Politics

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares24 Views

    As Starmer’s popularity tanks, what can Labour learn from Zohran Mamdani’s success in New York?

    by

    Progressives in the UK and US are grappling with the same question. Why have rightwing populists become so much more successful at tapping into public concern? And why are so few politicians on the left connecting with ordinary people?Barely a year after taking power in Britain, Labour’s popularity has collapsed with unprecedented rapidity against surging support for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.In the US, a year after Joe Biden’s defeat, the Democrats are still derided by swathes of voters and remain at a loss for how to take on Donald Trump’s unique brand of politics.But while Labour and the Democrats languish in nationwide polls, there are exceptions. In New York over the summer, Zohran Mamdani rose from little-known assembly member to social media sensation and heavily favoured Democratic nominee in November’s mayoral contest.His success in the Democratic primary comes on the back of a highly impactful people-powered campaign that looks likely to propel him to victory. A poll for the New York Times this week concluded that Mamdani held a commanding lead over his three rivals for the mayoralty, including the scandal-hit incumbent, Eric Adams, and the multimillionaire former governor Andrew Cuomo.What if anything, can Labour learn from his success?It’s the economy, stupidPolitical observers in the UK believe Labour has a communications problem. But for good comms, you need substance. For Mamdani, that has come in the form of a laser-sharp focus on the economy and affordability.According to the NYT/Siena poll this week, 49% of likely voters thought Mamdani would perform best on affordability issues, compared with 23% who said the same of Cuomo and 10% for Adams.“Elections are almost always about very, very fundamental things,” said Matthew McGregor, the chief executive of 38 Degrees who is a former digital adviser to Ed Miliband and worked as a digital campaign strategist in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.“Mamdani has got an agenda that clicks with people’s real lived experience of a city that has become just farcically expensive, doesn’t work for working-class people, and where there is very stark inequality between people in the boroughs and the rich parts of Manhattan,” he said.Claire Ainsley, a former Labour policy chief who now runs the centre-left renewal project at the Progressive Policy Institute, a US thinktank, said: “He’s highlighted the cost of living and affordability, and that’s right – that is the major issue that’s bothering Americans. Even if inflation is under control, cost of living is a big problem.”By comparison, Labour’s first year in power has been characterised by constantly changing policy priorities. Before and after being elected, Starmer has variously talked about his six first steps, six “milestones”, five “missions” and three “foundations”.Most recently, the prime minister has sought to reset his government by announcing a “phase two” focused on delivery, including the economy – but for many Labour MPs these constantly shifting priorities betray a frustrating lack of vision that makes it difficult to connect with the public.Champion compelling, costed policiesWith his focus on affordability, Mamdani has identified the key problem for many New Yorkers. Crucially, he is also presenting clear and compelling solutions.His policies include free bus transport, a rent freeze on the city’s 2.3m regulated apartments, a crackdown on bad landlords and commercial rent control, free childcare for parents starting at six months, and a $30 minimum wage by 2030.“His answers aren’t ‘Have you read through my 12-page white paper on breaking down planning so we can get New York building again?’. It’s not ‘We’re going to make work pay by encouraging businesses to invest’. It’s ‘We’re going to make buses free, we’re going to fill in the grocery deserts’,” McGregor said. “Practical, meaningful things that people can grasp and understand.”Mamdani is seeing off criticism about the feasibility of his promises by setting out clearly how they will be paid for – imposing a 2% tax on the top 1% of residents earning more than $1m annually, and raising New York City’s top corporate tax rate from 7.25% to match neighbouring New Jersey’s at 11.5%.For its part, Labour is implementing a whole slate of progressive policies that are very popular with voters – strengthening renters’ and workers’ rights, including a ban on fire-and-rehire practices, increasing the minimum wage, cutting down hospital waiting lists and making it easier to see a GP.The trouble is, these are not being properly championed. Ministers seem reluctant to bang the drum for some of their most popular moves, sometimes for fear of angering business. Last year, Downing Street disowned a press statement that called P&O Ferries a “rogue operator” for past fire-and-rehire practices after the firm threatened to pull out of an investment summit.Craft an overarching story – and pick a sideDavid Axelrod, a former strategist to Obama who then advised Ed Miliband in 2015, memorably said Labour’s campaign that year failed because it could be summed up with: “Vote Labour, win a microwave.