Keir Starmer

Subterms

    Latest story

    225 Shares129 Views

    On wokeness, patriotism and change, Kamala Harris’s defeat has lessons for Starmer | Deborah Mattinson and Claire Ainsley

    by

    Given how events unfolded, it was never going to be easy for Kamala Harris. Many Democrats are ­convinced her ­campaign saved the party from an even worse result. To be fair, it achieved some real highs: she won the debate. But she never won the argument, at least not with the ­voters who mattered most.The US election triggered a scary deja vu moment for those of us who had watched the 2019 UK ­general ­election from behind our sofas, hands over our eyes. The Democrats lost votes with almost everyone, almost everywhere, but, like Labour in the “red wall”, most ­dramatically with traditional heartland ­voters: working-class, low-paid, non-­graduates. And, like Labour back in 2019, that lost connection with core voters had not happened overnight.Working with the DC-based Progressive Policy Institute, we ­conducted post-election polling and focus groups with past Democrat voters who voted for Trump on 5 November. The work laid bare an anxious nation desperate for change. Be in no doubt, this was a change election: any candidate failing to offer the change the electorate craved had become a risky choice. Asking how voters felt about the results on 6 November, “relieved” was the word we heard most often.Overwhelmingly, change focused on two issues: inflation and ­immigration. Trump enjoyed a clear lead on both. Sure, Harris had some popular policies (anti price-­gouging, tax cuts, help for first-time ­buyers and small businesses), but these seemed sidelined in an overcrowded campaign, with voters concluding that she was not on their side and was too focused on “woke” issues.Among working-class ­voters, 53% agreed the Dems had gone “too far in pushing a woke ­ideology”. They’ve “gone in a weird ­direction”, said one, “lost touch with our ­priorities”, said another. Worse still was the sense that any voter who disagreed with them was “a bad person”.American liberals were out of step with these voters’ views – most importantly, on loving their country. As many as 66% of Americans say theirs is the greatest country in the world, rising to 71% of working-class voters. Liberals were the only group who disagreed. What this patriotism means matters. Voters expressed it in terms of putting US interests ahead of others – it also meant recognising that change is needed and being prepared to act. As one voter put it: “If you’re not championing change, you’re not patriotic.”Hungry for that change, voters yearned for a shake-up in the way that both government and the economy operates. Just 2% said the system needed no change, while 70% believed the country was heading in the wrong direction. The Democrats did not seem to hear this – some even interpreted Harris’ pledge to “protect democracy” as “protecting the status quo”. By contrast, Trump’s appetite for disruption, coupled with his contempt for Capitol Hill sacred cows, seemed to promise change that for once might actually deliver for working class voters.Are there things the Harris campaign could have done ­differently? Of course. Joyful celebrities seemed tin-eared to an ­electorate feeling worried, ­pessimistic, even scared. But what should really ­trouble the Democrats now is the sense that the party – not just the candidate or the campaign – has, since 2020, parted company with the voters that its electoral success depended on: millions of Americans who work hard, pay their taxes, do the right thing and now feel they are not ­getting a fair deal. The Democrats can only win by putting those “hero voters” back at the centre of their politics. The same was true for Labour in 2024 and is true for ­centre-left parties elsewhere. That requires a course correction which needs to start now.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAs Democrats absorb the result, without an immediate leadership contest to ­provide direction, local leaders must be prepared to step up, flex their muscles and challenge Trump. Change demands strong leadership – all the more so when voters feel vulnerable. Polling gave Trump a 28% lead on strength. Described as a “powerhouse”, he was likened to “neat whisky – gives it to you straight” while Harris was a “watered down cocktail”. Imagined as a car, he was a “sturdy dump truck owning the road, not to be argued with” while she was a “flimsy Kia”. The grit that took a mixed race woman tantalisingly close to the top job in world politics was just not evident to voters. Having absolute ­clarity of conviction is a must for tomorrow’s aspiring candidates – and showcasing that must start today.This is eerily familiar ground to those of us who worked hard to ­distance Labour from what led to catastrophic loss in 2019. It remains to be seen if the Democrats embrace the change their party needs as ­courageously as Keir Starmer did over the past four years.But there is food for thought for the new Labour administration, too. Labour must continue to channel its powerful change message in ­government, reflecting the anti-establishment mood that now exists both sides of the Atlantic. It must be prepared – enthusiastic even – about disrupting rather than defending old, tired institutions. It needs a strong overarching narrative and a plan to reform government and the economy so it can truly deliver back to the hero voters that delivered its electoral success in July. That work started last week with the launch of Starmer’s Plan for Change with its powerful emphasis on working people being better off, but there remains much to do.Deborah Mattinson is Keir Starmer’s former director of strategy. Claire Ainsley was Labour’s executive director of policy from 2020-2022 More

    More stories

    • 300 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I feel I’ve upset a few people over the years’: actor Brian Cox on overrated co-stars, charmless politicians and the joy of smoking weed

