KEIR STARMER has had very few successes in his time as Prime Minister. So when he does achieve a win, however modest and temporary, it is worth examining.
The solitary example of Starmer achieving his stated objectives appears to be in avoiding Britain’s inclusion in President Trump’s sweeping tariff programmes.
So far the mercurial man in the White House has imposed – then suspended for now – taxes on imports from Canada and Mexico, and put them in place willy-nilly on China.
He has made it clear that they are shortly to follow on trade with the European Union, which he describes as an “atrocity.” But he has been far more equivocal regarding trade with Britain.
“The UK is out of line, but I think that one can be worked out,” the President said. He then cited how much he likes Starmer and how well the two were getting along. Starmer may feel the bullet has been dodged for now.
The personal factor is undoubtedly something that Trump places a premium on. He is not likely to be swayed by charm, which is in any case not the Prime Minister’s most obvious characteristic.
What Trump loves is abasement before him, subservience and the indulgence of his every whim and passing policy peccadillo.
Here, Starmer has been notable. He has not spoken out against Trump’s brazen threats to Greenland or to force Canada into economic annexation.
Nor has he condemned the trade wars which will likely damage Britain even if the country is not a direct target.
The nomination of the skilled flatterer of the very rich Peter Mandelson to the court of Donald Trump makes sense as a continuation of that policy.
But more is likely to have been conceded to get – and stay – on the right side of the far-right regime in Washington.
Recognise a Palestinian state? No chance, since Trump seems set on deporting most of its putative population.
Increase military spending to still greater heights? By all means, Mr President, what proportion of our economy would you like us to set aside?
Moving towards a better relationship with China? Not so fast – the People’s Republic is the main target of Trump’s great power conflict strategy.
Green energy? That won’t work with a “drill baby drill” fanatic allowed oversight of Britain’s agenda.
And so on. We can be sure that swathes of Britain’s foreign and economic policy will incrementally be held hostage to the desire to stay on the right side of the demagogue in the White House.
None of this will involve any concessions on principle by Starmer, since that is more or less an oxymoron.
How long will the labour movement put up with those of its progressive aspirations not already squashed by the government’s worship of the Treasury’s “fiscal rules” being mortgaged to Trump’s volatile dictats?
That Britain is not immediately facing tariffs should be a cause for worry as much as relief. When Starmer gets something right, it’s sure to be wrong.
No more Iraqs
There are bad arguments for spending more on the military and there are worse ones. Outgoing army chief General Patrick Sanders scraped the barrel in his departing statement.
He warned “that Britain is no longer capable of launching the kind of operation it did in southern Iraq in 2003.”
Being unable to launch fresh illegal and catastrophic wars of aggression leading to an oppressive occupation hated by those subjected to it, and which numbers hundreds of British soldiers amongst its victims, would represent nothing but progress if it were true.
If the British military could internalise just three words “no more Iraqs” should be the choice.
