Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      After America: can Europe learn to go it alone without the US?

      by

      The German ­electronics firm Hensoldt has a backlog of orders for its technology, ­including radars that protect Ukraine from Russian airstrikes. Meanwhile, Germany’s car industry is struggling with low European demand and competition from China.As Europe worries about how it can weather the economic and ­political turmoil unleashed by Donald Trump, executives from Munich and Düsseldorf say they have at least a partial answer.In January, Hensoldt offered to take on workers laid off by the car parts suppliers Bosch and Continental. The defence giant Rheinmetall made a similar ­proposal last year, and in February announced it would repurpose two automotive component factories.It was a pivot that offered hope amid America’s rapid ­dismantling of the postwar global order – ­protecting jobs and Germany’s industrial base as access to US ­markets shrinks, while ramping up Europe’s capacity to protect itself.As politicians around the world try to work out how best to ­protect their countries from Trump’s ­capricious policymaking, the one constant in all their calculations for the future is a diminished American role in their countries. Trump has mooted plans for a 25% tariff on EU goods, including cars, and has already put duties at that level on steel and aluminium from the bloc.In February, his vice-president, JD Vance, launched a blistering attack on European democracy in Munich, questioning whether it was worth defending.In his first term, Trump touted decoupling from China as a way to bolster US jobs and the economy against a rapacious rival. Now, in his second term, he is pursuing a much broader decoupling from the ­country’s historical allies – a shift that few had anticipated or were prepared to face.The new US administration is sealing off its markets, retreating from America’s global security role, and cutting soft-power projects that aimed to shape the world through research, aid and culture.The only form of greater American presence beyond the country’s ­current borders that seems to ­interest Trump is ­territorial ­expansion – ­encouraging, ­perhaps, for a dictator such as Vladimir Putin as he wages an ­imperial war in Ukraine, but ­unwelcome and ­alarming elsewhere.“The idea of the US ­abandoning western Europe was ­unimaginable even a decade ago, because its role there also secures broader American influence in the world,” said Phillip Ayoub, a professor of international relations at University College London.“There is a comparative ­advantage to strong alliances because they make you richer in trade and safer because they deter other powers.”Trump’s vision of the world rejects that view, casting his ­country as a naively magnanimous ­superpower that has for decades funded and policed the world while getting little more than debt and ingratitude for its troubles.View image in fullscreenYet if postwar American ­presidents did not pursue the ­territorial empire that Trump now dreams of, they wielded an ­imperial power not reflected on maps. Decisions made in Washington DC reshaped countries from Chile to Iraq without the participation or consent of their populations.And the global order he is ­tearing down made the country so rich and powerful that for a brief, heady moment around the turn of the ­millennium, the US elite embraced the idea that history was over, and that human society had reached its peak and permanent form in the ­liberal democracy embodied in their constitution.The details of the new American relationship with the world are still being worked out day by day in court battles at home and trade and diplomatic negotiations abroad, but the impact of Trump’s presidency will last long into the future.“An election could change ­policy in Washington DC. But the new ­reality is that from government to government you could have a ­different attitude to the US’s place in the world,” Ayoub said. “This retreat will be factored into policymaking everywhere now.”For now, the ­immediate priority in most ­countries is limiting the extent of tariffs and the impact of US cuts, in areas ranging from aid to defence.Geography and the impact of ­previous free trade deals have ­combined to make neighbours of the US extremely vulnerable to its tariffs. Exports to the US account for a quarter of Mexico’s GDP. In Canada, where all other potential trading partners are an ocean or half a continent away, they are about a fifth of GDP.European countries may be less immediately vulnerable to a trade squeeze, with exports to the US accounting for less than 3% of the European Union’s GDP.But budgets from London to Warsaw are also strained by the need to ramp up defence ­spending to make up for the US retreat, both from immediate support for the Ukrainian forces battling Russia, and from the longer-term backing of European defence. Even ­optimistic assessments suggest it will take the best part of a decade before the continent’s own defence ­capacity can match the protection currently offered by the US, excluding its nuclear deterrent.The pain of breaking up or reshaping major relationships does not only fall on one party – ­something even Trump has ­admitted. The cost of some tariffs will be passed on to US ­consumers, and American businesses may lose customers.One early high-profile casualty could be Lockheed Martin, which produces F-35 jet fighters. Contracts allowing the US to restrict how the planes are used by allies caused little debate during friendlier times. Now, in Berlin and other capitals, defence ministers are worrying about a ­possible “kill switch” and hesitating over major new orders.Longer term, Trump could also fuel a ­cultural “decoupling”, with attacks on the arts and academia ­driving highly talented ­individuals to flee the US or avoid it.Several artists have cancelled tours, and the concert pianist András Schiff last week said last week he would no longer work in the US because of Trump. He had already boycotted Russia.Academics at elite British ­universities say they have seen a surge in job applications from US-based colleagues, many ­willing to lose tenure and take a ­considerable pay cut in order to move across the Atlantic. A French university that offered ­“sanctuary” to US researchers said it had received 40 applications, and one academic moved this month.As with the economy, the US’s ­cultural standing is not under direct threat. American music – much of it made by ­people who publicly oppose Trump – will be consumed worldwide. The Oscars are likely to remain the most ­coveted prize for cinema, the Emmys for ­television, the Pulitzers for ­journalism. Yet an exodus would still be ­damaging in a country where research and the creative arts are key drivers of growth, and benefit the places they settle instead – the long-term US allies that Trump sees as threats.The US president has promised voters that where his economic policies cause pain it will be short-term, and pave the way for long term prosperity in America.To critics, they look like a ­template for a poorer, more ­dangerous and fragmented world, where any limited benefits of ­decoupling are as likely to be reaped by a British university or a German defence firm as by Americans.View image in fullscreenCultureThe hit to America’s creative ­sector, from budget freezes and threats to the federal bodies and national schemes that fund ­museums, ­galleries, theatres and libraries, is set to take a toll on its income from tourism – and send visitors to Britain and Europe instead.In response to the second Trump presidency, some international ­artists are already pulling out of ­appearances in American venues, or at music festivals, and the likely knock-on effect is a reduction in ­visits from abroad.Last week, the Canadian singer/songwriter Leslie Hudson cancelled her American tour, saying on social media: “Like a lot of Canadians, and so many others, I no longer feel safe to enter the country.” The German violinist Christian Tetzlaff cancelled a spring tour in protest at the new administration’s policies, with particular reference to Ukraine.In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the managing director of City theatre, James McNeel, has ­spoken of a growing funding threat. “What we need more than anything is stability,” he says.Prior to the pandemic, the US Travel Association ­valued the total spending of the near-80 million tourists who came into the US at about $2 trillion (£1.5tn).This was supported by federal investment in ­infrastructure and the ­airline industry, but travel experts also traced back much of this tourism success to the diverse image of many of its cities. Art tourism was a big part of this, with art fans who ­travelled to North America in 2023 ­accounting for more than a ­quarter of the global total. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago boast ­celebrated museums and ­galleries, and the rise of immersive art and public installations has broadened this appeal. The attraction of art fairs such as Art Basel Miami has also grown internationally. In 2023, it was reportedly visited by more than 79,000 people.But Trump has made rapid and determined cuts to all museum ­projects tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, ­affecting the Smithsonian Institution, which has closed its DEI office. The National Gallery of Art also closed its office of belonging and inclusion, while exhibitions across the ­country have been cancelled. The biggest impact may well be on cultural ­tourism associated with LGBTQ+ communities and climate activism.Trump at one point intended for 2026 to be a bumper year for American tourism, with a ­“special one-time festival” planned for “­millions of people from around the world” at the Iowa State Fairground to mark 250 years since ­independence.The level of ­international advance booking will be watched.Likewise, a new status for London, Berlin and Paris as “refuge cities” for American artists is being predicted.British and European ­institutions might also soon have to make room for American artwork. The Washington Post has reported that large collections of public art have been left without professional ­security or conservationists.View image in fullscreenEconomicsShould the UK government decide to untangle the economy’s many ties with the US, it would need to tread carefully. America is the single ­largest market for Britain’s exports, ranging from the most sophisticated components in US navy submarines to artisan scented candles.Official figures show total trade in goods and services – exports plus imports – between Britain and the US was £294bn in the year to 30 September, 2024. The stock of investment by US companies in the UK stood at £708bn in 2023, or 34% of total of foreign direct investment.Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is hoping to sign a limited trade deal with his counterparts in Washington that covers digital services and commits both countries to secure supply chains for vital goods.But a deal with any scope or ­judicial oversight will need Congress to agree, and that is far from certain to happen.UK manufacturers could begin to wean themselves off US raw ­materials and components, but the presumption must be that they traded with the Americans in the first place because they provided the best products. Exports could be directed back at the EU, though without rejoining the single ­market and customs union, the benefit would be limited.It would be a harder job switching services exports away from the US. The common language may often divide the two nations, but in ­practice the sector is a huge boon.In Brussels, officials believe any kind of trade deal with the US is off the agenda.As Donald Trump is only too well aware, the EU has a large trade ­surplus with America. In 2014 the surplus was about €100bn. By last year the gap had grown to almost €200bn. For this reason, the EU has already adopted a more ­confrontational stance.The British Chambers of Commerce says almost two-thirds of factory owners that export to the US are worried. European ­manufacturers have revealed similar concerns in recent surveys.Some are comforted by figures showing the US has a trade surplus in goods with the UK and how, in practice, trade and investment relationships exist well away from the White House and remain robust.However, businesses thought the same about Brussels after the vote to leave the EU. It didn’t happen and a breakdown in relations ensued.That said, rekindling relations with the EU can be part of the answer. Reset talks are under way and there is a leaders’ summit on 19 May that should address at least some trade barriers. The UK might find that food exports become easier and it gains access to a wider range of raw ­materials and ­components by rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention.Still, the US will remain a major trading partner and upsetting the Trump White House could have huge consequences.View image in fullscreenDefenceDonald Trump’s abandonment of Europe’s defence and disdain for Nato marks one of the most ­profound and influential breaks with longstanding US policy, even for a supremely disruptive leader.Many US presidents have grumbled about European over-reliance on American deterrence in recent decades, with predecessors including Barack Obama demanding allies spend more on their own armies.But their frustrations were rooted in concern that European defence cuts undermined an ­alliance that almost everyone in Washington – across the political divide – saw as critical to American global leadership.Trump, in contrast, appears to be seeking European spending to replace or supersede Nato, not strengthen it. He says Washington’s defence priorities are now deterring China in Asia and fighting organised crime at home.In his first term, he touted the idea of withdrawing America from the alliance, which was formed in 1949 for protection against the Soviet Union. This time he has opted to undermine it from within.The president himself has ­publicly contemplated ignoring Article 5, the core mutual defence clause at the heart of the transatlantic ­alliance, which requires Nato ­countries to come to the aid of any member that is attacked. It has only been invoked once – by the US after the 11 September attacks on Washington and New York in 2001.Trump said the US might ­condition any support for other members on military spending, and questioned if US allies would come to the country’s aid if in need. His administration is considering giving up the Nato command role inaugurated by war hero president Dwight D Eisenhower and held by America ever since, NBC reported last week.Europe was already scrambling to increase defence spending and ­coordination when the US halted military aid shipments to Ukraine, and intelligence-sharing with Kyiv earlier this month.Trump’s decision came after a spectacular on-camera showdown in the Oval Office with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But his willingness to cut loose a force that Washington has trained, armed and backed, and which is fighting a major US rival, stunned even some of his own political allies.European governments who have also spent billions on Ukraine’s defence, and have been dealing with covert Russian sabotage and spy operations across the continent, were not informed in advance.The flow of weapons and aid has now resumed, but the message was clear. Major European military powers, including the UK and Germany, are now reportedly racing to put together a five- to 10-year plan for a managed transfer of European defence, to stave off any more abrupt moves from Washington.Trump’s unpredictability has been heightened by his choice of ­leaders for key security roles, ­including a former Fox television host, Pete Hegseth, as defence secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard, who has a long ­history of pro-Russian views, as director of national intelligence.Security experts warn that ­turmoil in the leadership and ­management of intelligence agencies may also lead to a less visible but highly ­damaging defence decoupling – of the relationship between America’s spies and the secret services of its allies.View image in fullscreenDiplomacyThe votes in the United Nations marking the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ­provided a bleak snapshot of the yawning diplomatic divide between Donald Trump’s America and the country’s traditional allies.On February 25, the US joined international pariahs Russia, Belarus and North Korea to vote against a resolution condemning Russia as an aggressor state and calling on it to remove its troops from Ukraine.The wording rejected by Trump’s diplomats had been put forward by Ukraine, whose defence the US has funded, and the European Union, Washington’s partner in that effort. It passed in the general assembly with backing from 93 countries.The isolationist bent of Trump’s politics extends beyond the ­economy and defence, into international diplomacy. He has ordered the US to withdraw from a host of global organisations and initiatives, from the World Health Organization to the Paris climate agreement.The process of taking the world’s second biggest emitter of planet-heating pollution out of the accord to tackle global ­emissions will take about a year. As with the UN vote on Ukraine, that move puts the world’s most ­powerful democracy in unusual ­company, with Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only countries outside the deal.Trump imposed sanctions on officials at the International Criminal Court over arrest warrants it had issued for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, who was the country’s defence minister at the time.His predecessor Joe Biden had also criticised the court, but such a direct attack on an institution ­established with broad international support was unprecedented.Several former British ambassadors to Washington warned this month that there has been a seismic and perhaps permanent shift in the so-called “special relationship” between the two countries, meaning that the UK will need to seek out other allies.