      by

      As I leave the office, my editor wishes me luck. “Hope he’s not too grumpy!” she says. A moment later, the deputy editor asks where I’m off to. To see Brian Cox, the actor, I say. “Oh!” she says, with a rather-you-than-me look. “Hope he’s not too grumpy!”Cox has played grumpy for going on 60 years. All sorts of grumpiness – idiot grumpy (independent candidate Bob Servant in the TV comedy of the same name), world-weary grumpy (school principal Dr Nelson Guggenheim in Wes Anderson’s film Rushmore), psychopathic grumpy (the first movie incarnation of Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter), egomaniacal grumpy (Robert McKee in Spike Jonze’s Adaptation) and, of course, brutal grumpy as media mogul Logan Roy in the TV series Succession. In recent years, he has often appeared on chatshows being grumpy about the state of the world. In 2022, he published his hugely entertaining memoirs, in which he was grumpy about method acting, useless directors, vain thesps, useless politicians, the church, capitalism, cancel culture, you name it. He was also fabulously indiscreet – Steven Seagal, whom he worked with on The Glimmer Man, is “as ludicrous in real life as he appears on screen”, Johnny Depp is “so overblown, so overrated”, Tarantino’s work is “meretricious”, Edward Norton is “a nice lad, but a bit of a pain in the arse because he fancies himself as a writer-director”, while Michael Caton-Jones, who directed him in Rob Roy, is a “complete arsehole”.‘I feel I’ve upset a few people over the years,” Cox says with an angelic smile. “The problem is, I can be quite a loudmouth. Sometimes I have been fairly volatile, and I think, ‘Why the fuck did you say that?’” He’s looking back over his epic career. “There’s a lot of stuff I’ve done which I look at and think, ‘That was crap.’” But today’s not the time for negativity. “No, I’m not going to go down that road.”Blimey, I say, we’re going to have to out you as a diplomat? He laughs – a lovely youthful chuckle. “Yes! You can out me as a diplomat!” he says enthusiastically. The thing is, he adds, certain people are overrated. We’re talking about his memoirs, and the unflinching references to the likes of Depp and Seagal. “But then they probably think they’re overrated as well. So I’m not saying anything they don’t think anyway.”View image in fullscreenWe meet at a hotel in London’s West End, close to the Haymarket theatre where he’s rehearsing The Score, about the ageing Bach, directed by Trevor Nunn. Cox stars in the play opposite his wife, Nicole Ansari-Cox, who is playing his stage wife. Cox looks so dapper in 50 shades of brown – brogues, socks, checked trousers and jacket, all offset with a purple tie. As a young man, he looked older than his years – a squat, Sherman tank of a man made for middle age. Now, at 78, with snow-white hair and a goatee, he looks surprisingly youthful.I ask him why he so often gets cast as grumps. He holds his hands up, nonplussed. Is it because he is one? “No, I’m not like that at all. It’s the antithesis of who I am, actually.” He stops to think about it. “No, that’s not entirely true. Of course, I get grumpy. Particularly about politics, I get very grumpy. A lot of that makes me angry. The failure of the Labour party in particular.” Pause. “But I don’t want to get into that.” Another pause. “Listen, I could go on for ages.” And another.One, two, three. And he’s off. “I don’t know why the Labour party is called the Labour party. It’s not labour orientated. I just think … ”He exhales with loud disappointment. “Keir Hardie, the guy who started it all, was an extraordinary man. And it was a very inclusive thing he was after – social justice. And this lot coming in now, they’re not exercising social justice. It’s true that the last lot left us in deep shit, so there’s a lot of stuff they’ve got to do, but they’ve got to be a bit canny about it in order not to alienate the folk. And Starmer is not exactly the most charming of individuals. He’s not Mr Charm. He’s not got the thing Tony Blair had, which served him brilliantly till hubris got the better of him. Starmer is minus one on that score.” Nor does he rate Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, on the charm front. “She’s had a charm bypass. There’s no question.” He laughs again. But he’s worried – for Scotland, for Britain, for Europe, for the world.Cox has been campaigning with the group Independent Age against the scrapping of the winter fuel payments for pensioners who aren’t on certain benefits, urging older people to check whether they are eligible for pension credit. “I just think it’s not on. It’s unjust. And means testing?” He hisses the word with contempt. “Means testing is something they did in the 30s. And I find that … I don’t know.” He stops, lost for words. “I can’t get with it at all.”View image in fullscreenHe loves his politics. For many years, he was a Labour loyalist. “I was a big Labour man. I was the voice of Labour for the 1997 campaign.” Eventually, he fell out with Blair over Iraq. As for Corbyn, he says, he was not cut out to be a leader. “Jeremy Corbyn is a great guy, don’t get me wrong, but he’s a professional backbencher. He’s a naysayer. And you can’t just be a naysayer, you’ve got to come up with something else in its place. That’s what progress is about.”And just to show he’s no naysayer, he’ll name the person most suited to the job. “I was all for Andy Burnham.” Unfortunately, he says, Burnham is mayor of Greater Manchester rather than a Labour MP. “But what he’s done in Manchester is phenomenal. And he’s keen on the idea that I’m keen on, which is a federal Britain. I believe the way we will survive and come out of the fucking shite that we’ve been in, and keep regurgitating again and again, is by being a federal society where each country has its own say. You can’t separate these islands off, but we’ve got to come together on a federal basis. Not as subjects.”Cox had a fascinating childhood, and is still exploring how it shaped him. He was born in Dundee, to observant Catholic parents. He was the youngest of five siblings – his oldest sister was 17 years his senior. His father, Charles, known as Chic, ran a grocer’s in a deprived part of Dundee; his mother was a spinner in the jute mills. Chic was a kind, sociable man who sold stuff on tick to the needy. “We lived in a tenement, and my dad had the grocer’s shop for 25 years, so he was lower middle class. Not working class.” The flat had two bedrooms – the three girls slept in one room in a single bed, his parents slept in the other, while Cox and his older brother bedded down in the living room.There were three landmarks within a street of where they lived – the church, the library and the cinema. He went to the church because he had to, the library because he wanted to, and the cinema because he was smitten. “My first love was cinema. There were 21 cinemas in my hometown, and I visited every single one of them.” From the age of six, he went by himself. First, he fell for Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin’s slapstick, then, by the age of nine, he was watching serious films about corruption and thwarted ambition such as On the Waterfront. There was no question, he says, that he would become an actor. “I knew this was my trade.”View image in fullscreenWere there any actors he knew, in the family or among friends? “No, but there were performers.” He looks at the biscuit next to his coffee. “D’you want it? I’m diabetic so I can’t eat it. Every Hogmanay the flat was packed with 70 people and I’d be summoned at 1am to perform.” How old was he? “I was three.” Was he the only one summoned? “No, everybody was. My second eldest sister, May, had a great voice. I’d do Al Jolson impersonations. It was weird for a wee boy to sing “Climb up on my knee. Sonny Boy, though you’re only three”! I always remember the effect on the room. There’s something about the room when it’s focused on something. The dynamic changes. Human beings get into a harmony with one another. It’s a wonderful feeling, and I thought, I want to be a part of that.”When he was eight, his father died and his life was uprooted. They discovered that Chic had given so much away on tick, he had left the family in debt. His mother never recovered from his death and their new poverty, and she had severe mental health problems from then on. Cox was farmed out to his three sisters. He left school at 15 and went to work at Dundee Repertory, and at the age of 17 went to England to study at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art.“The 60s were amazing. It was the time of social mobility, when you were welcomed. When I came to drama school, people made it obvious they were happy that I was there. I felt so liberated. London to me has always represented freedom. I loved the sense that I was allowed to be who I was and celebrated for coming from my class.” Does he think he would have a chance of making it nowadays, coming from his background? “No, I wouldn’t. The conditions are so different now.”He really hoped to be an American movie actor, but of course that was impossible. So he settled for being a British theatre actor. And this is where his identity started to fragment. He wanted to be the best he possibly could be in theatre, and that meant excelling in Shakespeare, and Shakespeare was unambiguously English. So Cox started to think of himself as British at best, possibly even a little bit English, and he became more and more divorced from his Scottishness. He moved away from his homeland physically and mentally.Ever since he fell out with Blairism, he has been reconnecting with his Scottishness – or more accurately his Celticness. He recently had a DNA test and discovered he is 88% Irish and 12% Scottish. And it makes sense to him now.View image in fullscreenCox campaigned for Scottish independence and became active in the Scottish National party. Did he ever consider going into politics? “Yes. Alex [Salmond] wanted me to stand as an SNP candidate. I just don’t believe in the word national. It’s got too many connotations. It should be called the Scottish Independence party. SIP.” Cox became close to Salmond, the SNP’s former leader who died in October. Salmond was a controversial figure, who was cleared of 12 charges of sexual assault in 2020, with one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape found not proven. “Alex wasn’t a saint by any stretch of the imagination, but his political thinking