal, repeating that negotiations had been “hard” and that ministers had refrained from offering a running commentary in order to give negotiators space.He was asked whether ministerial silence on some of the more controversial things Donald Trump’s administration had said or done since coming to office was part of the UK trying to secure a trade deal, and also asked why it did not appear to be “a full deal, as opposed to something responding to tariffs, as it seems to be.”Healey essentially side-stepped those questions, saying “the single purpose of the government is to get a good economic deal. And this discussion reminds us that the US is an indispensable ally for our economic security and our national security.”The Liberal Democrats treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper has reiterated the party’s position that any trade deal with the US should be put to parliament for approval before being ratified, saying Labour “should not be afraid” of a vote if they are confident a deal is in the country’s best interests.Cooper, the MP for St Albans, said in a statement:
      Parliament must be given a vote on this US trade deal so it can be properly scrutinised.
      A good trade deal with the US could bring huge benefits, but Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that it may include measures that threaten our NHS, undermine our farmers or give tax cuts to US tech billionaires.
      If the government is confident the agreement it has negotiated with Trump is in Britain’s national interest, it should not be afraid to bring it before MPs.
      Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge has appeared on Times Radio this morning, and the Conservative MP for South Suffolk said “the devil is in the detail” over prospects for a US-UK trade deal.He told listeners the Conservatives “obviously” would support a deal “in principle”. He continued:
      If it’s correct, and you know, whilst we haven’t been named publicly, it does sound like something’s happening, nevertheless, it would be wholly speculative [to comment].
      As you appreciate and know full well, with any deal like that, the devil is in the detail. What is the nitty gritty? What does it mean for individual sectors and so on.
      So obviously, yes, we wanted to see a trade deal with the US. It’s a big benefit of our position with an independent trade policy since we left the EU but as I say, the devil will be in the details. So should there be an agreement, we would then need to study that in depth.
      Asked by presenter Kate McCann if there was anything the Tories would not want to see in any deal, he said:
      I think if we don’t know at all what’s in it, or even if it’ll definitely happen, I think to try and sort of pre-judge what might or might not be in is not something I’m going to get into respectfully. I totally understand why you’re asking that. I think it’s an incredibly important issue, particularly with the wider challenge of tariffs and so on. I’m a big free trader. Our party wants us to see the UK growing by striking trade deals. But I just think you’ve got to wait and see, because who knows, quite frankly.
      In 2021, then prime minister Boris Johnson said his Conservative government was “going as fast as we can” to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the US, but the successive administrations of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak failed to secure one.The defence secretary has said he is confident that UK negotiators will secure “a good deal with the US”, describing the country as “an indispensable ally for our economic security.”John Healey declined to comment on the timing of any update from Keir Starmer, which No 10 said would happen today. Asked whether it was correct that Donald Trump was going to make an announcement at 3pm UK time, and whether Starmer would speak at the same time, Healey said “I don’t account for the movements in Downing Street.”Appearing on Sky News the defence secretary reiterated his lines from an earlier Times Radio interview, saying:
      We’ve been conducting hard negotiations with the US ever since Keir Starmer went to the White House in February, trying to secure any good economic deal for Britain.
      And during that time, I have to say, ministers like me have stepped back and refrained from commenting on those discussions in order to give the negotiators the space to secure the best possible deal for Britain. So any live discussions or timelines really aren’t for me.
      He was pressed on Sky News on whether a US trade deal would have repercussions for the NHS, farm workers and steelworkers in the UK. He said:
      I’m not going to comment on potential content of any economic deal or timelines. What I will say is that for steelworkers like those in sconthorpe, they’ve seen now a UK Government, a Labour government, willing to step in to secure the future of their industry.
      And as defence secretary, you know, I’m going to make sure that the increased defence spending that we will use to secure our defence for the future also brings a premium – a dividend, if you like – and is measured in more British jobs, more British apprentices, more successful British firms right across the country.