“It’s difficult to find either a conceptual area in ­international relations or a particular geographical area where our interests are really converging at the moment,” Nigel Sheinwald, the ­ambassador from 2007 to 2012, told a ­parliamentary committee.“On more or less any big ­foreign policy issue that we’re dealing with today, we don’t agree with the United States… whether that is the Middle East, whether it’s Iran, whether it’s climate change, China, but above all on Europe itself,” Sheinwald said. More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is abandoning democracy and freedom. That creates an opening for Europe – and Britain | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      Thanks to Donald Trump, a vacancy is opening up in the international jobs market. For decades, if not centuries, and always imperfectly, the US offered itself to the world as the guarantor of democracy and the land of the free. Now that it’s pivoting away from that job description, there’s an opportunity for someone else to step in.The evidence that the US is moving, even galloping, away from basic notions of democracy and freedom is piling up. Just because the changes have happened so fast doesn’t make them any less fundamental. We now have a US administration that blithely ignores court rulings, whose officials say out loud “I don’t care what the judges think”. In a matter of weeks, it has become an open question whether the US remains a society governed by the rule of law.In the name of defeating “woke” and diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, even historic efforts to advance civil rights are disdained or banished into the memory hole: this week it emerged that an army webpage celebrating Harry Truman’s 1948 order to integrate the military had disappeared, along with several others honouring distinguished Black soldiers. When asked about it, the press secretary at the Pentagon said: “DEI is dead at the defense department.” As for the Department of Education, this week Trump moved to abolish it altogether.But if the US is being upended by the Trump hurricane, so is everywhere else in its path, including those places that once looked to the US with admiration. We can all see the coercion of Ukraine into accepting a supposed peace that will require it to surrender its territory to Vladimir Putin and its minerals to Trump. Less visible is the way in which the scything of the US federal government by Trump and Elon Musk is aiding Putin’s assault on Ukraine’s most vulnerable people – its children.Among the US projects cut is a state department initiative to collect evidence of Russian war crimes, including the abduction of more than 20,000 Ukrainian children, many of them sent to Russia for forced adoption. Now there are fears that that information, which might have helped find the children and eventually reunite them with their parents, has been lost, destroyed by the Musk chainsaw. Captain America thought he was a superhero; turns out he’s the villain’s accomplice.Now it is those contemptuous of democracy who look to the US for inspiration. This week, Benjamin Netanyahu broke a ceasefire he had agreed with Hamas, resuming devastating airstrikes on Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinians, in part because he doubtless presumed Trump would give him no grief. But he also sacked the independent-minded head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, the latest move in his ongoing attempt to remove every legal or constitutional constraint on his power. If that reminds you of someone, there’s good reason. “In America and in Israel, when a strong rightwing leader wins an election, the leftist Deep State weaponizes the justice system to thwart the people’s will,” Netanyahu tweeted on Wednesday. “They won’t win in either place! We stand strong together.” Trump’s authoritarian power grab is providing cover for others to do the same.This new role for the US, as a beacon of anti-democracy, is having some unintended consequences. Canada was on course to elect a Conservative government; now, by way of a backlash, the Liberals under Mark Carney look set to ride an anti-Trump wave to victory. However it operates, Trumpism is becoming a key determinant of politics the world over.Perhaps especially in Britain. For most of the last century, the US has been Britain’s foremost ally. Put more baldly, London has all but relied on Washington for its own defence. Britain’s military and intelligence systems are intricately integrated with those of the US; its nuclear capability is not operationally independent. These last two months, it has become obvious that that is no longer sustainable: Britain cannot rely on a US that behaves more like an enemy than a friend.That, in turn, creates a new political fact – we are in an age of rearmament – that will be the organising principle of Rachel Reeves’s spring statement next week. It will require either deep cuts or new taxes. Trump has scrambled Britain’s finances.By itself, that represents a monumental change. But it won’t end there. Almost everything we do will need to be rethought. Much of that is cause for alarm – how can Nato function when its mightiest member has become an adversary? – but it also creates opportunities for Britain, if we are only willing to seize them.Take, as just one example, Trump’s war on science. The US has long been the world leader in almost every field of research. But Trump and Musk are slashing or closing one research hub after another, whether at the National Institutes of Health or the Environmental Protection Agency, which could lay off thousands of talented scientists. The administration is threatening academic freedom, forcing US universities to bendto Trumpism or lose funding. This week, a French scientist travelling to the US for a conference was denied entry because, according to the French government, his “phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration’s research policy”. You read that right: the man was subjected to a random check at the airport, US officials went through his laptop and phone, found private messages speaking ill of the president and sent him back home.This is an opening for Britain, which should be promoting itself as a haven for free, unhindered scientific inquiry. The EU has already spotted the chance, and is devising a plan to lure US scholars. But the UK has the advantage of the English language; it should be first in line. Some see the opportunity, but sadly the UK government is not among them: petitioned to reduce upfront visa costs for overseas scientists, which is an average of 17 times higher than for comparable countries, ministers this week said no.But science is only one area where Britain could be taking up the slack. Trump is silencing the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe: the BBC should be given the relatively modest funds required to step in and do the job instead, thereby boosting British soft power at a stroke.The first step is understanding that the world has changed and that the old shibboleths no longer apply. It’s absurd that Britain, home to Europe’s biggest arms industry, is, thanks to Brexit, shut out of the new €150bn (£125bn) EU defence procurement fund, the latest example of how standing apart from its neighbours amounts to reckless folly in the Trump era.What the moment calls for is great boldness. It means Keir Starmer having the courage to tell the country that everything has changed and that we will have to change, too. Yes, that will involve painful sacrifices to pay for rearmament, and the breaking of political taboos, including listening to the majority of Britons who tell pollsters it’s time we rejoined the EU.It adds up to a vision of a Europe that includes Britain, stepping into the space the US is vacating, guaranteeing and promoting free speech and democratic accountability at the very moment the US is abandoning those ideals. Trump has blasted the door open. All we have to do is walk through it.