was quite brilliant. Probably the most brilliant we’ve had. He was a visionary. I saw a lot of Alex. He was great fun, a bon viveur.”Did he ever warn him about his behaviour? “I never got to that stage. I wish I had. Someone had asked me about his questionable relationship to women. I won’t go into the details. And I think that was problematic.” Was Salmond aware it was problematic? “He wasn’t a fool so he had to be aware of what was going on, but he got let off. He was never salacious in my company. I just liked his brilliance; his sense of the world.”One reason Cox wasn’t tempted by politics is that he has always loved his profession. Acting has been a calling; a vocation. Cox gave up on his Catholicism long ago because it made no sense to him. “If you want a real church, go to the theatre; that tells the truth. Or the cinema. Go and see the performing arts.” He talks about the great directors with awe, paying a special tribute to two who have passed on – Michael Elliott who directed him in a stage production of Moby Dick in 1984, and Lindsay Anderson, who cast him in In Celebration, his second film, in 1975, set in the Derbyshire mining town of Langwith, and also starring the great Alan Bates. “Michael Elliott and Lindsay Anderson were the two people who gave me standards – both were of Scottish extraction, it has to be said. It’s a sort of purity of vision. I loved working with both of them. I’ve still got Lindsay’s notes.”Cox, famously, can’t stand method acting. He believes it’s pointless, selfish, an enemy of the imagination and destroys the atmosphere for others on set. He has described the technique used by his Succession co-star Jeremy Strong, who plays one of his three children, as “fucking annoying”. But, today, the newly circumspect Cox would like to accentuate the positive. “He was wonderful to act with. I had no argument with Jeremy’s acting.” But? “He would be an even better actor if he just got rid of that so there would be much more inclusiveness in what he did.”Isn’t it a pain when you can’t have real conversations with a cast member because they are permanently in character? “Well, it’s not good for the ensemble. It creates hostility. That’s the problem.” Did he talk to Strong about it? “No, not in the way I would like to have talked to him, but it’s a very emotive subject for people who follow the Strasberg line.”View image in fullscreenCox is talking about Lee Strasberg, regarded as the father of method acting in America. Last year, Cox suggested that if Strong had been more relaxed about his technique it would have been helpful for the Succession cast: “Go back to your trailer and have a hit of marijuana, you know?” Does he hit the marijuana? “Oh yes,” he says. What does it do for him? “It relaxes me.” He says it was only in middle age that he discovered the joy of a spliff. He was introduced to it by the uncle of a former girlfriend. He does a Cockney wide boy impersonation of him. “He was staying with me, and I’d come home and say it’s difficult for me to switch off, and he said, ‘Have you ever tried the weed?’ I’d always been very against that because when I was young I thought drugs just obfuscated the career path. And probably it would have at that time. So he said, ‘Why don’t you try some weed?’ So I did, and I just thought, ‘Oh GOD! It’s just the best way to get rid of the day.’”Succession has made Cox more famous than he ever had been. A mixed blessing, he says. Beforehand, he would get stopped by people who recognised him, but didn’t know why. Now there’s no doubt. Strangers not only ask for selfies, they also beg him to tell them to fuck off Logan Roy style, which often he’s happy to do, with feeling.Looking back at earlier profiles, it’s an astonishing career progression. In the 1980s, when he won the Laurence Olivier award for best actor in a new play for Rat in the Skull, and Critics Circle award for Titus Andronicus and The Taming of the Shrew, we were told he was a latecomer to success. In his 70s, he has won a Golden Globe and been Emmy nominated three years on the trot for playing Succession’s dyspeptic media mogul, who some have compared to Rupert Murdoch. “There’s a lot of, ‘Oh Brian Cox, isn’t he doing well now?’” he says. “But I’ve done well my whole career. I’ve had a great career.”Succession has, however, given him opportunities that he might not otherwise have had. He has just finished directing his first movie. Glenrothan is a family saga about a whisky distillery, which he calls his love letter to Scotland. What he has learned most from the experience, he says, is that directing is the wrong word for the job. “I realised I’m not a director, but a curator.” What’s the difference? “Film is a communicative art, where you’re curating brilliant costume designs with brilliant set designs with a brilliant DP. It’s not you. You’re just gathering that together and organising it, rather than saying we must go there and do this and do that. Not me, me, me. I mean the film may be shite, but at least it’s shite on my terms.”He has worked alongside his wife, Nicole Ansari-Cox, before; he directed her in 2020 in Sinners, a play about a woman stoned for adultery. “I love directing her. Or even curating her! She’s great – so good, so open.” Before marrying Ansari-Cox, he had two children with the actor Caroline Burt, to whom he was married for 19 years. His oldest is the actor Alan Cox, now in his mid-50s, who played the young John Mortimer in the TV drama A Voyage Round My Father.Cox has straddled the classes over the years, and known both poverty and considerable wealth. Burt came from an upper middle class family, and they sent their children to prestigious public schools. He has often said he was lacking as a father first time round – impatient, absent. But now he’s not so sure. “I think that’s just to do with the fact that I got married so young first time. I was 21 and had my first kid at 24. It was all alien to me.”View image in fullscreenHe has experienced being both a young father and an old one. His two sons with Nicole, Orson and Torin (aged 22 and 20, respectively), have grown up in New York, where the family live. He becomes gooey when talking about them. “I still look at their baby pictures. I miss them from when they were small. They’re now grown adults. They’re ridiculously tall, which is embarrassing because I’m only 5ft 8in and Nicole’s 5ft 2in.” How tall are they? “6ft 4in and 6ft 3in. It’s something about America. I used to think, ‘If I go to America, I’ll grow tall. Well, I’ll be taller.’ And of course I never lived in America when I was young, so I never got tall!”As a US citizen, how does he feel about the return of Donald Trump as president? “The penny doesn’t seem to drop about him. I can’t understand it. That’s why it’s so shocking. A man known to be sexist, racist, a suspected rapist … ” He turns puce, and struggles to get the words out. “And he’s got a big Catholic vote behind him … and I kept thinking, ‘How does that tie in with Catholic consciousness?’” No wonder, he says, that he gave up on religion. “It’s all bollocks. BOLLOCKS,” he roars. I’ve never met anybody who says bollocks with such ferocity. Then he rows back. “I don’t want to be disrespectful of people who believe, so bollocks is a bit harsh.”The older he gets, the more he wants to know why we’re on Earth – what our purpose is, if there is any. And the re-election of Trump makes him even more baffled. “We don’t understand who the fuck we are. We really don’t. We have no fucking clue who we are. How did we get to a stage where 80 million Americans will elect this fucking, you know, to become president.” He says “fucking” every bit as ferociously as he does “bollocks”.Does the US election make him lose faith in people?” “No, it doesn’t make me lose faith in people. It just makes me realise people are stupid. We’re in for a pretty rough old four years coming up.” Does he think he’ll stay in the US with Trump in power? “I don’t know. I’ve got to because my sons are there. But I’ll try to spend as much time here as I can.”We change the subject to something more positive. He tells me how he got together with Nicole. He’d previously met her one evening in 1990, when he was playing Lear in Hamburg. They talked, they danced, and then eight years elapsed before they saw each other again. By now he was single, recently out of a long-term relationship, and working on Broadway. “I got this message from the stage doorman, Jerry, and he said, ‘This broad came here last night. Really good-looking broad, she left this note, and I had one of those weird thoughts, ‘If I open this note, it’s going to change my life.’ I literally had this premonition. I’ve never experienced anything like this in my life.” And it did. He had just heard there was a no-show, so he rang Nicole and offered her the ticket. “We got together over that weekend – 1998, 26 years ago.”View image in fullscreenHe has previously said the secret to a happy relationship is separate bedrooms. Did he mean it? “That helps.” Why? “Because it means we’re independent. We’re not dependent on each other. I mean it’s very hard at the moment because we’re having to share a room, as I’ve got such a small flat in London. It’s weird. The place is such a fucking mess.” Normally, back home in America, they have a totally different set-up. “We visit each other.” Does he stay overnight if he visits? “Yeayeayea. The secret of a happy marriage is to allow the person to be the person and not make them into what you want to make them.”I ask if he thinks about death. “Yes, all the time. I have a fantasy every night about how I’m going to die. I don’t think about it in a depressing way. I just think of all the possible scenarios.” What’s his favourite? “Going without fuss, wrapped up in bed with a cup of tea, maybe with the telly on.” I think you may have a long wait ahead of you, I say. “Maybe. Maybe.” I hope so.It’s time to leave. We head off together. He talks about where I grew up in Manchester, the years he spent there working in the theatre, and the people and places he loves that I may know. Grumpy? No way. Sure, he’s passionate about a better world and pointing out all that’s bad in the present one. Yes, he’s a loudmouth with a penchant for roaring “Bollocks” at the world’s shysters and hypocrites. But, whisper it, Brian Cox may just be one of life’s great enthusiasts. The Score is at Theatre Royal Haymarket in London from 20 February to 26 April 2025, trh.co.uk More

