Categories
Options
Starmer’s best day as PM but there’s always a Tweet – politicalbetting.com
Starmer’s best day as PM but there’s always a Tweet – politicalbetting.com
It’s a low bar but yesterday was Sir Keir Starmer’s best day as Prime Minister but long term there’s a risk for Starmer that he gets damaged standing too close to Trump given the Ayrshire hotelier’s ratings in the UK.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's a good job Starmer wasn't a barrister.
Oh...
I do think [failure to back Canada] was a mis-step - it made Starmer look unneccessarly craven. There was also a better answer available to the question of whether we could beat Russia. BUT... that said, dealing with Trump at such a finely balanced time was a hospital pass.
It will be fascinaring to read the accounts of what was going on in the background. It seems that Trump had not as good a hand as he thought. Probably was told by Macron that the Europeans would undercut any Ukraine deal if Trump didn't treat Ukraine/Zelenskyy with more respect. Trump's position has undergone quite the volte face. Denying he would have ever have dissed Zelenskyy, renewing the sanctions against Russia for another year...it does seem that the grown-ups have been busy in the background. We'll see how today's signing goes.
But I suspect Russia is spitting teeth. Their entire strategy in Ukraine has been about survivng to the point where Trump freezes the conflict. Yesterday was terrible for Putin - 2,710 casualties, 13 tanks lost, 38 armoured personnel carriers, 92 artillery systems. Russian and North Korean troops under siege within Kursk - Russia proper - with those trying to relieve them being destroyed. Ammunition not getting to the front.
It's a shit show for Putin.
... until all the Epstein papers have been released.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5168456-justice-department-releases-first-phase-of-epstein-files/
But saying there isn't a divide on Canada is absurd - are we really going to put 25% tariffs on them next month?
I don't think it will have any effect long-term though on his popularity here though, because one swallow (even if that swallow is Trump's ... OK, I won't go there) doesn't make a summer, and voters don't tend to care much about foreign policy issues. It might discredit Starmer further with the Momentum (is that still a thing?) crowd, but they hated him anyway.
https://www.cityam.com/encouraging-signs-for-uk-economy-as-business-confidence-rebounds/
I had been sensing this at my own work, but it seemed to be at odds with everyone else’s experience. Perhaps it was real after all.
If you're persuaded of McLaren's pace then Piastri at 10 (10.5 with boost) each way, top three at a fifth the odds, is worth considering.
But testing is notoriously iffy.
A public spat would likely have zero benefit and only downside. If we sell them out behind closed doors too, that would be a different matter.
The capricious autocrat reacts badly to public arguments, and enjoys a bit of public grovelling. If the UK benefits from Starmer mildly humiliating himself, I can live with that.
We live and drive around in a country area. Sometimes in Brighton Horsham Gatwick. Where 5g is available. Sometimes even 4 g isn't!!!
Vodaphone are offering 4g contact at 10 quid for 60 gig data uk use only.
Woukd one miss not having 5 g?. Both our phones are 5 g enabled
Good morning, everyone.
But do you really think that it would be any help to Canada had Starmer publicly inserted himself into the U.S./Canada trade argument ?
What concerns me more is what we may have agreed to, at least in principle, all for the perverse purpose of getting Chagos over the line. Trump is a fool if he didn't know that the policy was controversial - Farage has been campaigning against it, and he would also know that Starmer was beholden to the policy to a peculiar degree. Though Trump did not offer a ringing endorsement of Chagos, clearly his failure to block it was a cornerstone of the visit from Labour's perspective - otherwise Lammy wouldn't have trailed the fact that the policy would be scrapped if Trump didn't agree. What we may have given Trump in exchange for not humiliating Starmer over Chagos, we could have given in exchange for a genuine policy gain. What we may have instead is a setback to pay for a setback.
I am also not clear, if this is a 'success', what would a failure look like? It seems that we have agreed that we will take part in securing what are now US mineral interests in Ukraine. The US has not said it will offer any component of this force. Is this a great outcome? Yes we didn't get bawled out and slapped with 25% tariffs, which is a blessing, but I am not sure what we actually gained.
Trump was implicitly agreeing not to discuss it around him. What’s he supposed to do? Say “actually Mr President let’s have it out here on stage”. He had other fish to fry.
And Putin is well aware that Britain has en edge in quality but nothing like the numbers (or ammunition stocks) to fight a conventional war against Russia alone; not that we would ever have to. Starmer doesn’t need to shout “do you want some of this!”
It was 1066 and 1776 all over again.
But then, we are no longer a serious nation
Canada will have an election sometime this year and Trump's antics have done Poilievre and the CPC no favours at all. I suspect Trump's advisers know this and have asked to dial down the rhetoric several notches.
As for Starmer, I'm in the "what else could he reasonably say?" camp. You don't go to someone's house and pick a public fight in their living room.
I'm encouraged by signs of improved economic activity as I'm sure Reeves will be but it all remains very precarious at this stage and I wouldn't trust Reeves not to undermine it.
Far more serious than all this (in my view) is the Sky News report on local council funding. Woking have been bailed out to the tune of £170 million over two years.
https://news.sky.com/story/council-finances-are-becoming-unsustainable-and-whole-system-overhaul-is-required-watchdog-warns-13318269
Question to the Prime Minister. Did you discuss with President Trump his repeated statements of desire to annexe Canada? And has the King expressed any concern about the president's desire to remove one of his realms from his control?
Starmer following long Trump rant about tariffs:
Look we've had a really good and productive discussion as a result of which our teams are going to be working together on an economic deal and security in Ukraine. You mentioned Canada. I think you're trying to find a divide between us that doesn't exist. We're the closest of nations. We had a very good discussion today but we didn't mention Canada.
