Labour

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares38 Views

    UK needed ‘unconventional’ US ambassador when picking Mandelson, minister says

    by

    The UK government believed an “unconventional presidential administration” required an “unconventional ambassador” when it appointed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, a cabinet minister has said.But the Scotland secretary, Douglas Alexander, told broadcasters Mandelson would not have been given the role had the prime minister known the depth of his association with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Keir Starmer is facing increasing questions over what he knew and when of Mandelson’s ties with Epstein. The prime minister sacked him on Thursday after emails showed he sent supportive messages even as Epstein faced jail for sex offences.Alexander told Sky News he had reacted with “incredulity and revulsion” to the publication of emails between Mandelson and Epstein, adding he was “not here to defend him”.“The reason he was appointed was a judgment, a judgment that given the depth of his experience as a former trade commissioner for the European Union, his long experience in politics, and his politics and doing politics at the highest international levels, he could do a job for the United Kingdom.“We knew this was an unconventional presidential administration and that was the basis on which there was a judgment that we needed an unconventional ambassador.”But speaking on BBC Breakfast, Alexander said “nothing justifies” Mandelson’s appointment in light of what had emerged in the past week.He was reported to have told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and told him “I think the world of you” the day before the disgraced financier began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMandelson’s friendship with Epstein had been known about, but Bloomberg and the Sun published emails showing that the relationship continued after his crimes had emerged. More

    More stories

    • 275 Shares134 Views

      in US Politics

      The Democrats are in deep trouble in the US – and Labour is on the way to joining them | Nesrine Malik

      by

      The measure of a political party’s failure lies not in how many agnostics and opponents it fails to convert, but in how many loyalists it fails to preserve. The endorsement of new, unnatural voters – Latinos in the US for Donald Trump, or Tories voting for Labour for the first time – might deliver big electoral swings but is ultimately not sticky. And these votes are only meaningful if the bedrock is solid. That bedrock is the people who consistently show up, no matter what, from generation to generation, for a party. And the Democrats are losing them.In extensive research published last week tracking voter registration, the New York Times identified an alarming pattern. The Democratic party has been “haemorrhaging” voters since way before election day. In the states that track voter registration by political party, Democrats lost to Republicans in all of them in the years between 2020 and 2024. By the time Kamala Harris took over from Joe Biden, the party had already shed more than 2m votes in those states, and Republicans had gained 2.4m. This is part of a “four-year swing” that amounts to 4.5m votes. In a chilling conclusion, the report states that “few measurements reflect the luster of a political party’s brand more clearly than the choice by voters to identify with it”.The signs get worse the more closely you look. It’s not just a decline in new registered voters, but a hacking away of those natural voters who parties can easily rely on. Some of the sharpest declines were among young voters who came out emphatically for Joe Biden in 2020, then swung towards Trump in 2024. An assumption that voters who are young, Black or Latino would register mostly in the Democrats’ favour was no longer safe.The most striking thing about these revelations is how long and consistent the turn-off has been: “There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill,” said one voter registration analyst, “this is month after month, year after year.” They show how during the last election, when the Democrats were battling with the damage of a belated handover from Biden to Harris, and a swirl of other challenges, the party was already on the back foot, hostage to a years-long disillusionment. And if you look at some of the reasoning for Democrat abandonment from last year, the same conclusion heaves into view – the Democrats rested on their laurels, and Trump attacked. The vibe contest was between business as usual, and the promise of something different.The result is a cratering of Democrat support that cannot be filled in overnight, or even over the next three years, especially with the party seemingly in disarray, and with a lo-fi leadership in Chuck Schumer accused of being “unwilling and unable to meet the moment”. It’s not about the unique, mendacious bewitching of voters by Trump, but something broader. Centre-left parties seem trapped by their inability and unwillingness to articulate values in ways that go beyond just saying the other guys are bad for democracy, by identifying a vision of what and who they are for.They are operating in a world where traditional coalitions around class, labour and identity are dissolving, where high barriers to home ownership, social mobility and job stability have been erected, and the relationship between hard work and prosperity, or even viability, has been severed. Combine that with an online and media ecosystem that trades in attention and feeling, and you have a political climate that requires policy intervention and campaigning edge.Instead, as summed up by Gabriel Winant after Trump’s victory, Kamala Harris had “stretched her coalition into incoherence” in a “grab bag” of policies “sharing no clear thematic unity or coherence”. This is the result of both a lack of direction, and of a party that now houses both the powerful and those at the losing end of that power, which can only mean a lop-sided capture by the former. Or, as chillingly observed by Anton Jäger: “Bankers and warmongers predominate in Democrat ruling circles, the indebted and the marginalised among its rank-and-file.” This reminds me of Keir Starmer’s drive to cast Labour as “pro-business, pro-worker and pro-wealth creation”. You cannot have coherence when the interests you represent, or claim to represent, are by definition antagonistic.This brand tension has an analogue in a smaller but no less revealing way in the UK, where students are abandoning Labour. University Labour clubs are disaffiliating from the party, Labour’s youth membership has collapsed, the tail of a longer falling out with Labour leadership over Gaza. But this is a broader confrontation between young voters and a party that has failed to stand for any clear moral principles that appeal to the idealism so necessary to create not only future voters, but activists and campaigners. On Gaza, Labour is anti-starvation, but also anti-protest.And both the Democrats and Labour are positioning themselves antagonistically to those whose sharper expressions of political vision are hugely popular with those who are abandoning them. Senior Democrats might still not endorse New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, who is posting stunning polling leads. Labour disciplines MPs for rebelling against benefit cuts, even as hundreds of thousands of people register their support for a new party.But as new and future voters are lost, the lion’s share of the windfall goes to those on the right and extreme right who have already mastered the gamification of politics, and the ability to summon fever dreams of threats that must be dealt with and prosperity that is just around the corner. “Elections are won from the centre” goes the old adage, but increasingly the centre itself has changed as the world becomes not a place of wide-tent compromise, but of irreconcilable differences. And I would venture another formulation – elections are won in the past. By the time it becomes apparent that remote and complacent centrist politics is not even managing to convince its own tribes, it will be too late. Some would argue it already is.

      Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      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

    • 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

    • 238 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Whatever Donald Trump does next, this chaos will soon be shaping ordinary lives for the worse | Gaby Hinsliff

      by

      If it’s brown, lie down. If it’s black, fight back. If it’s white, say goodnight.The rhyme we learned hiking as a family through Yellowstone national park last summer is meant as a cheery reminder of how not to get eaten, if you meet a bear. Brown bears are best appeased by playing dead; black bears need to know this will hurt them more than it hurts you; and luckily there aren’t any polar bears in Yellowstone, because nothing deters them.Until this week the world remained unsure what kind of bear Donald Trump was. Keir Starmer treated him like a brown bear, dropping to the floor when threatened with tariffs and offering up a trade deal. China saw a black bear, to be met with maximum aggression. Though one day we may have to contemplate the prospect of a polar bear president – one who actually means what he said about invading his neighbours – for now what we actually seem to be facing is a crazy bear. There’s no discernible strategy or pattern here: just untrammelled ego, dragging the global financial system to the brink of meltdown and vaporising his own supporters’ retirement savings for no obvious reason beyond the pleasure of seeing impoverished allies desperately “kissing my ass”. And though this bear has lumbered back into the woods for now, seemingly spooked by a concerted revolt in the bond markets, the damage is done.What is still for the cheerfully news-avoidant just a faintly incomprehensible story about rising and plummeting stock markets will, in coming weeks, start shaping everyday lives for the worse. British businesses who have barely been able to work out if they’re coming or going for the last few weeks will pause big decisions while they try to calculate their losses. Our car and steel industries still face job-destroying higher tariffs, while Trump has talked ominously of new tariffs on pharmaceuticals to come (British drug companies rely heavily on US export markets). Along with all countries that did not retaliate against Trump, we remain saddled with a random 10% tariff on all exports, which could presumably still change on a whim. And if the US keeps up its self-harming tariff on China – now an eye-watering 145%, according to the White House, which is adding Wednesday’s 125% to the pre-existing 20% – then before long it won’t just be a case of prices rising for American shoppers but of trade between them breaking down completely, leaving American shelves empty. All this makes nervous consumers worldwide less inclined to spend and employers less likely to hire or invest, raising the risk of recessions – one reason that on Thursday, the markets fell again. There’s no security for working people in any of this, and vanishingly little prospect of growth. For a Labour government elected to deliver both, that is an existential challenge.You can either be the disrupter or the disrupted, Starmer warned his cabinet in February, rather startlingly for someone whose watchword was caution. His chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, has however concluded that the new political divide isn’t left v right but “smash the system” v “look like the system and get smashed”. The obvious disruptive influence then was Nigel Farage’s resurgent Reform UK party, not a trade war, but one may now feed the other.Farage has gone very quiet lately about his now toxic friendship with Trump, but his local election message to England’s post-industrial heartlands is a blatantly Trumpian one about the glory days of manufacturing. This week he went to the pub with workers from British Steel’s endangered Scunthorpe plant – though it was Labour ministers who put in the unsung hours on a deal to save jobs there – before visiting a long-closed colliery to explain that he always thought the miners were betrayed. (Let’s just say that must have been an unusual view in the City, where at the time of the miners’ strike, Farage was working as a commodities trader.) It’s preposterous – Reform’s blend of tax cuts for the rich and dead-end nostalgia for everyone else would do nothing to revive former coal and steel communities – but Trump posing as the rust belt’s saviour seemed preposterous once, too. Farage knows where the electoral sweet spot is, in the seats where Reform is nipping at Labour heels: tacking right on issues such as immigration but left on economics. And while Starmer’s government is quick to compete with Reform on the former, it is more wary of the latter, even though ageing “red wall” voters now complain in focus groups of markets being rigged against them in ways that uncannily echo the disenchanted, Green-leaning southern young.But if Trump is really killing growth, meaning there will be no generous rising tide to lift public services and living standards, the only remaining options are either redistribution or accepting inexorable decline. Time, in short, to pick some enemies; to disrupt something before getting disrupted.Which markets genuinely are stacked against consumers? Who is making profits that can’t be justified? If Trump really has broken the old model, could it be built back better? This can’t mean uncosted, utopian leftwing populism but serious-minded, rigorous reforms that demonstrably put money back in ordinary pockets.What voters seem to want, the American data scientist David Shor and the writer Ezra Klein argued recently in a podcast on the confused desires underpinning American politics, is an “angry moderate”: someone who sounds as furious as they are about the state of things without seeming too frighteningly radical. There is plenty a British angry moderate could attack: from the ongoing debacle of Thames Water to the bafflingly opaque “surge pricing” now operated by everyone from concert-ticket vendors to pubs and hotels; from inequities in the tax system, or the way linking electricity prices to gas keeps them frustratingly high, to the outsourcing of social services that has left private equity firms running children’s homes and nursing homes for profit. (Not entirely alien territory to Rachel Reeves, who once told me that investigating the collapse of the outsourcing company Carillion as a backbencher changed her politics, and who has long embraced the idea of an activist state working to make life less precarious.) But whatever form it takes, offering people “shelter … from the storm”, as Starmer rightly has this week, should mean more than corporate bailouts. If not, anger with Trump could easily morph into anger with domestic governments’ inability to protect their own people from the fallout.He won’t be president for ever. But the mess he’ll leave behind, the jobs lost, the dreams smashed, the neighbourhoods spiralling downwards? That’s the polar bear, the thing that really eats governments. Fight, or say goodnight.