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Keir Starmer played the China card in Rio – and sent a message to a hawkish Donald Trump | Simon Tisdall

      by

      Both were lawyers before they became politicians, but that’s where the similarities between Keir Starmer and Richard Nixon end. The former US president resigned in disgrace at the height of the Watergate corruption scandal exactly 50 years ago. Britain’s prime minister may have been unwise to accept free tickets from Arsenal FC – but he’s not in Nixon’s league.Except, perhaps, was there just a touch of Tricky Dicky about Starmer’s meeting with China’s president, Xi Jinping, at last week’s G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro? Watergate aside, Nixon is famous for his groundbreaking 1972 visit to Beijing, which opened the way to normalised relations between the US and Red China.Nixon’s surprise démarche had another purpose: to show the Soviet Union, America’s cold war adversary, that the US and China could act in alliance against Moscow, which broke with Beijing in 1961. Nixon’s move, known as “playing the China card”, had significant geopolitical consequences. Starmer, dealt a weaker hand, had no aces up his sleeve.All the same, the prime minister’s eagerness to reset what, under previous governments, became a very rocky relationship was striking. Starmer said he sought “consistent, durable, respectful, predictable” ties. “A strong relationship is important for both of our countries and for the broader international community,” he said.It was a pointed statement. Doubtless Starmer was thinking primarily about boosting UK trade, investment and growth. But were his words also designed, Nixon-style, to send a message to a third party – namely, Donald Trump?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US president-elect is a vociferous foe of China, which he believes threatens American global hegemony. He plans to impose sweeping, punitive tariffs on Chinese imports, re-igniting the trade war he began in his first term. Conservative backers, such as commentator Ionut Popescu, egg him on. Containment of China must be “the driving principle of US foreign policy in the new cold war”, Popescu wrote.Leading China hawks are being offered senior positions in the new administration, which takes office on 20 January. They include Marco Rubio as secretary of state. As a senator, Rubio railed against human rights abuses in Xinjiang and the suppression of Hong Kong’s democracy – dramatised by last week’s jailings of activists and the show trial of British media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai. Rubio reviles “the wealth and corrupt activities of the leadership of the Chinese Communist party”.Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth, a rightwing TV personality, as defence secretary, and Michael Waltz, a fierce defender of Taiwan’s independence, as national security adviser, reinforces a strong anti-China bias. These men constitute what the New York Times calls “a new class of cold warrior, guns pointed at China”. And, like Trump, they will be unimpressed by Starmer’s cosying up to Xi.Starmer surely knows that, which makes his repositioning all the more interesting. Many in Britain, Labour and Tories, share American concerns. A House of Commons Library briefing in July traced a “sharp deterioration” in China ties in recent years, pointing in particular to Beijing’s “expansive” foreign policy and cyber-attacks and espionage in the UK. It noted Britain formally deems China a “systemic competitor” and “the greatest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.Speaking in Rio, Xi was adamant that his stance on Taiwan, democracy and other core issues would not change. But he also offered reassurance with a smiley face, stressing that he sought “stable, healthy and sustainable” relations with the west – words that, like Starmer’s, may have been partly aimed at Trump.Very deep differences remain. But Chinese and UK geostrategic interests may actually be converging in the face of Trump’s prospectively disruptive, costly, dangerous return. Climate change and post-pandemic health are two key areas of cooperation. Ongoing confrontation between the world’s top two economic and military powers would not be to Britain’s advantage. If Trump, the disquieting American, cannot be befriended and influenced, perhaps Xi can?Other countries are making similar calculations. Germany, with its huge Chinese exports, wants to keep things friendly. The EU prefers “de-risking” to open, Trump-like ruptures, though it is divided and inconsistent. Hungary and Greece hold China close, Lithuania feuds. Europe as a whole would suffer greatly in any US-initiated global tariff war.Emmanuel Macron was another leader making nice with Xi in Rio. France’s president raised China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, then claimed, mysteriously, to have achieved a “convergence of views”. Distancing himself from Trump, Macron said France would continue to promote European strategic autonomy, “precisely to be able to talk with China in complete independence”.Not to be left out, Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister, set aside thorny bilateral disputes and, like Starmer, shook hands with Xi on a new start. Australia, too, valued steady “calibrated” ties. Trade was flourishing again, Albanese said. “Dialogue is critical, and we’ve made encouraging progress.” Jolly Xi hugged him right back (figuratively speaking).All this must be music to Xi’s ears. He has long dreamed of China supplanting the US as the 21st century’s foremost superpower. Beset by economic problems and a “wolf warrior diplomacy” backlash, he has launched a foreign charm offensive. Last month, he patched up a festering Himalayan border dispute with India, an old rival wooed by the US.Trump’s victory was initially assessed as bad news for China. It may be the exact opposite. He’s unpredictable. His views change. But if “America first” means putting everyone else last, if Trump’s isolationism, aggressive nationalism and trade war threats end up screwing America’s allies, then those allies, including Starmer, may ultimately swallow their misgivings and look elsewhere for reliable friends – if only to achieve some balance. If Xi’s dream of dominance comes true, he will know who to thank. Donald Trump: Making China Great Again. More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Cop29: 1.5C has been passed – so speed up the green transition | Editorial

      by

      Predictions that this will be the first calendar year in which the 1.5C warming limit enshrined in the Paris agreement is surpassed provide a stark backdrop to the UN’s 29th climate conference. This year – 2024 – has already seen the hottest-ever day and month, and is expected by experts to be the hottest year too. Addressing delegates on Tuesday, the UN chief, António Guterres, referred to a “masterclass in climate destruction”. The escalating pattern of destructive weather events, most recently in Valencia, is a warning of what lies ahead.When the 1.5C figure was included in the 2015 deal, it was known to be a stretch. The treaty says countries must hold the average temperature “well below 2C above pre-industrial levels” and aim for 1.5C. Busting this target in 2024 will not mean it has been definitively missed; the measurement of global temperatures relies on averages recorded over 20 or more years. But the crossing of this threshold is a menacing moment. Around the world, people as well as governments and climate specialists should take notice – and act.Whether temperature data will sharpen minds and negotiations in Azerbaijan remains to be seen. Cop29 got off to a rocky start with a row over carbon markets, which are used by rich countries and businesses to offset their emissions by paying for environmental protection elsewhere. New rules were pushed through despite objections regarding the sector’s history of fraud and false promises. Donald Trump’s victory last week points to renewed conflict regarding the role of the US, not only in relation to fossil fuel expansion, but also institutions such as the World Bank, which must lead on climate finance – and in which the US is the dominant stakeholder.The fallout from Mr Trump’s election and the political crisis in Germany mean that leaders of several of the world’s richest nations did not travel to Baku. But Sir Keir Starmer took the opportunity to announce an ambitious new climate goal for the UK. Several months ahead of the deadline for updated nationally determined contributions – as the carbon pledges made by governments are known – Sir Keir accepted the recommendations of the UK’s Climate Change Committee and committed to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035.Especially given the poor record of the last prime minister, Rishi Sunak, on climate, this is a significant step from the UK and builds on recent announcements on green investment for which the climate secretary, Ed Miliband, deserves credit as well. There is no doubt that the threat to life from climate disruption is rising – and with it the threat of the political instability that is caused when lives and livelihoods are destroyed, as they have been in eastern Spain.The priority for this round of climate talks is the financing of the green transition, and the urgent necessity for rich countries to support poorer ones. New taxes on fossil fuel companies, which have vastly inflated their profits since the Ukraine war, are among measures being argued for, along with frequent-flyer levies and loan guarantees enabling poorer countries to borrow. Petrostates including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates should also become contributors. All of the above, and more, will be needed if the targets set in Paris are not to be pushed beyond the realms of possibility. The transition to clean energy needs to be faster. More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Will Typhoon Orange wreak havoc on Britain? Keir Starmer has to prepare for the worst | Andrew Rawnsley

      by

      Peas from the same pod they sure ain’t. No one is ever going to think that Keir Starmer and Donald Trump are twins who were separated at birth. In their temperaments, their worldviews and the values of the parties they lead, two human beings could not be less alike than the former prosecutor who heads Britain’s first Labour government in 14 years and the convicted felon whom Americans have returned to the White House for another four. When Trumpites are being polite about the Labour leader they call him a “liberal”; when they are feeling vituperative they brand him “far-left”. The animosity has been mutual. There’s a bulging catalogue of damnatory remarks about the president-elect by members of the Starmer cabinet.Which is why Sir Keir felt compelled to lay on the flattery with a trowel when, according to the account from Number 10, he telephoned the American to extend his “hearty congratulations”. If that left many Labour people gagging on their breakfasts, they retched even harder when the prime minister went on to claim: “We stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of shared values of freedom, democracy and enterprise.” He also employed a well-worn diplomatic cliche that one of our ambassadors to Washington banned his staff from using because he thought it fed delusional thinking about the extent of British influence over the US. “I know the special relationship will continue to prosper on both sides of the Atlantic for years to come,” said the prime minister, even though he can’t be genuinely confident of any such thing. The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.Sir Keir’s effusions have been accompanied by a big effort to persuade everyone that he and his team have been working assiduously to cultivate relations with members of the Trump court, including vice-president-elect JD Vance, with whom David Lammy boasts he’s grown friendly. The foreign secretary wins the gold medal for diplomatic gymnastics. Six years ago, when he was a backbencher, he called the then and now future US president “a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” and “a profound threat to the international order”. Mr Lammy has never recanted those views, but now feels obliged to assert that the British government “will agree and align on much” with the Trump regime. Operation Ingratiate is controversial within Sir Keir’s party and some are already questioning its wisdom. The vast majority of Labour people, sharing the shock and anguish of their cousins in the Democratic party, are more in sympathy with the Trump-denouncing Mr Lammy of yesteryear than they are with the Trump-clasping Mr Lammy of today. Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours. Other Labour people think the way to react to the US election result is to drop the pretence that there will still be a lot in common between Britain and America. Sadiq Khan, who has history with Mr Trump, has said that Londoners “will be fearful”.This comeback is distressingly energising for the global hard right. Nigel Farage and other mini-Trump types in the UK are cheering, but they are out of tune with public opinion. The number of British voters who are happy to see the return of King Maga are outnumbered by those who are unhappy by nearly three to one. Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.To those critical or anxious about his offer to partner up, the prime minister has a blunt riposte: we have to deal with the US as it is, not the country we would prefer it to be. Sir Keir’s inner circle acknowledge that they are bracing for a wild ride, but argue that they have to try to do business with a Trump regime, however nightmarishly difficult that will be. Their problem is that this looks like a seismic change in how America turns up in the world and it is hard to see how that can be comfortably fitted into the traditional template of UK-US relations. This holds that, whoever is in the White House and whether or not they are personally agreeable or ideologically sympatico, a British prime minister has to “hug them close”. One way of contemplating the coming four years from a British perspective is as the ultimate stress test of whether there is any remaining value in thinking about Anglo-American relations in that way.One peril for Sir Keir is that he will be found guilty of wishful thinking when he implies that he can play a role in influencing him for the better once the 45th president becomes the 47th. There are copious reasons to think that Trump Redux will be even harder to constrain than the earlier incarnation. The way he campaigned suggests that his impulses have not mellowed, but sharpened. He is interpreting his victory as “an unprecedented and powerful mandate” to pursue an agenda pregnant with hair-raising risks for the global economy, the western democracies and the architecture of international order. He has won not just in the electoral college, but also the popular vote. The Republicans will control the Senate. It will be a clean sweep if, as seems highly likely, they have a majority in the House of Representatives as well. It will be realistic statecraft to assume that Trump will pursue the nativist, protectionist and unilateralist agenda of “America first” with even more belligerence and even less delicacy towards the opinions and interests of historical allies.When he arrived in office in 2017, he did so without a clear plan; he had little familiarity with how government worked and seasoned operators in the administration managed to contain some of his darkest instincts. This time, he says he knows what to do with his mandate and will pack his government with true believers faithful only to his bidding. For all the attempts by Downing Street to suggest it has anticipated and prepared for this outcome, ministers privately speak of the cabinet’s stomachs being in knots about the risks to Britain’s safety and prosperity. Of the reasons to be fearful that I outlined a fortnight ago, three cause the gravest concern.One is the grievous peril to European security posed by his repeated suggestions that he will undo Nato and sell out Ukraine. Another big anxiety is that he will inflict terrible blows on multilateral bodies and agreements, including those addressing the climate crisis. Spines are further shivered by his desire to impose sweeping tariffs on imports into the US. What’s a “beautiful” idea to him will have ugly consequences for us. A global trade war will be hellish for the Starmer government, especially if it is forced to choose sides between the EU and the US. It has never looked more lonely to be Brexit Britain paddling about in the mid-Atlantic as Typhoon Orange masses on the horizon.From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”. The phlegmatic comfort themselves with the thought that policy bite won’t be as savage as rhetorical bark. The pessimists fear that he means to make good in full on his threats. Ministers privately admit that there will be significant impact on virtually every important aspect of government policy, but none of them can yet be sure exactly how bad the fallout will be.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored. More

