So he was dubbed a knight for being a good prosecutor and not just “born on third base and thinks he hit a triple” (or however that baseball idiom translates to British) like Trump and Musk. I dunno who first called Blair “poodle” yet it wasn’t one of W’s cute ex-cheerleader nicknames. The word/breed stuck and I reckon it applies to this PM.
I thought he was out of line to visit Trump in the US back in September. (disclosure: I’m American/Irish resident and voting in UK).
It seems to me that whatever misadventures and annexations Trump wants to do don’t need the support of the UK like W needed 20+ years ago from Blair. And if next up is the USA reclaiming the Panama Canal from China (?!) it would seem the UN will not be involved.
I had thought Trump’s blathering about occupying Greenland was a clever feint to get Denmark to up their defences - mainly against China, who somehow already have a piece of the Arctic pie yet I reckon they want a monopoly on rare earth minerals, which China has in abundance yet so does Greenland.
If Starmer thinks he can reason with Trump over Greenland, sure try as the UK is probably the only NATO member who can do anything. Yet would they? The USA is already militarily all over Greenland. With all his (Trump) words about the longest peaceful border in the world being artificial I will reckon on the side that there are no immediate plans to annex Canada or “liberate” the UK as Musk called for.
So okay, the “special relationship” angle. Perhaps better to try and keep it. And we’ll see if that works with a demagogue.
BBC says Starmer will visit Trump in the next few weeks. Before or after Panama, we shall see.
FYI to non-brits:
Kier Starmer, our prime minister, is pretty unpopular already after only 6 months on the job. Mostly due to their being no economic recovery in sight for the UK and some unpopular policies such as not compensating a large demographic who feel they’ve been short-changed by the pension system. And a couple scandals (and resignations) in his government.
Personally I’m still largely on board with this government, I don’t think anyone could steer this economy around that fast, I like most of what he’s done.
…And I also don’t really get this pitting.
Kier was a good prosecutor, and if being born into wealth means he shouldn’t get a knighthood then I doubt we will have any knights left as that’s how it’s always been in this country. Next Coriolanus, you’ll tell me that most of the Lords didn’t grow up on council estates.
And while I absolutely hate Trump and think his re-election is a sign of an “opposite renaissance” (i.e. move back to the intellectual dark ages) happening in society, even *I* don’t care that Kier met him once and is willing to meet him again. No-one can turn their back on the man in charge of the world’s biggest economy and military. What am I missing?
I did say that Keir was knighted for being a good prosecutor and thus “earned” it rather than being born into it.
I didn’t vote Labour as they had less of a chance than the Lib Dem who did win the seat from a Tory.
I think he’s smart and yet lacks the charisma of Bill Clinton. No other UK PM’s come to my mind other than Churchill. As usual (it seems while I’ve been living here) his/Johnsons//May cabinet has problems and he needs to sort that out.
Trump is absolutely bullet-proof from scandals and you are correct, to turn your back against Trump/MAGA USA is to become his sworn enemy. It ought not be that way - Thomas Jefferson, admittedly born a British Subject, did not write anything about Presidents being able to write up laws like they are Kings.
If Congress needs to do anything about Panama, they’re going to go with him (Mitt Romney better watch out for voting yes on impeachment for the insurrection.) There are certain established bounds the UK PM has over how belligerent s/he feels like being today. Trump is absolutely going to see how far he can go and all branches of government are nominally on his side being Republican. Jefferson (or maybe Adams) thought about “Checks and balances” yet there are none established so far.
When Keir goes to Washington, I’m sure in the press conference they’ll have a good laugh about annexing Canada, no harm no foul. So long as the UK has changed all their maps from “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America” and if Trump brings that up, he’ll be dead serious about it.
If I’m left with pitting Starmer for cosying up to Trump (even if prior to the election and I’m unsure what kind of Grand Statesman status Starmer got out of it) I hope a judge wouldn’t throw out my case (at least with prejudice - I’ll assume that term exists in the UK yet it would mean "do not bring this silly case before the court again or else!) the UK doesn’t have to “turn it’s back” on Trump’s USA even though Trump was talking about taking what he wants today. “Adding territories” - if announcing imperialism and Manifest Destiny is not something you’d stand up against, then as the Chinese (thought to be of American Origin) proverb “May you live in interesting times” applies.