      On 30 April, join Jonathan Freedland, Kim Darroch, Devika Bhat and Leslie Vinjamuri as they discuss Trump’s presidency on his 100th day in office, live at Conway Hall London, and live streamed globally. You can book tickets here

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Israel breaking the ceasefire: destroying hope along with lives | Editorial

      by

      In shattering the two-month ceasefire that had brought a fragile peace and relief to Gaza, Israel has also smashed the faint hopes that a resolution might just remain within reach. This was one of the deadliest days since the early months of the conflict, sparked by the lethal Hamas raid of 7 October 2023. Israel says it was attacking “terror targets”, but health authorities in Gaza say that 174 children and 89 women were among the more than 400 dead. Evacuation orders issued by the military suggest that a renewed ground offensive may be on its way for traumatised and repeatedly displaced Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu warned that it was “only the beginning” and the military issued new evacuation orders to traumatised and repeatedly displaced Palestinians. Families of the remaining Israeli hostages are terrified and angry too, attacking the government for choosing to give up on them.Horror is piling upon horror. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed since the war began, and the numbers grew even during the ceasefire, many due to Israel’s blocking of aid. The British foreign secretary, David Lammy, belatedly acknowledged that as a breach of international law on Monday – only for the prime minister’s spokesperson to rebuke him. A UN report last week said that Israel’s attacks on women’s healthcare in Gaza amounted to “genocidal acts”, and that security forces had used sexual violence as a weapon of war to “dominate and destroy the Palestinian people”. A previous UN commission found that “relentless and deliberate attacks” on medical personnel and facilities amounted to war crimes.Building on the ceasefire always looked difficult. Negotiations never seriously began for the second phase that was supposed to bring about a permanent cessation of hostilities, the release of all hostages, and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces – never mind consideration of the hypothetical third phase, Gaza’s reconstruction.Mr Netanyahu, who blames Hamas’s intransigence in refusing to release all the hostages now for the end of the ceasefire, is kept in power by endless conflict. The Israeli prime minister was due to testify in his corruption trial on Tuesday but cancelled, citing the renewed offensive. He needs support to pass a budget by the end of the month or his government will be dissolved. Resuming air strikes has brought back one of his far-right coalition partners, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and should prevent the other, Bezalel Smotrich, from jumping ship. Israelis challenging, as authoritarian, his attempts to dismiss his internal security agency chief, Ronen Bar, can be accused of undermining the patriotic cause. Yet most Israelis wanted to move to the second phase of the ceasefire, according to a recent survey. The testimony of returned hostages has refocused attention on the plight of those still held.The renewed attack has been widely and rightly condemned in Europe and the Arab world. But Israel, which was undeterred by Joe Biden’s feeble scoldings, is now dealing with a US president who told it to pause for a beat but is happy to give it the green light to resume and urge it to go further. Donald Trump has repeatedly promoted the forced displacement of Palestinians – another war crime. The US and Israel have reportedly contacted officials in Sudan, Somalia and Somaliland about resettling uprooted Palestinians. These plans are no more tolerable for being far-fetched. The Arab peace plan was a clear statement that there is a better alternative. But for Israel’s right, which will not tolerate Palestinian aspirations to statehood, the destruction of hope is not merely a result of this war, but the goal. It must not succeed.

      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

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Russell T Davies: gay society in ‘greatest danger I’ve ever seen’ after Trump win

      by

      Russell T Davies has said gay society is in the “greatest danger I have ever seen”, since the election of Donald Trump as US president in November.Speaking to the Guardian at the Gaydio Pride awards in Manchester on Friday, the Doctor Who screenwriter said the rise in hostility was not limited to the US but “is here [in the UK] now”.“As a gay man, I feel like a wave of anger, and violence, and resentment is heading towards us on a vast scale,” he said.“I’ve literally seen a difference in the way I’m spoken to as a gay man since that November election, and that’s a few months of weaponising hate speech, and the hate speech creeps into the real world.”“I’m not being alarmist,” he added. “I’m 61 years old. I know gay society very, very well, and I think we’re in the greatest danger I have ever seen.”Since his inauguration, Trump has ended policies giving LGBTQ+ Americans protection from discrimination. He has also restricted access to gender-affirming healthcare, said the US would only recognise two sexes, and barred transgender people from enlisting in the military.Davies also used his keynote speech at the awards ceremony, which rewards the efforts made to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people in the UK, to criticise Trump, and the president’s ally Elon Musk.“I think times are darkening beyond all measure and beyond anything I have seen in my lifetime,” he told the audience, which included the singers Louise Redknapp and Katy B, and the Traitors contestants Leanne Quigley and Minah Shannon.Davies said he had turned 18 and left home in 1981, adding: “And that is exactly the year that rumours and whispers of a strange new virus came along, which came to haunt our community and to test us in so many ways.”“The joyous thing about this is that we fought back,” he said. The community “militarised, campaigned, marched and demanded the medicine”.He added: “We demanded the science. We demanded the access.”When he wrote the TV series Queer As Folk in the late 1990s, he said, it was part of a movement, with writers “fomenting ideas” and putting gay and lesbian characters on screen.Had he been asked to imagine then what life for LGBTQ+ people would be like in 2025, “I want to say it’s going to be all rainbows,” he said, “skipping down the street hand-in-hand, equality, equality, equality.”But the peril the gay community now faced, he said, was even greater than that in the 1980s.“The threat from America, it’s like something at The Lord of the Rings. It’s like an evil rising in the west, and it is evil,” Davies said.“We’ve had bad prime ministers and we’ve had bad presidents before. What we’ve never had is a billionaire tech baron openly hating his trans daughter,” he added.Musk, the de facto head of the “department of government efficiency”, bought the social networking site Twitter, which he renamed X. A study by the University of California, Berkeley found hate speech on the platform rose by 50% in the months after it was bought by the billionaire.“We have never had this in the history of the world,” Davies said. “It is terrifying because he and the people like him are in control of the facts, they’re in control of information, they’re in control of what people think, and that is what we’re now facing.”But Davies said the gay community would do “what we always do in times of peril, we gather at night”, and would once again come together, and fight against this latest wave of hostility and oppression.“What we will do in Elon Musk’s world, that we’re heading towards, is what artists have always done,” he told the Guardian, “which is to meet in cellars, and plot, and sing, and compose, and paint, and make speeches, and march.”“If we have to be those rebels in basements yet again,” he added, “which is when art thrives, then that’s what we’ll become.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Farage reportedly met Cummings for ‘friendly chat about the general scene’

      by

      Nigel Farage has reportedly met Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s adviser turned nemesis, after the Vote Leave founder suggested voters should back Reform UK at the local elections.Cummings, who was once a sworn enemy of Farage during the EU referendum as he battled to keep control of the leave campaign, is reported to have met the Reform leader to discuss Whitehall changes, which allies said was the strongest sign yet that Farage was taking seriously the idea of becoming prime minister.Cummings and Farage were at odds for years in the run-up to the referendum and during Cummings’s time at No 10, with Farage calling him a “horrible, nasty little man”. Cummings’s Vote Leave won the official campaign designation during the referendum.According to the Sunday Times, the pair met recently for a “friendly chat about the general scene” including subjects such as US politics, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, as well as “how No 10 and the Cabinet Office really work, about the catastrophe of the Tory party and about what Reform has to do to replace the Tories”. A Reform spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.Cummings was said to be in advanced talks to launch his own new party – the Start-Up party – but in February he posted on X that he believed voters should now back Reform UK.Asked by one X user on Sunday who he would vote for at the next general election, Cummings wrote: “Dunno yet but obviously everyone should vote Reform this spring … No downsides, just upsides.”In a post on his Substack, Cummings claimed Britain needed a significant political realignment including a merger of the Conservatives with Reform. He wrote: “Shove out Kemi [Badenoch] ASAP, take over Tories, get Trump/Elon to facilitate a merger with Reform, tip in a third force of elite talent and mass energy so voters see an essentially new political force whose essence is a decisive break with 1992-2024 … break the coalition supporting [Keir] Starmer, take over No 10, do regime change.”Farage’s party is on course for a number of gains at the local elections in May, including potentially winning control of eight local councils, according to Electoral Calculus.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNevertheless, Reform has been in turmoil for the past fortnight due to a significant rift between Farage and Rupert Lowe, one of his former MPs who has been thrown out of the party in a battle over bullying allegations and referred to the police. Lowe had criticised Farage in a Daily Mail interview and since claimed he had been censored by the party on immigration issues. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Michael Lewis and John Lanchester: ‘Trump is a trust-destroying machine’