    • 288 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      It is galling to see Starmer ingratiate himself with Trump – but it would be horribly negligent if he didn’t | Gaby Hinsliff

      by

      Dawn had barely broken, and nor had Kamala Harris publicly conceded, when Keir Starmer tweeted his congratulations to the not-quite-officially President-elect Donald Trump.Britain would, he said, stand “shoulder to shoulder” with its old ally, as it always does. Though he got the early opportunity he wanted to congratulate the new president-elect even more fulsomely down the phone, those words will have been gut-wrenching for many people. How can it be business as usual, with a president whose own former chief of staff said he met the definition of a fascist? What on earth makes Starmer think he can influence Trump for the better, the usual rationale for engaging with unsavoury leaders, where Trump’s own advisers repeatedly failed? The only people he ever really heeded, the British-born former White House adviser Fiona Hill once told one of Theresa May’s aides, were the now late Queen and the pope.Starmer’s obvious answer, of course, is that it would be an act of breathtaking negligence not to even bother trying; that he can’t be squeamish when there are workers afraid of losing their jobs in a trade war, Ukrainians dying under Russian bombardment, and future generations who would pay a terrible price for the US reneging on its climate commitments. The less obvious one, however, is that if he cannot get Trump’s ear then Trump will get his hot takes on the British national interest elsewhere. Starmer may have got that phone call, but it was Nigel Farage who spent election night at the Trump victory party in Mar-a-Lago.Though this isn’t the result a Labour government wanted, it’s the one it has war-gamed hardest. The charm offensive began months before Starmer and Trump’s relatively cordial dinner in September, with the foreign secretary, David Lammy, making surprisingly deep inroads in Republican circles for a man who once called Trump a woman-hating, neo-Nazi sociopath. But as Lammy’s allies point out, JD Vance once called Trump an idiot who might be the US’s Hitler, which didn’t stop Trump picking Vance as a running mate. The president-elect is both intensely transactional – if anything, he may see British desperation to make up lost ground with him as useful – and wildly unpredictable, a combination offering both opportunity and threat.The lesson Downing Street takes from studying Trump is essentially the one many Republican voters do: that he says a lot of wild stuff but doesn’t always mean it, and if he does he often unexpectedly changes his mind. Already there are hints he might give Ukraine more time to win its war, if only because he hates being associated with losing, while senior Republicans are signalling that “friendly” nations could escape his threatened trade tariffs – a crude signal that there will be rewards for compliance.But there will surely also be a price: Starmer could easily find himself pushed to pick a side in trade negotiations between the US and Brussels, just as he is trying to mend fences with Europe. What if a British government that has staked everything on economic growth finds its business interests pulling one way, and its shared interest in the defence of Europe against Russian aggression pulling the other? At the very least, those budget forecasts – and the money set aside for extra defence spending – may well soon need revisiting.In her memoirs, Theresa May describes the acute anxiety of standing beside then president Trump at a press conference where he was supposed to send a critical signal to Russia by stressing his commitment to Nato, not knowing whether he’d actually say it until he opened his mouth. But at least she could plan for that scenario in advance: harder to deal with was Trump’s tendency to blindside Britain with things nobody saw coming. For her, that meant Trump pulling troops out of Iraq and Syria without warning or concern for British forces fighting alongside them, lobbying her to bring Farage into cabinet, and casually retweeting incendiary social media posts by the British far right. This time, he won’t just be surfing X when he’s bored but actively integrating its owner, Elon Musk – who is already regularly kicking lumps out of Starmer, most recently over cutting inheritance tax relief for farmers – into his administration.The Southport riots, during which Musk tweeted that “civil war is inevitable” and promoted conspiracy theories about white protesters being more harshly treated than ethnic minority ones, convinced many Labour MPs that hate and disinformation online must be tackled. But how brave are ministers prepared to be if that means a direct hit on someone in Trump’s inner circle?Labour MPs in seats where Reform came second in July are, meanwhile, now visibly rattled, and newly fearful of handing Farage further sticks to beat them with. Though Starmer learned his own lesson about the salience of immigration or the risks of alienating white working-class voters way back in 2019, Harris’s defeat is only likely to underline that message for him.There’s no denying that for progressives, the world now looks lonelier than it did; that the choice the US has made will have consequences smaller countries can only do so much to contain. But that doesn’t mean Britain can afford to sit the coming battles out, assuming someone else will do the dirty work. Starmer’s job now is to pull whatever levers he can reach, in alliance with whoever he can persuade to join him; ours, meanwhile, is never to give up hope.

      Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      If I were a cautious, centre-left prime minister, Trump’s victory would have me worried | Andy Beckett

      by

      Whatever determinedly positive things centre-left leaders around the world have said about Donald Trump’s victory in public, in private they must have greeted it with a shudder. Not just because of the dark and chaotic prospect of another Trump presidency, but because in many ways the defeated Kamala Harris is just like them. She is a hard worker, a patient reformer, a reasonably good communicator, an instinctive mover towards the ideological centre, a supposed antidote to rightwing populism, and yet also an incumbent, in an era when such perceived protectors of the status quo are widely despised.Keir Starmer may have particular cause to worry. On her campaign website, Harris promised to “bring together” trade unions and business, “grow the economy” and increase both basic pay rates and employment. She said she had voted for legislation “creating hundreds of thousands of high-quality clean-energy jobs”, and “ensuring America’s energy security”. She said she would “cut red tape” to “build more housing”. She pledged “tough, smart solutions to secure the border … and reform our broken immigration system.” Above all, she presented her rightwing opponent as “cruel”, “dangerous” and “unfit to lead”.All these policy ideas and political messages, and sometimes their precise language, could come from a Starmer speech or Labour press release. If they’ve been rejected by voters in the US, could that also soon happen here?Supporters and members of the Starmer government who want to believe that Harris’s defeat is not cause for panic can point to the Conservatives’ weakness compared with the Republicans. While the catastrophes of Trump’s first presidency, such as his mishandling of Covid, appear to have been forgotten by many Americans, the Tories are weighed down by their more recent and much longer record in office, and are likely to be for years to come.Britain and the US can also be very different politically. In the week that the notoriously reactionary Conservative membership nevertheless elected Kemi Badenoch as party leader, many Americans seem to have been put off by Harris’s race and gender. Yet other contrasts between the countries are less reassuring. While the administration of which Harris is part has overseen strong economic growth, Starmer’s government is likely to bring only a more modest improvement, according to the official forecasts that accompanied last week’s budget. If many voters did not notice, or refused to give Harris credit for, the boom under her and Joe Biden, what chance is there that Starmer’s probably smaller economic successes will be electorally rewarded?This apparent breakdown in the relationship between a government’s achievements and its popularity poses a profound threat to centre-left politics. For decades, centrists have assumed that “what counts is what works”, as Tony Blair put it. As its name implies, centre-left politics is about compromise and alliances, which are meant to make steady, measurable progress on concrete issues. Yet it appears that more and more voters prefer the dogmas, tribalism, symbolic gestures and fantasy policies of rightwing populism. This dramatic, accelerated, often more short-term politics comes across better on digital media. It also expresses many voters’ anger about the present and anxiety about the future – or their desire to ignore looming disasters such as the climate crisis for as long as possible.In the two previous periods when western democracies were consumed by doomy thoughts, the 1930s and the 1970s, many centre-left governments also struggled and were sometimes replaced by authoritarian rightwing populists. At prime minister’s questions this week, hours after Trump’s election, there was a new mood, which could not just be attributed to the fact that Badenoch was making her debut. She beamed with satisfaction at Trump’s victory, and woundingly remarked that Labour’s budget had been “cut and paste Bidenomics”. Meanwhile, Starmer gave unconvincing assurances that Anglo-American relations would continue as normal.In these exchanges was possibly the beginning of a political shift: towards a situation where his government, while still theoretically dominant at Westminster because of its majority, in fact loses the ideological initiative and becomes isolated, even beleaguered.We’re not there yet. Despite her aggression, Badenoch is not a commanding public performer and may never be one, given her tendency to bluff and her party’s lack of credibility and fresh ideas. Labour also has time on its side. By our next election, Trump’s final, four-year term may be over – and may also have demonstrated, as he did last time, that populists are better at electioneering than governing.It’s possible that his latest victory will be the Republican equivalent of the Tory win in 2019: achieved by making impossible promises in circumstances that favour the right to a greater than usual extent, with Biden’s infirmity analogous to the huge but fleeting Conservative opportunity created by the vote for Brexit.Yet simply waiting for Trump and other populists to fail in office again would be a slow and uninspiring strategy for the centre left: an acceptance that change can only come after further, possibly terminal, social and environmental damage. Instead, the centre left could make a better case, whether in government or opposition, by addressing inequality with more urgency, as Biden did before beating Trump in 2020, having incorporated ideas from Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaigns to become the Democratic candidate.We live in a different world to the one that formed the modern centre left. Unless it becomes more aggressive and more class-conscious – effectively, more populist – it will continue to rule only occasionally and with modest success. The rest of the time, the radical right will run riot.

      Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer congratulates Trump and says ‘we stand shoulder to shoulder’ – UK politics live

      by

      Good morning. Keir Starmer has just issued a statement congratulating Donald Trump on his election victory, which now appears all but certain. Starmer said:
      Congratulations President-elect Trump on your historic election victory. I look forward to working with you in the years ahead.
      As the closest of allies, we stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our shared values of freedom, democracy and enterprise.
      From growth and security to innovation and tech, I know that the UK-US special relationship will continue to prosper on both sides of the Atlantic for years to come.
      There will be plenty, plenty more UK reaction to the US election to come. I’ll be covering it here.And it is an important day in UK politics too, with Kemi Badenoch taking PMQs for the first time since her election as the new Conservative party leader.Here is the agenda for the day.Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.2.30pm: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget.If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative leader, and Priti Patel, the new shadow foreign secretary, have not yet issued a statement following Donald Trump supporting victory. Badenoch has not been as overtly pro-Trump as some Tories, like Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, but it is fairly clear where her sympathies lie. In a GB News hustings during the Tory leadership debate, asked if she favoured Trump or Kamala Harris, she replied: “I like both of them equally.” But she also laughed, implying it was a diplomatic answer, not a truthful one. She has also said she is a “huge fan” of Elon Musk, Trump’s richest and most influential supporter.But one Conservative MP, the rightwinger Nick Timothy, has been commenting on Trump’s win in detail. He has put a series of posts on social media highlighting the challenges raised for Labour. A lot of these are questions they will probably be asking in Downing Street this morning.
      I’m not into America-brained punditry but the US election poses questions of our government.
      1. Trump has made clear America will not subsidise European defence any longer. The Govt has refused to put a timeline on an increase in defence spending. What’s it’s plan? (1/n).

      2. American subsidies and the enormity of its equity market have drawn British talent and businesses across the Atlantic, even under Joe Biden. What is the response?
      3. Trump will adopt a more confrontational approach to trade with China. How will we handle that?

      4. We don’t know his Ukraine policy but it’s likely Trump will push for a deal. Does our Government back a deal or is its Ukraine policy independent?
      5. Trump will take a hard line towards Iran. Our Government won’t even proscribe the IRGC. What’s the policy?

      6. In the UN the UK has recently voted with European countries not America on eg Iran. Will that change?
      7. The constant in Trump’s career is his concern about the US trade deficit. If he goes protectionist with British produce, goods and services, what’s our response?

      8. On the many other issues that arise between the two countries – eg security cooperation, extradition, diplomacy – what’s the plan to ensure good relations?
      9. Who will be our next ambassador in DC? Labour blocked a skilled diplomat in Tim Barrow and have flirted with options including Mandelson, Miliband and Baroness Amos, who thinks we should consider paying reparations to Caribbean countries.