      Keir Starmer will give an update on the prospects for a UK-US trade deal later today, it has been announced.PA Media reports a Number 10 spokesperson said:
      The prime minister will always act in Britain’s national interest – for workers, for business, for families. The US is an indispensable ally for both our economic and national security. Talks on a deal between our countries have been continuing at pace and the prime minister will update later today.
      Defence secretary John Healey is appearing on Sky News at the moment, speaking from Westminster ahead of VE Day commemorations later today.He has already appeared earlier on Times Radio, where he was coy about commenting on the prospects for a UK-US trade deal. PA Media report he told listeners of that station:
      It’s certainly true that the US is an indispensable ally for the UK, both on economic and national security grounds. It’s also true that since the prime minister visited the White House in February we have been in detailed talks about an economic deal.
      But I have to say, throughout that period, ministers like me have been keen to give the negotiations the space to get the best possible deal for the UK. So, we just haven’t been giving a running commentary on developments or timelines, so I’m not going to start now.
      In the morning Politico newsletter, Andrew McDonald makes the following point worth bearing in mind. He writes:
      This was never meant to be a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with the US, of the sort that previous Tory governments tried and failed to win. Instead, this had been pitched by UK officials as a narrow economic pact to avoid tariffs and work together on AI and critical tech. How narrow or otherwise, we should know soon.
      Here is our earlier report from my colleague Hugo Lowell in Washington …Labour’s defence secretary John Healey and the Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge are on the media round this morning. They are likely to be questioned about the prospects for a US-UK trade deal announcement, as well as the conflict this week in Kashmir. I’ll bring you the key lines that emerge.In its report suggesting that a trade deal between the US and UK would be the subject of Donald Trump’s promised announcement, the New York Times quotes Timothy C Brightbill, an international trade attorney at Wiley Rein, who suggested any announcement would consist of “an agreement to start the negotiations, identifying a framework of issues to be discussed in the coming months.“We suspect that tariff rates, non-tariff barriers and digital trade are all on the list –and there are difficult issues to address on all of these,” he added.The UK government is likely to have in its sights a reduction in the 25% tariff on automobile sales that the Trump administration imposed. That has led to some British manufacturers pausing shipments across the Atlantic.A team of senior British trade negotiators is in Washington in the hopes of seucuring the trade deal. Last night, government sources said the recent announcement by the US president, Donald Trump, of film industry tariffs had proved a significant setback.One person briefed on the talks said: “We have a senior team on the ground now, and it may be that they are able to agree something this week. But the reality is the Trump administration keeps shifting the goalposts, as you saw with this week’s announcement on film tariffs.”Another said Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs on films “produced in foreign lands”, which could have a major impact on Britain’s film industry, had “gone down very badly in Downing Street”.UK officials say they are targeting tariff relief on a narrow range of sectors in order to get a deal agreed before they begin formal negotiations with the EU over a separate European agreement. A draft deal handed to the US a week ago would have reduced tariffs on British exports of steel, aluminium and cars, in return for a lower rate of the digital services tax, which is paid by a handful of large US technology companies.Officials from the trade department hoped to reach an agreement on two outstanding issues, pharmaceuticals and films. Trump has said he will impose tariffs on both industries, mainstays of the British economy, but has not yet given details.Keir Starmer has ruled out reducing food production standards to enable more trade of US agricultural products, as officials prioritise signing a separate agreement with the EU, which is likely to align British standards with European ones.Donald Trump is expected to announce the framework of a trade agreement with the UK after teasing a major announcement with a “big and highly respected, country.”The specifics of any agreement were not immediately clear and there was no comment from the White House or the British embassy in Washington on whether an actual deal had been reached or if the framework would need further negotiation. Any agreement would mark the first such deal for the administration since it imposed sweeping tariffs against trade partners last month.In a post on Truth Social previewing the announcement, Trump was vague and did not disclose the country or the terms.“Big news conference tomorrow morning at 10:00am, the Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. More