As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it.
Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
But until we put the UK in a position where such things aren't necessary, then we shouldn't be surprised that our PM does such things.
In practical terms, it's IMO far less damaging than our similarly craven (and less necessary) acquiescence to the Iraq mess a couple of decades ago.
"Of course trade relations between our two great friends, America and Canada, are entirely a matter for those countries. Free trade has delivered an enormous increase in living standards around the world and the United Kingdom, like the United States, set up the World Trade Organisation and its associated disputes procedure to further that goal, and as long as I'm Prime Minister we will always conduct our trade in accordance with those rules and principles".
The text is totally anodyne and unobjectionable, but the subtext is unmistakable.
Trump apparently yesterday extended some sanctions on Russia for another year, which seems a bit of a volte-face.
Dave had it right all the way back then, politicians should stay off social media it helps them little unless they're a Millei or Trump type of character.
Starmer has shown himself perhaps as one of the most pragmatic PMs in recent UK history. Though not going through his tweets and deleting the awkward ones was a bit of a misstep.
Starmer allowed Trump to say 'Yes there is a divide' if he wanted. And he didn't. He closed it down. A win for Starmer on a sticky wicket.
It will be interesting to see if the Tories want to open this issue up. I don't think they will.
FUCKETTY FUCK
This is meant to be the cooler season before the REAL heat in March-May
Transpose Chamberlain waving a piece of paper on the aircraft steps at Heston to Starmer waving his invite from Chas. on the Whitehouse lawn.
Starmer did as well as could be expected - not a high bar, of course.
Trump praising his wonderful accent "if I could talk like that I'd have been President two decades sooner" was weird.
It's really as simple as that.
And France has less to lose by standing up to Trump.
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
And the insanely childish take from the UK press is equally grisly, "Starmer the Charmer", "he played a blinder", OMG
Give me a fucking break. The Cringe-o-meter will explode. YUK
https://www.holiday-weather.com/bangkok/averages/
It's the HUMIDITY that makes it unbearable in March-May.
I must say I can't stand Bangkok at any time of year - polluted, sprawling, terrible traffic, often squalid - but if you have to endure it it's undoubtedly better in January than now.
Each to his own and all that, but do yourself a favour and get out to the beaches or hills that are the real glories of Thailand.
If we rely on it as anything more than that, then we are fools.
Supposed to be the dry season but plenty of showers and storms.
You just make us cringe in different ways.
It can get almost nippy in January - you need a jumper at night - but the days are gloriously clear and sunny: often around 28-30C - perfect
This kind of heat in Feb is far from unprecedented, but in March April it can hit 43C and up, with high humidity, jeeeeeez
More than a bit weird.
BTW, no new tariffs on Canada have yet started. Maybe they will, but perhaps not.
It’s the enthusiasm which ‘our leaders’ (who have chosen to do the job) take to the task which I despise. There’s a third way between fawning and loudly criticising which consists of neutrality and, God forbid, saying nothing.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Chagos deal, even the highest figures discussed would be relatively minor over 100+ years - it's ultimately a sideshow that has been pumped up way beyond it's actual impact.
If Trump imposes tariffs on the UK, or sides with Putin over Ukraine, then that could easily cost tens of billions in a very short space of time.
My confidence that Labour can think strategically and systemically was badly shaken after the vacuous period post-election, so I'm not exactly holding my breath that their overall strategy will be any better this time.
Like he was pawing him. I’ve seen less noisome interactions in “Angel witch” jacuzzi and foam bar on level 2, Nana Plaza, this week
Them not figuring out that it is like Japanese bowing - there's respect, friends, the boss and the shithead who think he deserves respect, but you are actually giving him the finger - is icing on the cake.
If Trump wants to play the King then we'll dig up some historical tricks from our good old days such as War of the Roses.
Simples.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
(and Thailand comes up a lot in studies as a country that is likely to be completed ****** by climate change. Topography, climate, population density etc etc. Enjoy it while you can.)
The British Empire II - Go Woke On Their Assess
Militarily we are not ready to make the sort of stand Chamberlain should have done. Thus appeasement in the short term is the right strategy.
The only relevant question is whether we are finding a big stick to carry to match our soft talking. Defence spending is a good part of that, as is the meeting of European leaders this weekend. It's in this meeting that we need boldness and brashness.
It’s speculationgate all over again!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-aide-reportedly-threatens-redraw-182756952.html
Does Trump really want posh tea with Canada's head of state and kill lots of his citizens at the same time? No.
The way Starmer’s eyes were SHINING - nauseating
But also - as noted by others - I think he was trying to copy Macron, but Macron is simply better at this and also Macron was happy to correct Trump and Trump didn’t bat an eye
Trump respects leaders “with spine”. It’s why he likes Putin and that North Korean weirdo. Starmer could have been a lot tougher
Anyway it’s all done now and too icky and ewww to contemplate for much longer
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
If we had 20,000 nuclear weapons, a million soldiers etc, then "Fuck Off, and I'll see you in the Security Council" might be a useful response. But we don't
Any time someone criticises him for his travels, he should roll this out.
https://x.com/acyn/status/1895252020392825017
It would be nice to think that all world leaders believe, for example, that torturing children for fun is always wrong; but I am not confident this is the case. But if I were a world leader I might have to shake hands with some such. One of many reasons for leaving the job to others
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
https://x.com/stevengwalker74/status/1895206223286542460?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Generally, I am contemptuous of Starmer - an over promoted middle manager.
In this case I think he has played an ugly hand fairly well.
You can't parade yourself as a paragon of virtue and then slum it with the worst of them because practicality.
I would at the very least expect a mass resignation by PB Lab types from their party following such a display.