      11. How wise was it to appoint Lammy to this position when this election result was always a possibility?
      12. How wise was it to send armies of Labour activists to fight against Trump in the election?
      The Green party says Donald Trump is a “bigot, bully and liar”, and that people around the world must fight the “politics of hate” he represents. In a statement from the party, Carla Denyer, the co-leader, said:
      A dangerous bigot, bully, and liar is once again set to become the leader of the most powerful country in the world. A climate change denier, a proud racist and misogynist, and a man who has sought to subvert elections and incite insurrection.
      On this dark day, we stand in solidarity with all US citizens who fear a convicted criminal and a fascist in the White House. And we stand with all those around the world who dreaded this moment and must now live with its consequences, including those in Gaza and Ukraine.
      Together, those of us who believe in democracy must work together to overcome authoritarianism and the politics of hate.
      Another Labour politician who has criticised Donald Trump strongly in the past is Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader and now chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee. In an interview on the Today programme this morning she said Trump’s victory (or apparent victory – he still has not officially hit 270 electoral college votes) was “disappointing”, and that it made the world “unpredictable”.When it was put to her that she described him as a “racist, sexual predator” when he visited the UK during his first term as president, she replied:
      Well, he is. But he is the president of the United States, and we need to work with him.
      Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, has put out a statement saying people in the capital will feel “anxious” about the results of the US presidential elections. He said:
      I know that many Londoners will be anxious about the outcome of the US presidential election. Many will be fearful about what it will mean for democracy and for women’s rights, or how the result impacts the situation in the Middle East or the fate of Ukraine. Others will be worried about the future of NATO or tackling the climate crisis …
      The lesson of today is that progress is not inevitable. But asserting our progressive values is more important than ever – re-committing to building a world where racism and hatred is rejected, the fundamental rights of women and girls are upheld, and where we continue to tackle the crisis of climate change head on.
      During Trump’s first term as US president, Trump publicly criticised Khan on various occasions, prompting Khan to respond robustly.The most detailed account of Keir Starmer’s private dinner with Donald Trump in New York in September (see 8.44am) appeared in an article by Tim Shipman in the Sunday Times at the weekend. Here is an extract.
      Twice during Sir Keir Starmer’s first dinner with Donald Trump at the end of September, the former president turned to the prime minister and said: “You’re a liberal, so we won’t always agree but we can work together.” At the end of the meal, he looked at Starmer and said: “You and I are friends.” Starmer’s team breathed a sigh of relief. With America set to choose a new commander-in-chief, personal relationships could define the future of the transatlantic alliance.
      An even bigger hit with Trump than the buttoned-up Starmer, however, was David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Lammy laughed in the right places at Trump’s jokes and the former president personally offered him a second portion of food, a moment of both levity and symbolism as a man accused of neo-fascist tendencies bonded with the descendant of slaves.
      Lammy, who attended Harvard Law School and has relatives in the United States, is given to the kind of back-slapping bonhomie that goes a long way in Washington. “David gets American politicians,” said one diplomatic source.
      The Stand Up to Racism campaign says it is organising a “No to Trump” protest at 6pm tonight at the US embassy in London. Weyman Bennett, co-convenor of of the group, said:
      Trump is a racist who gives every fascist and far-right activist a boost. His last presidency saw millions march against him. We are coming out to oppose him – and his racism, sexism, bigotry and Islamophobia again.
      Other organisations supporting the protest include the Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the Abortion Rights CampaignUK growth would be halved in the event Donald Trump wins the US presidential race and imposes the swingeing new tariffs he has threatened, a leading thinktank warned in a report published as the US election results starting coming in. Larry Elliott has the story.Opposition party politicians have scope to criticise Donald Trump in a way that members of a government that will have to deal with the Trump administration do not, and that is evident from the Liberal Democrats’ reaction to Trump’s election victory (which still have not been officially confirmed, but which seems very certain).Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, released a statement shortly after Keir Starmer’s (see 8.32am) saying that Trump declaring victory was a “dark, dark day” for the world and that it made fixing the UK’s relationship with the EU “even more urgent”.
      This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
      The next president of the United States is a man who actively undermines the rule of law, human rights, international trade, climate action and global security.
      Millions of Americans – especially women and minorities – will be incredibly fearful about what comes next. We stand with them.
      Families across the UK will also be worrying about the damage Trump will do to our economy and our national security, given his record of starting trade wars, undermining NATO and emboldening tyrants like Putin.
      Fixing the UK’s broken relationship with the EU is even more urgent than before. We must strengthen trade and defence cooperation across Europe to help protect ourselves from the damage Trump will do.
      Now more than ever, we must stand up for the core liberal values of equality, democracy, human rights and the rule of law – at home and around the world.
      Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told the Today programme this morning that Donald Trump would be “a genuine radical”. Farage, who counts Trump as a friend and who is in the US to attend Trump’s election day party in Florida, said:
      What you are going to see from this Trump administration, and I’m guessing that Elon Musk will be the man that is tasked to do it – is there will be a big fightback against the administrative bureaucratic state which is far too big, far too powerful and actually very undemocratic.
      He also claimed Trump was “bringing Americans together”.
      What is very interesting about the Trump movement is that it’s critics call it all sorts of nasty names, the truth is in many ways it’s bringing Americans together.
      David Lammy, the foreign secretary, has posted a message on social media congratulating Donald Trump.
      Congratulations to @realDonaldTrump on your victory.The UK has no greater friend than the US, with the special relationship being cherished on both sides of the Atlantic for more than 80 years.We look forward to working with you and @JDVance in the years ahead.
      Lammy is one of several senior Labour figures who made very critical comments about Trump in public in the past. Lammy’s comments included describing Trump as a “neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath”, a “profound threat to the international order” and a “dangerous clown”.Kamala Harris has not conceded yet in the US presidential contest, and Donald Trump has not quite secured the necessary 270 electoral college votes needed to make him president. But Downing Street sent out a message from Keir Starmer congratulating Trump anyway at 8.16am. By that point other word leaders, like the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, had already offered Trump their congratulations and Starmer will have decided that it was best not to hang around.Most Labour MPs are horrified by Trump’s politics. But Starmer knows he has to work with him and as Labour leader in opposition he was scrupulous about talking about him respectfully, and as PM he has made an effort to cultivate a good relationship, calling him to express support after the assasination attempt and arranging a private ‘get to know you dinner’ when he was in New York for the UN general assembly meeting recently.Good morning. Keir Starmer has just issued a statement congratulating Donald Trump on his election victory, which now appears all but certain. Starmer said:
      Congratulations President-elect Trump on your historic election victory. I look forward to working with you in the years ahead.
      As the closest of allies, we stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our shared values of freedom, democracy and enterprise.
      From growth and security to innovation and tech, I know that the UK-US special relationship will continue to prosper on both sides of the Atlantic for years to come.
      There will be plenty, plenty more UK reaction to the US election to come. I’ll be covering it here.And it is an important day in UK politics too, with Kemi Badenoch taking PMQs for the first time since her election as the new Conservative party leader.Here is the agenda for the day.Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.2.30pm: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget.If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. More

    • 263 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      It’s easy for the British to insult Donald Trump – but here’s why it’s a very bad idea | Simon Jenkins

      by

      Is it wise for Britons to heap abuse on Donald Trump? At present he is the marginal favourite to win next week’s US presidential election – with Britons strongly behind his opponent Kamala Harris. But is overt hostility sensible?Most recent polls show two out of three Britons want Harris to win, including a majority even of Conservatives. The Labour party sent about 100 activists to aid Harris in some swing states. The UK media is almost universally hostile, calling Trump crass, illiterate, vulgar, coarse and fascist. He is identified with the Heritage Foundation’s authoritarian Project 2025, which he has disowned. Only Reform UK is for Trump. Surely dignity would counsel respect for an ally’s internal democracy, and caution in alienating the leader of Britain’s most powerful ally.First, what’s new? Britain’s Labour and the US’s Democratic party have bonded for decades, including canvassing and attending each other’s conferences. As a student I once campaigned for Mayor Lindsay in New York, and I have a free tie to prove it. The US has itself interfered in Latin American elections since time began. Russia interfered on Trump’s behalf in 2016, with Operation Lakhta, though Trump denied it. Moscow blatantly interfered in elections this month in Moldova and Georgia.A different question is whether it is wise. Americans can refer to Trump as a fascist, but such facile parallels do little beyond enraging their subjects. More to the point, British opinions on the matter are more likely to evoke the reaction of “mind your own business”. Trump’s first term of office might have had its alarming moments, but the US constitution saw him off – just – and may yet do so again.In 2017, Trump welcomed the British prime minister, Theresa May, to the White House, and rather endearingly held her hand. The British press sniggered. When the BBC asked him a viciously biased question, claiming to represent “our viewers”, he was able to laugh it off. In the same outgoing spirit, he invited Keir Starmer to dine with him for two hours last month and congratulated him on his election success. These may be merely the courtesies expected of public figures, but Trump adhered to them.American presidents are complicated. They are political leaders, but they are also heads of state. Diplomatic custom accords them a certain dignity. In Trump’s case, diplomacy must tilt in the same direction. Britons were annoyed when Barack Obama expressed a strong opinion on the side of remain in the Brexit referendum. But when Boris Johnson sought a trade deal in Washington to compensate for withdrawing from the EU single market, he got short shrift. Trump is threatening to go a step further and impose a punishing 10% tariff on all British exports to the US.This is something Starmer could well do without. He is proposing to penalise American non-doms in Britain in the budget. He may also need to react to a Trump withdrawal of US aid to Ukraine, and his demand for a step-change in British defence spending. Other things being equal, personally insulting the president in such circumstances seems plain stupid.Trump represents a periodic surge in US rightwing populism. It is a turning against the supposedly liberal east- and west-coast governing elites. Its politics is proletarian, xenophobic, protectionist and conservative. This may not be to every Briton’s taste, though Britain saw a similar surge in Reform UK’s vote at this year’s election, disguised by it splitting a Conservative majority vote.Such results are the privilege of the franchise. Liberal democrats can bewail them, but they must respect the winners – even if the losers sometimes do not. They must also treat with the winners in the rough and tumble of international politics. Ostracism is never the answer. Disrespecting the outcome of democracy is the shortcut to disaster.

      Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

      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. More