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The truth is finally dawning on Britain: toadying to Trump has got us nowhere | Emma Brockes

      by

      It’s not funny, of course – livelihoods if not actual lives depend on reaching a workable accord. But the news that President Trump has probably stiffed the UK into a second- or third-tier boarding group for trade talks, behind South Korea and Japan, triggers at least a snort of recognition for anyone who has experienced versions of that dynamic. The phrase “British negotiators are hopeful” followed almost immediately by use of the word “disappointed” in heavy rotation takes you, with grim amusement, back to every toxic relationship in which you have played Britain to someone else’s America.We are talking, of course, about the wisdom or otherwise of appeasing a man many think of as a tyrant, and the main takeaway from the Guardian’s story on Tuesday is that no matter how the UK pretzels itself to fit Donald Trump’s requirements, none of it will make any difference. Or rather what difference it makes, beyond the immediate relief enjoyed before the flattery wears off, is likely to be negative. It’s a rule of extortion that demands will increase with each capitulation, as Columbia University is finding out to its cost. (After caving to Trump’s demands last month in return for the restoration of $400m in federal funding, the university has not, in fact, had its funding restored. Instead Trump officials have told Columbia its concessions only represent the “first step”.)And now the UK finds itself in a similar pickle to Columbia, with any goodwill generated by King Charles’s letter inviting Trump to Balmoral apparently thrown up in the air. (One thing I’ll say for the royals is that their use of passive-aggressive semiotics in the invitation are absolutely world class: Balmoral is a mid-list palace that, while superior to Blenheim, which Trump visited in 2018 and is basically an off-site for corporate events these days, is decidedly not Buckingham Palace – a subtlety we must assume the king and his cohorts are thoroughly enjoying and Trump has no idea about whatsoever.)Anyway, where does any of this leave the UK? For now, at least, belligerence seems to be getting the better results with Trump, at least for those negotiators who have something he wants. Trump has blinked repeatedly when faced with the negative consequences of his own erratic behaviour, be that from tech companies forcing him to exempt them from tariffs or business leaders persuading him, in the wake of his commitment to putting 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, to wobble and admit they’re not sustainable.The fact is that Apple, Target and Walmart all have greater leverage over Trump than the UK does, which is why watching this latest episode of the special relationship unfold brings on, at least in British viewers, feelings of something like pathos. How many times will we keep going back? Clearly the prime minister’s jolly humouring secures better outcomes than Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first approach at the White House, which has since been corrected to a necessary attitude of fealty. Meanwhile Canada, of all places, is now the nation telling the US in the most strident terms to take a step back and get stuffed.As in all these things, it’s the hope that kills you. Maybe if Britain says exactly the right words in the right order, keeps its breathing to a minimum, manages not to say anything annoying until we’re on the other side of the trade deal, lowers its eyes away from Europe or other allies that might trigger the rage of the aggressor, and continues to laugh at his jokes and listen to his stories, it will succeed in changing the pattern of Trump’s behaviour.The fact that this outcome is considered in any way achievable is perhaps the saddest thing of all. It’s an odd quirk of British-American diplomacy that, despite the vast disparity in power and wealth between the two countries, the sense of exceptionalism on both sides is probably equal. We really do believe we can talk our way out of anything, even when dealing with someone as capricious as Trump – a man for whom no amount of appeasement will hold longer than his mood. The king will be mobilised. The choice of Balmoral for Trump’s summer visit will rest in part on the fact that it’s harder for demonstrators bearing helium-filled balloons in the shape of Trump-as-a-baby to reach.And the diplomatic game will continue. Nothing Trump does seems strategic, but it seems both a calculated humiliation and a warning shot to steer clear of Europe to push the UK down the running order of trade talks. The question, then, becomes one of whether Britain’s poker face is a piece of canny diplomatic froideur and blithe UK negotiating or the uncertain actions of the party in an abusive relationship who understands that the moment of greatest danger is when you try to leave.

      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      In Trumpland, ‘defending free speech’ means one thing: submission to the president | Rafael Behr