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHis point was that Labour in 2015 offered voters a set of loosely connected transactional promises but lacked any overarching narrative. Many believe this is a problem plaguing the current Labour government and a key to explaining the success of Trump in the US and Farage in the UK.Both Trump and Farage have clear narrative stories to tell about the problems of the country and their proposed solutions. So does Mamdani. McGregor said: “He wants to be a politician that says this whole system isn’t working, and we’re going to change things in a bigger way. Politics is a vibes-based business in the modern media environment, and everything you do is a demonstration of whose side are you on.”He added: “I think you can learn from Mamdani without saying we have to be more leftwing. Those policies need to connect to that bigger story that you’re telling. Farage is telling a story, and Trump is telling a story, and Mamdani is telling a story about the country, its challenges and problems and who’s to blame for them.”That final point – picking a side and identifying your adversaries – is key. Ed Owen, a former UK government special adviser during the New Labour years who is now a visiting fellow at the centre-left US thinktank Third Way, said: “We on the centre left are great at being rather po-faced, rational, logical, and establishing ourselves inadvertently as the defenders of the status quo that most people hate.“We are in a period of history where people’s faith in politics and politicians is at an all-time low. Insurgent political figures like Mamdani, and also on the right, are good at positioning themselves as agents of change.”Get social media-savvyEven when you tick all those boxes – a focus on people’s biggest concerns, popular policies and a compelling overarching narrative – you need a way to cut through to the public, including to voters who don’t follow politics closely.Mamdani is a hugely talented communicator who has built a huge presence on social media. His masterful campaign videos and direct, easy style are shared with 1.4 million followers on TikTok and 4 million on Instagram. Unlike most politicians, at 33 he is a social media native.“These TikTok videos, I think, are a really compelling and interesting manifestation of something,” McGregor said. “Understanding the modern media environment and the fact that huge swathes of people consume information in completely different ways to how they did five, 10, let alone 20 years ago.”The decline of traditional media means many voters consume news only through snippets on their social media feeds. The only UK politician with a major TikTok presence is Farage – he rivals Mamdani’s reach with 1.3 million followers.Despite the efforts of successive No 10 comms chiefs, the UK government has been slow at adapting to new forms of communication – though Starmer and other ministers are increasingly popping up on alternative platforms such as digital-only outlets and parenting podcasts.Owen said: “We’ve got to be able to communicate where people are – and that’s increasingly on social media channels – in the form they want. And we’ve been really bad at it.”Be an authentic local voiceMamdani is a very New York success story – and one that observers say can’t be simply copy-pasted to the UK or other parts of the US. “It isn’t as if this is some sort of template you can just transpose to any political environment,” Owen said.Ainsley said: “If there is a lesson to be drawn, it’s about the importance of authentic candidates that speak to the voters that you need. Clearly, his victory has energised parts of the left, but they are not representative of the mainstream of America, that is where the midterms and the next presidential election will be fought.“He’s played to the base that he needed, which is a narrow selectorate in New York City. He’s got conviction, and one of the things that the swing voters who’ve moved away from the Democrats over time have said to us is that they want politicians with conviction – but they also want candidates that have got the competence and credible policies that they think are going to meet their everyday needs.” More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares40 Views