      Gaby Hinsliff 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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Look on the bright side of Trump’s global tariffs | Letters

      by

      Although environmental considerations will not have been a motivation for Donald Trump, it is worth examining whether a comprehensive revision of global trade tariffs – notwithstanding the significant transitional economic and human costs – could generate substantial environmental benefits (Here’s one key thing you should know about Trump’s shock to the world economy: it could work, 7 April).The prevailing model of liberalised global trade facilitates the transoceanic movement of consumer goods, often to countries that possess the capacity to manufacture equivalent products domestically. The associated carbon emissions from maritime and air transport are considerable, particularly given the volume of low-cost, frequently low-durability goods entering developed markets.Restricting free trade to essential imports – goods that cannot be manufactured or grown locally – would materially reduce transport-related emissions. Additional benefits might include enhanced food system resilience, improved biosecurity and increased regulatory autonomy over quality and safety standards.Thus, albeit unintentionally, President Trump’s trade policies could contribute to environmental objectives that are traditionally pursued by other means.Patrick CosgroveChapel Lawn, Shropshire Donald Trump’s tariffs – why the fuss? As an ordinary UK citizen I see only upsides. First, it’s the Americans paying the tariffs, not us. The resulting fall in the price of oil and the value of the dollar should reduce the cost of my petrol. As Americans switch to bourbon and Californian wine, the price of my scotch whisky and French wine should come down. If other countries send more of their goods to the UK to avoid the tariffs, this will force UK producers to become more competitive to the benefit of ordinary people like me.I believe that US citizens rich enough to buy Range Rovers and the like will not balk at paying a bit more, especially as the US equivalents are so clunky. If the steel tariff forces us to nationalise British Steel, good. As for the global economic system, this is structured for the benefit of big corporations and shareholders. Perhaps it is overdue for a change.Christopher WoodageCamberley, Surrey I have long believed that the way we choose to spend our money is a political act. With an overcautious Labour government in power, spending power remains an important act of resistance. Now more than ever, I urge readers to think carefully about what they purchase and, in particular, to boycott American goods. I have lived happily without an Amazon product for over 15 years, for instance, and with the added pleasure of knowing that my spending in local shops is benefiting the local economy. If we can’t rely on our government to stand firm, let’s do it for ourselves.Prof Mark DoelSheffield “I am telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass,” Trump said during a speech at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington on Tuesday evening. Please let the UK not be one of the countries. Surely we have more self-respect than that.Ann ClewerCanterbury Looking at recent events, it seems Donald Trump is the most successful anti-capitalist since Lenin.Keith FlettTottenham, London More