      by

      In late 2023, as the US presidential election was heaving into view, the author Michael Lewis called up six writers he admired – five Americans and one Briton – and asked if they’d like to contribute to an urgent new series he was putting together for the Washington Post. At the time, Lewis was hearing talk that if Donald Trump got back into power, his administration would unleash a programme of cuts that would rip the federal government to shreds. Lewis decided to launch a pre-emptive strike. The series, entitled Who Is Government?, would appear in the weeks running up to the election. Its purpose, Lewis explains over a Zoom call from his book-lined study in Berkeley, California, “was to inoculate the federal workforce against really mindless attacks”. It would do this by valorising public service and, as he puts it, “jarring the stereotype people had in their heads about civil servants”.Other writers might shrink away from the notion that they could restrain a US president with a handful of essays, but Lewis has an outsized sway. Author of such mega-bestsellers as Liar’s Poker and Flash Boys, he has a knack for writing about arcane concepts in business, finance and economics in ways that don’t just enlighten the uninitiated but whip along with the pace of an airport thriller. Hollywood loves him: Moneyball, The Blind Side and The Big Short all got turned into hit movies crammed with A-listers. So when Lewis speaks out about the forces shaping our world, even if it concerns something as seemingly unsexy as the federal government, people tend to listen.View image in fullscreenThe British writer John Lanchester, who contributed a standout piece to the series, got a glimpse of Lewis’s appeal when they first met in 2014. It was behind the stage at the London School of Economics. Lanchester had agreed to interview Lewis about Flash Boys, which plumbs the murky world of high-frequency trading. “Not only was the venue sold out,” Lanchester recalls, “but they’d had to add on another room at the theatre for people to watch, and that was sold out too. I remember thinking: ‘There’s a tube strike on, it’s absolutely pissing down, nobody’s going to come.’ But not a bit of it. The place was packed.”Lanchester is no slouch himself when it comes to turning knotty financial matters into page-turners. An acclaimed novelist (The Debt to Pleasure, Capital) who used to review restaurants for the Guardian, in 2010 he published a book about the financial crash – Whoops!: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay – that gave a sweeping overview of the global economy while mercilessly skewering its absurdities. Now he regularly takes his filleting knife to topics ranging from Brexit to cryptocurrencies for the London Review of Books.View image in fullscreenSince their 2014 meeting, the pair have become good friends, with an odd-couple dynamic that’s entertaining to witness. Lewis is hyper-engaged and talks in a confident New Orleans drawl about the iniquities of Trump and Elon Musk; Lanchester, joining us from his kitchen in London, seems more mild-mannered at first but his easy-going demeanour hides a biting wit. They clearly enjoy each other’s work and company. “I make a point of inviting him for dinner whenever I’m in London,” says Lewis, “and I try to get him over here whenever I can. And of course I looped him into this series …”Who Is Government? isn’t Lewis’s first foray into the workings of the US civil service. In 2017, soon after Trump got in for the first time, Lewis had an insight into just how unprepared the new president was to take over the US government’s various branches. “The Obama administration had spent six months preparing a series of briefings for the transition,” he recalls, “but then Trump won and he just didn’t show up. So I decided to fly to Washington and find out what went on inside the government.” He wrote up his findings in three articles for Vanity Fair, later gathering them into the 2018 bestselling book The Fifth Risk. Among the people he spoke to who’d been neglected by the Trump team were officials tending the US nuclear arsenal.View image in fullscreenAs the 2024 election approached, amid warnings that Trump might do much worse than neglect the civil service if he got back into power, Lewis decided to revisit the government’s inner workings. Joining him for the ride this time was Dave Eggers, who reported on a team of scientists probing for extraterrestrial life from Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. In turn, Geraldine Brooks profiled online sleuths at the Internal Revenue Service who uncover evidence of cybercrime and child sexual abuse in the darker regions of the net, and W Kamau Bell wrote touchingly about his Black goddaughter’s work as a paralegal at the justice department.For his part, Lewis tracked down a mining engineer at the labour department named Christopher Mark, whose research had helped prevent fatal roof falls in underground mines. He also wrote about Heather Stone, a rare-diseases expert at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who had saved lives by fast-tracking authorisation for an experimental drug to treat potentially lethal balamuthia infections.Lanchester, meanwhile, opted to write not about a person but a number – the consumer price index, a fiendishly complex statistic that acts as the main official measure of inflation. The lack of a human protagonist doesn’t make the piece any less absorbing, and Lanchester has fun uncovering the staggering amount of data on seemingly insignificant matters (such as the average length of the adult bedbug or the average annual income for a nuclear medicine technologist in Albany, New York) that the federal government hoovers up every year.View image in fullscreenThe overall effect of the series, just published as a book –Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service – is to transform civil servants from faceless bureaucrats into selfless superheroes. It’s a cracking read but sadly, contrary to Lewis’s hopes, it did nothing to prevent the flurry of devastating cuts that Trump and Musk, via his “department of government efficiency” (Doge), have inflicted on the government over the past couple of months. Of the 3 million-plus federal workers, it’s estimated that more than 20,000 have already been fired. Many of the subjects of the book are at risk of losing their jobs.“Maybe we’re in early stages in the war, but it’s amazing how little effect the series has had,” Lewis says ruefully. “Not only have I not heard a peep from Doge, but I haven’t had any sense that they were worried about what I might write. Though I did send Elon Musk an email asking if I can move in and watch what he was doing. He didn’t respond.”Musk isn’t the only tech billionaire behaving erratically. From conception to publication, the Washington Post series had the full support of the newspaper’s owner. “Jeff Bezos was very excited to be covering the government in any way you could,” says Lewis. “Every piece, he’d call [then opinion editor] David Shipley, and Shipley would call me, saying: ‘Bezos loves this thing.’ But things have changed.” The day before our conversation, in a move widely interpreted as a knee-bend to Trump, Bezos announced that the newspaper’s opinion section would now be dedicated to supporting “personal liberties and free markets”. Shipley resigned before the announcement.Now Lewis and Lanchester are looking back at a collection of essays conceived in a more hopeful time and wondering what will become of the departments they wrote about – and the country that relies on them. They are not optimistic. Over the course of our 90-minute conversation towards the end of last month, they talked about the motivation behind Trump and Musk’s war on the civil service, its probable effects on the US and the lessons the UK should be taking.You say in the intro to Who Is Government? that “the sort of people who become civil servants tend not to want or seek attention”. Was it hard to find interesting people to write about?ML: It took about a nanosecond. And I think there’s a reason for that: there are just a lot of great subjects [in the federal government], and the minute they face existential risk, they become really interesting. They’re weird and different. They’re not interested in money, for a start. They’ve got some purpose in their lives.Was the entire series written before Trump’s re-election?ML: All except for the last piece [about rare diseases expert Heather Stone], which was conceived before, but I didn’t write it until after. What I’m doing now is getting all the writers to go back to their characters to ask what’s happening to them. Both my characters look like they’re about to be fired. Heather has been told that the whole enterprise of dealing with infectious disease is going to be axed from the FDA. And [mining engineer] Chris Mark texted me the other day to say: “They’ve cut our purchasing authority and they want us to hand in our credit cards.” So if they’re not gone, most of our characters are disabled. It’s like watching a toddler loose inside of a nuclear reactor pushing buttons.You two are watching from afar. Are you watching the end of our democracy? Or are you watching some kind of false jeopardy situation?
      JL: Well, we had an exchange over email about this, and I’ve been thinking about what you said, Michael, that we’ll probably muddle through but we are playing Russian roulette with democracy. That image lodged in my head. And the thing that is deeply shocking and surprising is that nobody seems to give a shit about [the government cuts].The cuts are being made in the name of efficiency but it looks more like an ideological purge. Is that how you see it?ML: I don’t think it’s one person’s will being exerted; it’s a combination of Trump, Musk and Russell Vought, who’s now the director of the office of management and budget. He was the architect of that Project 2025 book and he’s a Christian nationalist-slash-libertarian, whatever that is. Trump is the easiest to grok. He’s a trust-destroying machine. He needs chaos where nobody trusts anybody and then there’s a weird level playing field, and he excels in that environment.My simple view of Musk is that he’s like an addict. He’s addicted to the attention, the drama – he’s stuck his finger in the social media socket and his brain is fried. He’s probably got cheerleaders, his little Silicon Valley crowd, telling him he’s doing a great thing, but most of them don’t know anything about it or the consequences. Vought’s the only one, I think, with a clear vision, but it’s a weird vision – really drastically minimum government. Those are the threads I see of what’s going on, and the backdrop is that they can do anything and the polls don’t move – people here don’t seem to care.But isn’t it only a matter of time before people do start to care… once the effects of the cuts kick in?ML: The pessimistic response is that, when things go wrong, there’ll be a war of narratives. The Trump narrative will inevitably say something like: “These bureaucrats screwed it up,” and