      in US Politics

      When Mandelson met Maga: how Labour lord charmed Trump’s inner circle

      by

      Peter Mandelson was in his element. Lounging on a sofa one June evening at Butterworth’s, a bistro serving as the gastronomical centre of the Maga movement in Washington DC, the recently appointed British ambassador was being honoured with a plaque that indicated he was easing his way into the conservative circles around Donald Trump.The appointment of Mandelson, an architect of Tony Blair’s New Labour project in the 1990s, had not been without controversy. He was the first political ambassador to the United States in almost half a century and had twice resigned from Labour governments in the past over scandals (not to mention his past association with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein).So he would have to move quickly to replace the well-sourced expertise of his predecessor and build ties with a new administration that had upended all the rules of the traditional Washington establishment.Mandelson managed that by leaning into the heady conservative politics surrounding the US president, working old contacts in Trump’s circles of businessmen and courting the new media right. Surrounded by conservative journalists that evening, he said that, while the two leaders’ politics may differ, both Trump and UK prime minister Keir Starmer were riding the same political winds of upheaval.Both had received mandates, he said that evening according to British media reports in the Times, from “angry people who felt they were being unheard by mainstream politics” and were “angry about the cost of living, angry about uncontrolled immigration and angry about uncontrolled woke culture spreading across institutions”.It was a textbook performance for the once-dubbed “Prince of Darkness” who was testing the lines between ambassadorial deference and open flattery. In public, a favourite adjective for Trump was neutral but weighty: “consequential”. In private, he tended away from criticism of the new administration, even as the White House leaned toward Vladimir Putin and flirted with authoritarian measures at home.His firing now amid new details of the Epstein scandal – one that the Trump administration has sought to outrun – plays out just days before Trump’s state visit to the United Kingdom, when Starmer must seek to influence Trump over the war in Ukraine, continue negotiations over a US-UK trade deal, deflect concern over a potential UK recognition of Palestine, and more.“[Mandelson] has his own independent stature and status, and that was a good thing, but it carried risks, and now it’s gone wrong,” said Alexandra Hall Hall, a former British diplomat who resigned while serving as lead envoy for Brexit in the US in 2019. “And now it’s gone wrong on the worst possible topic at the worst possible time.”In Washington, the British ambassador’s Edwin Lutyens-designed residence, where Mandelson lived with his partner and “diplo-dog” Jock, hosted parties that saw an influx of the new conservative media elite in Washington. At a White House Correspondents’ Dinner co-hosted by the Daily Mail in June, new media influencers like Natalie Winters, seen as a protege of the rightwing firebrand Steve Bannon, rubbed shoulders with established journalists from across the media spectrum. It reflected the White House’s own inclusion of conservative bloggers among accredited correspondents as a counterweight to a perceived liberal bias among the media.At a celebration for King Charles’s birthday that month, Mandelson wryly inserted jokes about Trump as guests mingled among cigar and whiskey stations, drawing laughs as he recognised a leader “associated with grand ceremonies and golden aesthetics. So happy birthday, President Trump”.It is precisely what Mandelson was sent to Washington DC to do: charm the Maga faithful around Trump while bringing the political heft that would allow a UK envoy to negotiate in the name of the prime minister.He replaced Dame Karen Pierce, a veteran diplomat who was already a regular at Mar-a-Lago and one of the best-sourced foreign ambassadors in Trumpworld. Some, like Bannon, had rejected Mandelson as a “terrible choice” because of his past remarks about Trump and links to establishment politics in the UK.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionYet Mandelson proved the doubters wrong, as at least one conservative outlet put it. His main success was the outlines of a US-UK trade deal, which was feted at an Oval Office meeting with Trump where Mandelson was complimented by Trump for his “beautiful accent” and given the floor in a rare show of deference to a foreign ambassador.The White House team around him laughed as he described Trump’s “typical 11th-hour intervention by you with your phone call demanding even more out of this deal than any of us expected”. He then channelled Winston Churchill as he added: “For us it is not the end, it’s the end of the beginning.”His absence will be noted as Trump arrives in the United Kingdom for the controversial state visit that Mandelson’s quick-found relationship with the US president could have helped to smooth.After the Oval Office meeting with Trump, Mandelson left with a souvenir – a handwritten note in Trump’s distinctive marker scrawl and unmistakeable signature.“Peter,” it read. “Great Job!” More

    • 125 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      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

    • 150 Shares71 Views

      in World Politics

      Project 2025 and Donald Trump’s Dangerous Dismantling of the US Federal Government

      by

      Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh, or the Rajput, and retired CIA officer Glenn Carle, or the WASP, examine US President Donald Trump’s cuts to the US federal government. Their wide-ranging discussion blends sharp historical insight with ideological critique, seeking to make sense of today’s Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) world.

      LISTEN ON:
      ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

      They emphasize that this topic has global resonance, since the world still depends on the stability and leadership of the United States. The discussion, therefore, becomes both an internal American debate and an international concern.

      Trump’s attack on federal agencies

      Atul and Glenn begin by cataloging specific Trump-era actions they view as evidence of a systematic weakening of the federal apparatus. These include the removal of officials such as Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, Center for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Billy Long. They argue that such moves, combined with a broader hollowing out of institutions like the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the CIA, US Agency for International Development and NASA, represent an intentional “gutting” of agencies crucial to governance and public welfare.

      Atul and Glenn insist that these institutions exist not only for technical governance but also for maintaining the credibility of the American democratic model. If the credibility of these institutions collapses, it erodes public trust and damages the US’s global standing.

      Norquist’s philosophy and Ronald Reagan’s agenda

      Glenn situates Trump’s efforts within a longer ideological arc. He traces them back to US President Ronald Reagan’s “revolution,” which reduced faith in government and elevated conservative economic philosophy. Reagan’s agenda, amplified by figures such as Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist — who is famous for wanting to shrink government so small he could “drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” — and bolstered by conservative think tanks, paved the way for what Glenn calls today’s “Trumpian revolution.”

      Atul adds that the Reagan years were not just an American turning point, but part of a broader global shift toward neoliberalism, deregulation and privatization. The ideological groundwork laid in that era, they contend, continues to shape political agendas today.

      Trump and Project 2025

      Central to the conversation is Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation initiative Atul and Glenn describe as a radical blueprint. Its goals include cutting the federal workforce by half and dramatically expanding presidential powers. They stress that these proposals would not only disrupt government efficiency and accountability but also tilt the balance of power sharply toward the executive branch.

      Atul and Glenn emphasize that the size of the workforce reflects the government’s ability to deliver services, regulate markets and provide stability in times of crisis. Reducing this by half would, in their view, leave the country dangerously exposed.

      Federal layoffs under Trump 2.0

      Atul and Glenn note that Trump’s current plans echo his first term, but with greater intensity. They state that proposals to eliminate 50% of the federal workforce are unprecedented in scope. They interpret these layoffs as more than cost-cutting; they are an ideological purge designed to weaken federal institutions and concentrate loyalty directly under presidential control. Such measures would ripple outward beyond Washington to ordinary citizens who depend on federal programs, grants and regulatory oversight for health, education and economic stability.

      Presidential control: a threat to US democracy?

      Glenn links Trump’s approach to the legal philosophy of Carl Schmitt, “[Adolf] Hitler’s legal theorist,” who defended the primacy of unchecked executive authority in Nazi Germany. Schmitt’s concept of the unitary executive resonates with Trump’s own political movement, Glenn argues, by undermining checks and balances and normalizing near-absolute presidential power. This strikes at the heart of democratic governance.

      Atul points out that the American system was designed around the separation of powers. If that foundation is eroded, the US risks losing what has long been its distinctive democratic safeguard.

      The Republican Party’s evolution

      The conversation also turns to the broader Republican Party. Atul and Glenn argue that decades of conservative activism, think tank influence and shifting party priorities have steered the Grand Old Party toward radical centralization of power. They suggest that what once seemed like outlandish ideas are now mainstream within the Republican platform, particularly under Trump’s leadership. This shift is both political and cultural, representing a redefinition of what conservatism means in the US.

      Fascism, strongmen and the future

      Atul and Glenn conclude with a sober warning: Left unchecked, the United States risks sliding from liberal democracy into what they call a “conservative autocracy.” They point to echoes of strongman politics and fascist ideology, stressing the long-term danger of normalizing authoritarian principles. At the same time, they note Trump’s diverse support base — including many immigrants who align with cultural conservatism and share a disdain for bureaucracy — as evidence that these dynamics are both complex and deeply embedded in American society.