      by

      Compared with many countries around the world, the US is still a great democracy, but a much lesser one than it was four months ago. The constitution has not been rewritten. Checks and balances have not been dissolved. The difference is a president who ignores those constraints, and the impotence of the institutions that should enforce them.Which is the true US, the one enshrined in law or the one that smirks in contempt of law? If the latter, should Britain welcome its embrace as a kindred nation? That is an existential question lurking in the technical folds of a potential transatlantic trade agreement.If JD Vance is to be believed, the prospects of such a deal are looking up. The US vice-president reports that Donald Trump “really loves the United Kingdom”. The two countries are connected by a “real cultural affinity” that transcends business interests.This is a more emollient Vance than the one who earlier this year denounced Britain, alongside other European democracies, as a hotbed of anti-Christian prejudice and endemic censorship. In a speech to the Munich Security Conference in February, Vance told his audience that Europe’s greatest threat comes not from Russia or China, but “from within”. He saw a continent in retreat from the “values shared with the United States of America”. Vance returned to the theme when Keir Starmer visited the White House, rebuking the prime minister for “infringements on free speech that … affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens”.That was a swipe at the Online Safety Act, which makes social media companies, websites and search engines responsible for “harmful content” published on their platforms. The law had a tortuous genesis between 2022 and 2023. Its scope expanded and contracted depending on what was deemed enforceable and desirable under three different Conservative prime ministers.The version now on the statute book focuses on unambiguously nasty stuff – incitement to violence, terrorism, race hate, encouraging suicide, child abuse images. Technology companies are required to have systems for removing such content. Those mechanisms are assessed by the regulator, Ofcom. Inadequate enforcement is punishable with fines. Refusal to comply can result in criminal prosecutions.That was the theory. The question of how the law should be implemented in practice was deferred. The answer seems to be not much if Britain wants a trade deal with the US.Last month, Ofcom received a delegation from the US state department, which raised the Online Safety Act in line with the Trump administration’s mission “to affirm the US commitment to defending freedom of expression in Europe and around the world”. Last week, answering questions from the parliamentary liaison committee, Starmer confirmed that diluting digital regulation was on the table in trade talks when he acknowledged that “there are questions about how technology impacts free speech”. The prime minister also conceded that the UK’s digital services tax, which aims to clamp down on international tech companies avoiding tax by hiding their profits offshore, could be up for negotiation.These demands from the White House have been flagged well in advance. In February, Trump signed a “memorandum to defend US companies and innovators from extortion overseas”. The administration promised to take a dim view of any attempt to raise taxes from US tech companies and any use of “products and technology in ways that undermine free speech or foster censorship”.Regulation that impedes the operation of US digital behemoths – anything short of blanket permission to do as they please – will apparently be treated as a hostile act and an affront to human liberty.This is an imperial demand for market access cynically camouflaged in the language of universal rights. The equivalent trick is not available in other sectors of the economy. US farmers hate trade barriers that stop their products flooding European markets, but they don’t argue that their chlorine-washed chickens are being censored. (Not yet.)That isn’t to say digital communications can be subject to toxicity tests just like agricultural exports. There is wide scope for reasonable disagreement on what counts as intolerable content, and how it should be controlled. The boundaries are not easily defined. But it is also beyond doubt that thresholds exist. There is no free-speech case for child sexual abuse images. The most liberal jurisdictions recognise that the state has a duty to proscribe some material even if there is a market for it.The question of how online space should be policed is complex in principle and fiendishly difficult in practice, not least because the infrastructure we treat as a public arena is run by private commercial interests. Britain cannot let the terms of debate be dictated by a US administration that is locked in corrupting political intimacy with those interests.It is impossible to separate the commercial and ideological strands of Trump’s relationship with Silicon Valley oligarchs. They used their power and wealth to boost his candidacy and they want payback from his incumbency. There is not much coherence to the doctrine. “Free” speech is the kind that amplifies the president’s personal prejudices. Correcting his lies with verifiable facts is censorship.That warped frame extends beyond the shores of the US. It is shared by Kemi Badenoch, who considers Vance a friend. Asked about the vice-president’s Munich speech, the Conservative leader said she thought he was “dropping some truth bombs, quite frankly”. Badenoch’s own speeches consistently fret about the capture of Britain’s elite institutions, especially the Whitehall bureaucracy, by repressive woke dogma.There is a school of militant leftism that is tediously censorious, stretching liberal piety to illiberal extremes, and there always has been. But it is very far from power. Maybe Badenoch ramps up the menace to appeal to a fanatical audience on social media. Perhaps she radicalised herself by reading about it there. Either way, to fixate on campus protest politics as the main threat to western democracy when a tyrant sits in the Oval Office requires an act of mental contortion that, if not actually stupid, does a strong imitation of stupidity.Britain doesn’t have to take instruction on political freedom from a regime that suffocates media independence with bullying and vexatious litigation; that demands universities teach the ruling party’s orthodoxies; that courts dictatorships while sabotaging democratic alliances; that kidnaps and jails innocent people with no regard for due process, then ignores the court rulings that say they should be free.These are the “values” that Vance is talking about when he laments that Europe and the US are drifting apart. This is the model of “free speech” that a Trump trading partner is expected to endorse; to protect. Is that the stuff of “real cultural affinity” that earns Britain a deal? Let’s hope not.

      Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist More