There’s a really easy way to reconcile a campaign promise to not raise taxes, with suddenly-increasing costs to a nation: You raise taxes. That’s the way that leaders have always done it. It won’t matter until the next election, by which time the public will have been distracted by seven other issues and subsequently forgotten them, too.
Please, Sir Starmer, take a leaf out of Hugh Grant’s book in Love Actually:
“I love that word “relationship.” Covers all manner of sins, doesn’t it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to, erm… Britain. We may be a small country, but we’re a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham’s right foot. David Beckham’s left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.”
I’m not really sure how that’s possible given the sharply divisive issues on the table, where the US and UK are already on different sides - Ukraine in particular, but perhaps that’s why I am not a politician.
Yeah, I mean Britain still seems to have a bit of a role as the “bridge” between Europe and US which is a job somebody has to do and which does entail being less than completely confrontational, but equally the further apart the two sides are, the harder is it to be that bridge and it will involve saying so e variant of: we don’t like that thing you said/did
Not easy when the people in charge of one side of the water are busy burning the bridges.
Also with Trump there is a very sharp difference between being in a state of disagreement with him, vs registering that disagreement in a face to face meeting. Trump will be compelled to react.
Quite true; he will react: he will throw a tantrum.
Also he has to tweet something about it, because his social media followers will be expecting an opinion.
A major announcement from Starmer today:
UK defence spending will rise from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP over the next two years (an extra £6Bn per annum vs maintaining the 2.3% level). This will be paid for by a matching reduction in overseas development aid. He also announced the intention to hit 3% of GDP in the next parliament.
I think that a) it is basically good to see some movement on defence spending, b) 0.2% of GDP increase is unlikely to be enough, c) cutting ODA to pay for it is political cowardice and bad politics*, d) just raise taxes already, e) this is only looking at inputs - what matters is outputs, what we actually get for our money and given both our strategic bewilderment and our inept military procurement it is likely that big chunks of this money will be wasted.
*E,g the biggest single recipient of ODA is the UK, as that’s how we cover the cost of asylum seekers and the second biggest is Ukraine which needs quite a lot of civil as well as military support, funnily enough. That doesn’t get into the fact that our aid budget is now hugely oriented towards strategic interests anyhow so there’s a prevention/cure element here and also, bluntly, UK aid money saves lives so cutting it means people will die to spare Starmer the embarrassment of raising taxes.
However! The timing means that Starmer will be able to go to the US and point to a major UK commitment, which will give him some credibility.
Good overview of the UK’s strategic defense concerns as viewed through the lens of two enormously expensive aircraft carriers that don’t work and aren’t needed here:
Include this fantastic para on the speed with which we make decisions:
The carriers were first conceived under Tony Blair and the first steel was cut under Gordon Brown. They were constructed under David Cameron, began sea trials under Theresa May, entered service under Boris Johnson, had propeller problems under Liz Truss, and were still being repaired under Rishi Sunak. Their history spans September 11, the war on terror, a global financial crisis, Brexit, Covid, the death of both Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mother, and the invention of the iPhone.
So the Conservative Cameron administration spent .7% of Gross National Income on aid, while the Labour Starmer administration wants to cut aid spending to .3% of Gross National Income.
Strange.
Yup. Again, not saying there’s any problem at all with more defence spending, but this feels like one of those “tough choices” that was never going to be all that tough.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer flattered President Donald Trump with a basket of gifts on his first visit to the White House on Thursday, including commitments to spend more money on defense, lavish praise and a letter from King Charles III inviting Trump to a state dinner. Trump was exceedingly pleased. But that didn’t mean Starmer got anything in return.
Trump appeared unmoved by Starmer’s desperate appeal for a stronger U.S. commitment to protecting Ukraine, if and when its war with Russia ends. Starmer, conscious that Trump has rejected pleas to provide “security guarantees” for Ukraine, has been asking for something less: a U.S. commitment to “backstop” European efforts to help defend Ukraine from any future invasion by Russia. Trump said no to all of it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/27/trumps-visit-uk-starmer-ukraine-00206543
Dude humiliated himself and his country, and for absolutely nothing.
When will these foreign leaders come to their senses?
Macron seems to have managed the situation much better, and was also praised for his “beautiful accent”. Even from his previous low baseline, Trump is mentally unravelling rapidly.
When will his mental decline be widely acknowledged?
It’s widely acknowledged everywhere except in America.
It’s annoying to me because Joe Biden’s decline was, of course, widely acknowledged and yet Trump’s seems to be ignored.
I made a post in the CanaDoper Cafe thread that I’m not going to repeat here because it mostly concerns Canada, but I want to emphasize this quote from Politico that @PastTense posted:
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer flattered President Donald Trump with a basket of gifts on his first visit to the White House on Thursday, including commitments to spend more money on defense, lavish praise and a letter from King Charles III inviting Trump to a state dinner. Trump was exceedingly pleased. But that didn’t mean Starmer got anything in return.
Trump appeared unmoved by Starmer’s desperate appeal for a stronger U.S. commitment to protecting Ukraine, if and when its war with Russia ends. Starmer, conscious that Trump has rejected pleas to provide “security guarantees” for Ukraine, has been asking for something less: a U.S. commitment to “backstop” European efforts to help defend Ukraine from any future invasion by Russia. Trump said no to all of it.
I saw some of the coverage of the visit, and Starmer’s spineless boot-licking obsequiousness was just painful to watch. Macron in contrast showed some principled dignity, and just now, Zelensky even more so, even though Ukraine’s very existence is at stake.
For me, the low point came at the joint press conference when Starmer was asked about his position on Trump’s threats to annex Canada, and whether King Charles had views on the matter. Of all the responses Starmer could have given, the one he gave was just stunning: he attacked the reporter for asking the question, accusing of him of trying to sow divisiveness with his lovely new BFF. 
Starmer has all the spine of a wet dishrag.
Nothing to be gained from pissing him off and he won’t be in the White House forever