If the UN actually functioned, then choosing between the USA, Russia and China would not be a game of strategy.
I’m not even sure who this pitting is supposed to be about. Is it about “Poodle” Blair, or about Starmer? And if the latter, what’s the “Poodle” doing there?
I reckoned Starmer is taking a pro-active stance on the “special relationship” between the UK and USA that Tony Blair had with Clinton and yet didn’t go out of his way to support W (by visiting just him and not Al Gore weeks before the election).
Maybe it was one of Murdoch’s tabloids, yet when W announced war in the Middle East, he needed some support (in the UN and military). And when Blair sided with the US (and Putin and I guess China abstained) Blair was dubbed “poodle”. Underserved, perhaps, yet it’s come to means faithfully following what are often the belligerent whims of the USA.
So yeah, let’s throw Rupert Murdoch into the mix.
If Keir was a terrific prosecutor, I had no particular problems with him as PM - not even for the usual fallout with members of the PM’s cabinet.
Yet I do find fault with the prosecutor giving away his “case” and pledging allegiance to Trump. Only if he said something bad about Trump would he be a a lifetime sworn enemy. Like Blair, he could have waited to be asked by the President if he’s with us / against us.
I request of the judge (magistrate?) an adjournment of this case till the PM Prosecutor Extraordinaire visits Trump (the UK isalmost traditionally the first to make a state visit) and they have a good laugh about long peaceful borders and the Great White North.
I would like it if Keir did get things sorted domestically (before flying into Dulles - or is that now Ronald Reagan airport?). He has three weeks by his own timer.
The term “poodle” to describe supposedly less than manly men dates back at least to the late 19th century in England. British politicians were sneering at each other as “poodles” during debates circa 1907-1910 (hence the phrase “Mr. Balfour’s poodle”.
The Israelis have gotten into the act too.
I don’t recall anyone calling Joe Biden someone’s poodle, at least not when Major was around.
I had to look that up. Yet in the same line of arguments, per wiki:
The Liberal MP David Lloyd George mocked Members of the Lords as
“Five hundred men, accidently chosen from among the ranks of the unemployed”.
That is a solid, witty burn.
My wife from St. Petersburg, who taught English and had other classes about the UK, Ireland, Australia and other countries where you might not be surprised to meet people who had read Dickens in his native English; would likely know about Balfour’s Poodle.
Somehow, with Blair in the early 2001+'s, the poodle moniker was attached (without context) and I can only reckon Fox (or the New York Post or Ruperts other tabloids) received the editorial command to call Blair W’s “poodle” and I don’t think it’s because of any disagreement they may have had.
George W. Bush was the head cheerleader for Andover, Mass university and as you might imagine, that confers upon you the ability to come up with witty or cute nicknames. If someone in congress was granted a nickname, they were in the in-crowd. Alas, the only one I can recall was “Pooty-poot” for Putin. Yet maybe that was enough to get Russia to vote yea in the UN for W’s wars.
As for (other) US Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt was a quick wit:
“When they call the roll in the Senate, the senators do not know whether to answer ‘present’ or ‘not guilty.'”
For some reason I thought Denis Thatcher was the original “poodle”.
I won’t blame any leaders who try to start their new relationship with donald on a positive note, but please also be strong. It’s the daily capitulations, seemingly by everyone, that is really making me sick.
Sorry to be too off topic; I’m not totally sure what the correct topic is.
Thanks! That was my “topic” exactly, just centered on Starmer for what I perceive as an over-exuberance to be pals with the twice-impeached, 32 felon convicted Trump. Elon Musk isn’t going to be your friend the week after polling about “liberating the UK from tyranny” yet Donald Trump has this weird thing about believing strongly in what the last person said to him. And it would not be a good thing in USA-UK relations to start up with tyranny.
I was a bit harsh on Keir since now I know the context of “poodle” and one also doesn’t want Trump to be saying that. And I predicted “The Gulf of America” a month ago. I am also not about to say Norway won’t mind if the USA occupies Svarlbard. Not me.