      They highlight that this contradiction of immigrants supporting an anti-immigrant politician reveals how cultural and ideological affinities can often outweigh personal experience. The episode ends as a call to reflect on the fragility of democratic institutions and the vigilance required to protect them.

      [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

      The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 175 Shares92 Views

      in World Politics

      FO° Podcasts: Why Has Trump Deployed Thousands of National Guard Troops in Washington, DC?

      by

      Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Ankit Jain, a voting rights attorney and the shadow senator of Washington, DC. Together, they discuss the city’s unusual political status, US President Donald Trump’s interventions in the capital and broader questions about crime, governance, statehood and the future of American democracy.

      LISTEN ON:
      ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

      What is a shadow senator?

      Jain begins by clarifying his unusual role as one of DC’s two elected shadow senators. Unlike other states, Washington, DC, has no voting representation in Congress. To push for statehood and defend its autonomy, the city created two non-voting senators and one non-voting representative. Jain, elected in November 2024 and sworn in this January, explains that his position is part-advocate, part-lobbyist and part-symbolic lawmaker. His chief responsibility is to fight for DC to become the 51st state and secure full representation for its 700,000 residents.

      Turmoil in Washington, DC?

      Singh turns the conversation to Trump’s controversial policy decisions in the capital. Jain describes how Trump took control of the Metropolitan Police Department for 30 days, placing it under a presidentially appointed official. Trump also sent in hundreds of federal agents and more than 2,000 National Guard troops. The stated aim was to reduce crime, but Jain argues the real goal was to reshape policing “in his own image,” encouraging brutality and overriding DC laws on cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He points to raids that terrified the Latino community and recalls seeing federal troops idling around tourist sites like the National Mall rather than addressing real problems.

      DC’s governance structure

      Jain then explains how fragile DC’s self-government really is. While the city elects a mayor and council, the federal government controls the judiciary and prosecution of adult crimes. Judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the US Attorney — also a presidential appointee — handles prosecutions. Right now, one in five local court seats sits vacant, slowing trials and fueling more crime. The US Attorney’s office, meanwhile, suffers from mass firings that gutted its capacity. Even when DC passes its own laws, Congress can block or repeal them within 30 to 60 days. To Jain, this makes self-rule an illusion, unlike London or other world capitals, where residents govern their own affairs.

      Crime in DC

      Trump has repeatedly claimed that crime in Washington is spiraling. Jain challenges this, citing objective data: Crime is down 25% year-on-year, violent crime is at a 30-year low and overall rates remain below pre-COVID-19 levels. He accuses Trump of spreading lies to justify costly deployments that burn “millions of [taxpayer] dollars a day” without solving problems.

      Jain acknowledges DC still faces crime and homelessness, but argues solutions require smarter police deployment, housing reform and more funding for mental health. It does not need troop surges and headline-grabbing raids. He also notes that federal restrictions like the Height Act prevent the city from building enough affordable housing, driving rents higher and fueling homelessness.

      Trump’s attacks on DC

      Jain sees Trump’s interventions as part of a larger pattern. By stripping money from DC’s budget, firing federal workers and blocking judicial nominations, Trump is deliberately weakening the city. These moves deepen DC’s “mini-recession” and leave essential services, from schools to emergency response, undermanned. In Jain’s view, Trump’s goal is not to fix urban challenges but to create crises, then claim sweeping authority to impose his preferred policies.

      Should Washington, DC, be a state?

      For Jain, it is clear that Washington, DC, should be a state. He argues that nearly every problem facing the capital — crime policy, housing shortages, budget manipulation — stems from the fact that DC is not a state. Its residents pay taxes, serve in the military and number more than Wyoming or Vermont, yet they lack voting representation. Jain calls it a modern case of “taxation without representation,” pointing out that no other democratic nation in the world denies its capital city’s residents the vote. Statehood, he insists, is the only path to justice.

      The National Guard in other cities?

      Singh raises Trump’s threats to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois. Jain warns this is no idle talk — DC is simply the test case. Because it is not a state, it was an easy target. If successful, Trump could expand the model to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, coercing them into repealing policies or cutting federal funds. Jain calls this a “dangerous precedent” and urges Senate Democrats to resist using every tool available, including the filibuster, to stop such power grabs.