it creates even more mistrust in the thing that you actually need to repair. I do think we’re going to muddle through. But I don’t think Trump’s ever going to get blamed in the ways he ought to. And whoever comes and fixes it is never going to get the credit they should.JL: When you look at the historical analogies to this kind of collective delusion, it’s quite hard to think of a way of recovering from losing a sense of an agreed consensus reality. The only historical examples I can think of is, basically, you lose a catastrophic war. You know, the Germans lose and they wake up and they have a reckoning with their past. But that’s historically quite rare and hard to imagine … But maybe that’s too dark. Maybe what happens is specific impacts arise from specific programmes being cut that make people think: “Oh, actually, that’s not such a great idea.”A clip just circulated of Musk talking about the US Agency for International Development (USAid) and he said something like: “Oh yeah, we made a couple little mistakes, like we briefly cut Ebola prevention there for just a second, then we brought it back again.”And then I saw someone who ran the USAid Ebola response during one of the outbreaks saying: “That’s flatly not true [that Musk restored the Ebola response].” Musk talks loudly about fraud and theft in government, but these things aren’t fraud and theft – they’re just programmes they don’t like. In fact I haven’t actually seen anything that you could with a straight face categorise as fraud – have you, Michael?ML: There’s almost no worse place to be trying to engage in fraud or theft than the US government, because there are so many eyes on you. When you take a federal employee out to lunch, they won’t let you pay for their sandwich – they’re so terrified. In fact it’s far easier to engage in fraud and theft in a Wall Street bank or a Silicon Valley startup, and there’s probably much more waste too.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHas either of you met Musk?ML: I have not. I have lots of one degree of separations. Walter Isaacson, who wrote Musk’s biography, is an old friend. I basically watched him do that project – I followed it blow by blow.JL: Isaacson basically lived with Musk for, what, nine months, and there’s not a single commentary on politics at any point in the whole book. In 2022, Musk was still a Democrat. It’s just utterly bizarre. And I think part of the frenzy and vehemence comes from an extraordinary naivety about [government]. He actually doesn’t know anything about it, and he didn’t care about it until about 10 minutes ago.One thing that strikes me about Doge is how adversarial it is without it having to be. You could run a project like this, unleashing a roomful of 20-year-olds on the systems of government, without saying that everyone who works in federal government is a criminal. You could just ask: “How could the systems be made to work better?” Because $7tn [the approximate annual budget of the federal government] is quite a lot of money to spend and it’d be astonishing if there wasn’t some waste in there. But you could do it without making people frightened.And it worries me, because lots of things that happen in the US come back over the Atlantic. It happened with Reagan and Thatcher. It happened with Clinton providing the template for New Labour. So I suspect a version of this is going to come back over here.What lessons should the UK be taking from this? JL: Well, that’s one of them. If we were going to do what they call a zero-based review of government spending, let’s do it without framing them as the enemy, because it’s deeply unhelpful. Also, I wouldn’t be astonished if this attack on DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion in companies and organisations] came over. I think we should brace for impact on that one.For your essay, John, why did you decide to write about a number instead of a human being?JL: It’s partly intellectual vanity, but I really like the challenge in writing about structures and systems. We’re hardwired to like stories about people, but a lot of the most important stories in the world don’t have individual people as their central character. We’re very resistant to the idea that we don’t have agency as individuals.Your writing on economics arose from the research you did for your novel Capital, didn’t it?JL: Yeah, that’s right. I’d been following the financial crisis and ended up knowing a lot about it, so I wrote a nonfiction book [Whoops!] in order to quarantine that information, because one of the problems with research from the fiction point of view is that you end up having to use it. It’s very difficult to research a topic and then say: “You know what, that doesn’t really belong in the book.” But finance is difficult to dramatise because of the level of detail involved. It’s kind of anti-erotic in fiction to just explain things.Michael, in the other direction, have you ever come upon a story that didn’t quite work as reportage and you wished you had a novelist’s toolkit to turn it into fiction?ML: No, but I have had moments where I thought: “This story is not mine because I’m just not equipped to write it.” And I wrote one of them – a book about Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, the two Israeli psychologists [2016’s The Undoing Project]. I had that story land in my lap, with privileged access, and I spent eight years arguing with myself [about whether] I was the person to do it. I was sure that someone else better equipped – a subject-matter specialist – would come along and write the book. Then the people I had interviewed started dying off and I realised that no one was.JL: With quite a lot of these stories, the subject-matter expert is precisely the person who can’t tell the story.ML: That’s right. They don’t have the childlike wonder about it all. They don’t ask the simple questions. because they’re too deep in it … But no, I’ve never been frustrated by my lack of novelistic flair, and I never had a strong desire to write a novel. My literary frustration is all in screenwriting. I’ve had a very successful career as a failed screenwriter. I’ve been paid over and over to do these things, and they never got made.The world of screenwriting is a profound mystery, because you see all the shit they make. What’s the process? You’re turning down these things and making that? I worked on an adaptation of my last novel, The Wall, but then Apple said: “Really sorry, we have a competing project.” The competing project was called Extrapolations and I’ll give you a cash prize if you can get through a single episode. They spent tens and tens of millions on it. And it’s off-the-scale, unbelievably, face-meltingly bad.One problem for writers now is that there’s just such a blizzard of extraordinary news. How do you get a foothold and decide what to write about?JL: Perhaps this is more a matter of temperament than anything else, but I’m feeling that I have to step back a bit until it’s clear what the shape of it is, because my hunch would be some form of horrific implosion and the wheels falling off and chaos ensuing. But I thought that last time that Trump was president.ML: I’m going to Washington for much of April, and I have a character in mind, but I want to test it. It’s kind of a dark, funny book that I want to write, and I’ve got to see if this character can sustain that. Generally, I’m with John in that I like to wait and see. I feel like my role in the war is sniper. Don’t give away your position. You’re going to get one shot at this. Wait until you get the clean shot and take it. But I don’t think we’re far away from having the clean shot.JL: Given that you were on to [the possibility of Trump getting re-elected and gutting the federal government] when we spoke 18 months ago, Michael, are you surprised by how this has played out? Is it basically what you imagined, or is it weirder, more extreme?ML: I’d never have predicted this. I know Trump said that he could go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and the supporters would still be with him …JL: I believe that.ML: But I didn’t think he’d do what he’s doing materially to his own base. I mean, two days ago he partially gutted the veterans’ healthcare system. This is the healthcare system in a lot of the rural US. That’s his base. And who would have predicted the alliance with Musk? Not me. I would have thought they’d have a falling out after three days, that there just isn’t enough oxygen in the room for both of them. If you’re looking for the simplest explanation for what’s going on, if Trump was a Russian asset, I don’t know if he’d behave any differently from how he’s behaving. I’m not saying he is, but it isn’t the behaviour of someone who is maximising his political future – it’s someone who’s maximising the damage to society. And why would you do that? He was supposed to get rid of illegal immigrants, stop inflation, cut taxes, whatever. But [gutting the civil service] has become the central feature of his administration. I just didn’t think he cared that much about it.View image in fullscreenWhich is the real Bezos; the one who was supportive of this series celebrating public service or the one who’s now dedicating the Washington Post’s opinion pages to championing free markets?ML: I feel some sympathy towards Bezos. I really like him, personally. He’s fun to talk to. He seems to be basically sane. He’s not obviously megalomaniacal or even that self-absorbed. He’s really interested in the world around him. He makes sense on a lot of subjects. So I think the real Bezos is not a bad guy.But he’s done a bad thing. And it’s curious why. You would think, if you had $200bn, that you’d have some fuck-you money. I mean, how much do you have to have to be able to live by your principles? There’s some curve that bends, and at some point, when you have so much money, you’re back to being as vulnerable as someone who has almost nothing. He’s behaving like someone who has nothing, like he’s just scared of Trump. I think if you were with him and watching every step, you’d be watching an interesting psychological process where he’s persuaded himself that what he’s doing is good. He’s rationalised his behaviour, but his behaviour is really appalling.JL: How fucking craven do you have to be, if you can lose 99% of your net worth and still be worth $2bn and you can’t say “fuck you” to proto-fascists? The thing that is frightening is that people like him, men like him, are looking into the future and basically assuming that the US is going to become a kind of fascist state. Because, I mean, $2bn is enough to say “fuck you”. But if the US is now going to become a Maga [Make America Great Again] theocracy, and we just had the last election we’re ever going to have, then maybe he’s positioning for that. I don’t know that to be true, but that’s my darkest version.Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service, edited by Michael Lewis, is published by Allen Lane (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Ukraine ceasefire plans moving to operational phase, Starmer says

      by

      Keir Starmer has called for the “guns to fall silent in Ukraine” and said military powers will meet next week as plans to secure a peace deal move to an “operational phase”.The UK prime minister said Vladimir Putin’s “yes, but” approach to a proposed ceasefire was not good enough, and the Russian president would have to negotiate “sooner or later”.He accused Putin of trying to delay peace, and said it must become a reality after more than three years of war.Starmer was speaking at a press conference in Downing Street after a virtual meeting of the “coalition of the willing”, including the European Commission, European nations, Nato, Canada, Ukraine, Australia and New Zealand on Saturday morning.The meeting was addressed by Starmer, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte.Starmer told journalists: “Sooner or later Putin will have to come to the table. So this is the moment. Let the guns fall silent, let the barbaric attacks on Ukraine once and for all stop, and agree to a ceasefire now.”He added: “Now is the time to engage in discussion on a mechanism to manage and monitor a full ceasefire, and agree to serious negotiations towards not just a pause, but a lasting peace, backed by strong security arrangements through our coalition of the willing.”He said the meeting had led to “new commitments”, including on the wider defence and security of Europe.“We won’t sit back and wait for Putin to act,” he said. “Instead we will keep pushing forward, so the group I convened today is more important than ever.”He added: “We agreed we will keep increasing the pressure on Russia, keep the military aid flowing to Ukraine, and keep tightening the restrictions on Russia’s economy to weaken Putin’s war machine and bring him to the table.“And we agreed to accelerate our practical work to support a potential deal. So we will now move into an operational phase.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOf the military meeting on Thursday, he said it would lead to “strong and robust plans … to swing in behind a peace deal and guarantee Ukraine’s future security”.Starmer had earlier called Ukraine and Zelenskyy the “party of peace”.He said Donald Trump was “absolutely committed to the lasting peace that is needed in Ukraine, and everything he’s doing is geared towards that end”.He told journalists Europe needed to improve its own defence and security, and said the UK was talking to the US on a daily basis about the war.Kyiv has already accepted plans for an immediate 30-day ceasefire but, on Thursday, Putin set out sweeping conditions that he wanted to be met before Russia would agree. They include a guarantee that Ukraine would not rearm or mobilise during the truce.Starmer said: “Volodymyr had committed to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, but Putin is trying to delay, saying there must be a painstaking study before a ceasefire can take place. Well the world needs action, not a study, not empty words and conditions.”On Saturday, Zelenskyy posted on X that Russian forces were building up along the eastern border of Ukraine, which could signal an attack on the Sumy region.He said: “The buildup of Russian forces indicates that Moscow intends to keep ignoring diplomacy. It is clear that Russia is prolonging the war.”The Ukrainian president said his forces were still fighting in Russia’s Kursk region, and were not facing an encirclement, despite claims by his Russian and US counterparts.Starmer said: “President Trump has offered Putin the way forward to a lasting peace. Now we must make this a reality. So this is the moment to keep driving towards the outcome that we want to see, to end the killing, a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and lasting security for all of us.” More

    • 263 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Nigel Farage: not even Donald Trump is as damaging to Reform as its own leader | Editorial

      by

      One constant of British political life is that Nigel Farage never stays out of the spotlight for long. Having built a political career on railing against the establishment – while, paradoxically, embedding himself within it – Mr Farage finds himself embroiled in yet another melodrama. This time, however, the threat comes not from the usual suspects – remainers, the BBC or “woke” elites – but from his own side.The affair revolves around Rupert Lowe, a little‑known businessman, elected as one of Reform UK’s five MPs in 2024 under Mr Farage’s leadership. That should have been the beginning of a forgettable contribution to British public life. Yet, thanks to the intervention of Elon Musk – the world’s richest man and Donald Trump’s “government efficiency” tsar – Mr Lowe has a starring role in Mr Farage’s latest soap opera.Earlier this year the tech billionaire was so annoyed by Mr Farage’s decision to distance himself from the imprisoned far-right agitator Tommy Robinson that he touted Mr Lowe as a possible replacement. Relations between Mr Farage and Mr Lowe have deteriorated since. Their feud burst out into the open this month, culminating this weekend with Reform UK alleging misconduct by Mr Lowe, which he denies. Mr Lowe, who has been suspended from the party and lost its whip in parliament, derides it as a vanity project driven by one man’s ego. He has threatened to sue Reform UK for libel.Mr Farage’s reaction, however, is telling. For all his bravado about free speech, the moment a rival emerges – however minor – his instinct seems to be to cut them down. This is not the first time. His political parties – Ukip, the Brexit party, Reform UK – have operated more like personality cults than democratic organs, and loyalty to the leader has eclipsed ideological purity. Challenging Mr Farage doesn’t end well for those who dare. The difference this time is that Mr Musk’s intervention gives the affair an absurdly transatlantic flavour.This illuminates a larger problem. If Mr Farage’s goal is to broaden his electoral appeal, association with Trumpism is a hindrance, not a help. While Mr Trump retains a firm grip on the Republican party, the US president remains deeply unpopular in Britain, where even Tories see him as a liability. The perception that Mr Farage is too close to Mr Trump and too sympathetic to Vladimir Putin is hurting him in the polls. The opportunist in Mr Farage knows this. His strategy has been to present himself as the plebeian face of rightwing populism – foregrounding his love of pints over his attendance at Mar-a-Lago banquets. Yet the contradictions are piling up.Mr Farage seeks to appear an insurgent, yet he operates like an autocrat. He wants to court the support of Trumpian figures, yet he knows their influence is more likely to repel than to attract British voters. He wants Reform UK to grow – but only under him. For all the bluster, this latest episode only highlights that Mr Farage, like Mr Trump, has always been far better at breaking things than building them. That ought to be a warning to mainstream parties seeking to emulate Trumpian talking points around cutting foreign aid or sacking bureaucrats – especially with an upcoming byelection in a Labour stronghold. If Reform UK eventually ends up on the scrapheap of history, it won’t be because of Mr Lowe or Mr Musk, or even Mr Trump. It will be because, in the end, Mr Farage is his own biggest problem.

      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