      Democrats need an upgrade

      Finally, Singh raises a broader critique: Democrats have failed urban America. Jain concedes there is truth in this. Democrats, he says, often rely too much on the “old guard” and resist fresh ideas. Still, he pushes back against Republican attacks, noting that Grand Old Party-led cities often have higher crime rates, largely because of permissive gun laws. He argues that Democrats need to show a new vision while Republicans must stop blocking gun control measures and sabotaging agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

      To Jain, Trump’s actions in DC reveal a deeper threat: an authoritarian drift that undermines American democracy itself. If left unchecked, he warns, it could spread from Washington to the rest of the nation.

      [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

      The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares55 Views

      in US Politics

      Peter Mandelson lauds Trump as ‘risk-taker’ in call for US-UK tech alliance

      by

      Donald Trump is a risk-taker sounding a necessary wake-up call to a stale status quo, Peter Mandelson has told the Ditchley Foundation in a speech before Trump’s second state visit to the UK this month.The UK’s ambassador to Washington portrayed Trump as a harbinger of a new force in politics at a time when business as usual no longer works for fed-up voters.The bulk of the speech was focused on a call for a US-UK technology partnership covering AI, quantum computing and rare-earth minerals as part of efforts to win a competition with China that Lord Mandelson said would shape this century.He said that such a partnership with the US had the potential to be as important as the security relationship the US and UK forged in the second world war, adding: “If China wins the race for technological dominance in the coming decades, every facet of our lives is going to be affected.”The first steps to that partnership are likely to be unveiled during Trump’s state visit, including new commitments for cheap nuclear energy to power the AI revolution.Mandelson, although a fierce pro-European, also said Brexit had not made the UK less relevant to the US, but by freeing the UK from European regulatory burdens had made Britain a more attractive site for US investors.Critics of Mandelson’s interpretation of Trump’s populism will argue that it assumes a set of common values between Trump’s Maga movement and European liberal democracy that is fading.In his pitch for a close US-UK alliance, he made no mention of key points of difference including Gaza, the international rule of law, Trump’s inability to see that Vladimir Putin is stalling in Ukraine, or Trump’s creeping domestic authoritarianism.Insisting he was not cast in the role of Trump’s “explainer-in-chief” and denying there was any need to be sycophantic with the Trump team, he praised the US president for identifying the anxieties gripping millions of impatient voters deprived of meaningful work.He accused those arguing for a pivot away from Trump’s America of “lazy thinking”, arguing that the America First credo on the climate crisis, US aid cuts and trade did not preclude a close partnership.He said: “The president may not follow the traditional rulebook or conventional practice, but he is a risk-taker in a world where a ‘business as usual’ approach no longer works.“Indeed, he seems to have an ironclad stomach for political risk, both at home and abroad – convening other nations and intervening in conflicts that other presidents would have thought endlessly about before descending into an analysis paralysis and gradual incrementalism.“Yet – and this is not well understood – although the Trumpian national security strategy is called ‘America First’, it does not actually mean ‘America Alone’.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We see him leverage America’s heft to put the right people in the room and hammer out compromises in order to grind out concessions.“I am not just thinking of Ukraine where the president has brought fresh energy to efforts to end Putin’s brutal invasion and bring peace to that region. If the president were so indifferent to the rest of the world, if he was so in love with America alone, he would not have intervened in multiple spheres of conflict over the last seven months.“Furthermore, the ‘international order’ people claim he has disrupted and the calm he has allegedly shattered was already at breaking point. So, I would argue that Trump is more consequence than cause of the upheaval we are experiencing.”He continued: “He will not always get everything right but with his Sharpie pen and freewheeling Oval Office media sprays he has sounded a deafening wake-up call to the international old guard.“And the president is right about the status quo failing from America’s point of view. The world has rested on the willingness of the US to act as sheriff, to form a posse whenever anything went wrong, a world in which America’s allies could fall in behind – not always that close behind either – and then allow the US to do most of the heavy lifting.”Going further than the UK’s official line, he praised Trump’s military attack on Iran, saying: “Trump understands the positive coercive power of traditional American deterrence, deterring adversaries through a blend of strength and strategic unpredictability, as we saw in his decisive action on Iran’s nuclear programme. Well beyond their military impact, these strikes gave a swathe of malign foreign regimes pause for thought.” More

    • 263 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      One by one, leaders learn that grovelling to Trump leads to disaster. When will it dawn on Starmer? | Simon Tisdall

      by

      Sucking up to Donald Trump never works for long. Narendra Modi is the latest world leader to learn this lesson the hard way. Wooing his “true friend” in the White House, India’s authoritarian prime minister thought he’d conquered Trump’s inconstant heart. The two men hit peak pals in 2019, holding hands at a “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas. But it’s all gone pear-shaped thanks to Trump’s tariffs and dalliance with Pakistan. Like a jilted lover on the rebound, Modi shamelessly threw himself at Vladimir Putin in China last week. Don and Narendra! It’s over! Although, to be honest, it always felt a little shallow.Other suitors for Trump’s slippery hand have suffered similar heartbreak. France’s Emmanuel Macron turned on the charm, feting him at the grand reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral. But Trump cruelly dumped him after they argued over Gaza, calling him a publicity-seeker who “always gets it wrong”. The EU’s Ursula von der Leyen, desperate for a tete-a-tete, flew to Trump’s Scottish golf course to pay court. Result: perhaps the most humiliating, lopsided trade deal since imperial Britain’s 19th-century “unequal treaties” with Peking’s dragon throne.The list of broken pledges and dashed hopes is lengthy. Relationships between states normally pivot on power, policy and strategic interests. But with faithless, fickle Trump, it’s always personal – and impermanent. Disconcertingly, he told Mexico’s impressive president, Claudia Sheinbaum, that he “likes her very much” – then threatened to invade her country, ostensibly in pursuit of drug cartels. Leaders from Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea and South Africa have all attempted to ingratiate themselves, to varying degrees. They still haven’t fared well.All this should set red lights flashing for Britain’s Keir Starmer ahead of Trump’s state visit in 10 days’ time. The prime minister’s unedifying Trump-whisperer act has produced little benefit to date, at high reputational cost. Starmer apparently believes his handling of the US relationship is a highlight of his first year in office. Yet Trump ignores his Gaza ceasefire pleas and opposes UK recognition of a Palestinian state. He hugely boosted Putin, Britain’s nemesis, with his half-baked Alaska summit. US security guarantees for postwar Ukraine are more mirage than reality. His steel tariffs and protectionist policies continue to hurt UK workers.His second state visit is an appalling prospect. The honour is utterly undeserved. It’s obvious what Trump will gain: a royal endorsement, a chance to play at being King Donald, a privileged platform from which to deliver his corrosive, divisive populist-nationalist diatribes at a moment of considerable social fragility in the US and UK. Polls suggest many Britons strongly oppose the visit; and most don’t trust the US. So what Starmer thinks he will gain is a mystery. The fleeting goodwill of a would-be dictator who is dismantling US democracy and wrecking the global laws-based order championed by the UK is a poor return.View image in fullscreenAs he demands homage from abject subjects, this spectacle will confirm the UK in the eyes of the world as a lackey state, afraid to stand up for its values. Starmer’s government is now so morally confused that it refuses to acknowledge that Israel, fully backed by Trump, is committing genocide in Gaza, while at the same time making the wearing of a pro-Palestine T-shirt a terrorist act. The Trump travesty will be an embarrassment, signalling a further descent into colonial subservience. As next year’s 250th anniversary of US independence approaches, the chronically unhealthy “special relationship” has finally come full circle.Not everyone is genuflecting to Trump – and evidence mounts that resistance, not grovelling, is by far the best way to handle this schoolyard bully. Modi’s geopolitical fling in China showed he’s learned that when dealing with Trump, firm resolve, supported by alternative options, is the better policy. Last week’s defiant speech by China’s leader, Xi Jinping, reflected a similar realisation. Both he and Putin have discovered that when they dig their heels in, whether the issue is Ukraine, trade or sanctions, Trump backs off. Xi has adopted an uncompromising stance from the start. Putin uses flattery, skilfully manipulating Trump’s frail ego. The result is the same. Like cowards the world over, Trump respects strength because he’s weak. So he caves.The bigger the wolf, the more sheepishly Trump responds. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, like Putin, an indicted war criminal, has shown that by sticking to his guns (literally, in his case), he can face down Trump. More than that, Trump can be co-opted. After Netanyahu attacked Iran in June, against initial US advice, he induced the White House to join in – although, contemptibly, Trump only did so once he was certain who was winning. Then, typically, he claimed credit for a bogus world-changing victory. North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, similarly bamboozled Trump during his first term. Having learned nothing, and nursing his implausible Nobel peace prize ambitions, Trump is again raising the prospect of unconditional engagement with Kim.Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has the right idea. The more Trump tries to bully him with 50% tariffs and a barrage of criticism, the more he resists. Trump is particularly exercised over the fate of Jair Bolsonaro, Lula’s hard-right predecessor, who, like Trump, mounted a failed electoral coup. But Lula is not having any of it. “If the United States doesn’t want to buy [from us], we will find new partners,” he said. “The world is big, and it’s eager to do business with Brazil.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat’s the spirit! And guess what? Lula’s poll ratings are soaring. Wake up, Keir Starmer – and dump Trump.

      Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator

      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

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Can you solve it? Are you a genius at gerrymandering?

      by

      Gerrymandering is the practice of redrawing the boundaries of political districts to favour certain parties or politicians.On Friday, Texas governor Greg Abbott signed a new redistricting bill with a gerrymandered map that will heavily favour Republicans – and California governor Gavin Newsom plans to retaliate by doing the same in his state for Democrats.Irresepective of the politics of gerrymandering, however, the ruse conceals some interesting maths. Such as – given a certain distribution of voters, how do you draw a map that makes the minority party win the majority of districts?It’s exactly this question that underlies today’s puzzles.In each of the grids below, the challenge is to find the unique electoral map in which the minority colour wins the most regions. A region is defined as a contiguous block of cells that are joined either horizontally or vertically. (A region cannot contain any cells that are only connected diagonally, i.e. via a corner.) Winning a region means having the most cells in that region.The puzzles were conceived by Brady Forrest, a university student in Toronto, whose online alias is Deckard.ExampleDivide the grid into 3 regions of 3 cells each. Purple, the minority colour, must win the majority of the regions.To solve using pencil and paper, click here for a print out (and some bonus puzzles). To play on your screen, below each puzzle is a link to an interactive version.Puzzle 1: EasyDivide the grid into 5 regions of 5 cells each. Purple, the minority colour, must win the majority of regions.View image in fullscreenPuzzle 2: MediumDivide the grid into 5 regions of 10 cells each. Purple, the minority colour, must win the majority of regions. No ties allowed in any region.View image in fullscreenPuzzle 3: HardDivide the grid into 7 regions of 7 cells each. Blue, the minority colour, must win the majority of regions. No ties allowed for first place in any region.View image in fullscreenI’ll be back at 5pm UK with the solutions.NO SPOILERS Please discuss the maths of gerrymandering.Thanks to Deckard for sharing his puzzles. Thanks to Starwort for the interactive versions.I’ve been setting a puzzle here on alternate Mondays since 2015. I’m always on the look-out for great puzzles. If you would like to suggest one, email me.View image in fullscreenIn other Gerry-related news, here’s a fact from my new book, Football School Facts. Gerry Taggart (ex-Bolton) is one of only four Premier League players to have been sent off on their birthdays. The wrong sort of card! This curio and hundreds of others appear in the book, the latest in the long-running series I write with Ben Lyttleton for children aged 7 to 107. Football School Facts is full-colour, hardback, would make an excellent gift, and is available at the Guardian Bookshop. More