Category: Politics

David Lammy has said he regrets the “return to protectionism” in the US and that Britons will be “very concerned” about how tariffs could affect their finances.

It comes after Donald Trump insisted prime minister Keir Starmer “was very happy” with Washington’s new 10 per cent tariffs on UK goods.

“We have a very good dialogue. I think he was very happy about how we treated them with tariffs”, the US president told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday, adding that he was open to negotiations if countries offer “something that is so phenomenal”.

Speaking at the launch of Labour’s local elections campaign in Chesterfield, Starmer commented that the world is at the beginning of a “new economic era” in which “we have to act and lead differently”.

He described the response to Trump’s tariffs as “not just a short-term tactical exercise”.

The prime minister said Thursday: “It is the beginning of a new era, we need to understand that, just as we have for defence and security, we have to understand the changing world when it comes to trade and the economy.”

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

David Lammy, addressing reporters as he arrived in Brussels to meet his NATO counterparts, said: “The United Kingdom, like France, is a great maritime nation. We are a nation that believes in open trade, and I regret the return to protectionism in the United States, something that we’ve not seen for nearly a century.”

The foreign secretary added: “As you know, we are consulting with business and industry. At this time, we are engaged in discussions with the United States to strike an economic agreement and an economic deal.

“And of course, we have been absolutely clear that all options are on the table as we ensure the national interests of the British people, who will be very concerned at this time about how this affects the bottom line for them and their economic welfare.

“We will put their national interest first, and it’s in their national interests to be negotiating with the United States an economic agreement at this time, but keeping all options on the table.”

Jeremy Hunt, the former chancellor of the exchequer, has revived the Brexiteer call to turn Britain into “Singapore-on-Thames” by making the UK a low-tax nation welcoming free trade in response to Trump’s tariffs.

Writing in the Telegraph, Hunt urged the prime minister to “resist the siren song of protectionism”, saying: “Countries like Singapore demonstrate, openness can still deliver excellent results. Over the last half century, its living standards have grown five times faster than ours.

“Those who deride the idea of “Singapore-on-Thames” fail to understand that the heart of their success has not been a harder-edged social policy but the building up of internationally competitive businesses through willingness to trade.

“But Singapore didn’t invent free trade. That honour belongs to Britain. Even if others turn their backs on it, we should remember the benefits of one of our greatest gifts to the world.”

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

In recent weeks, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents, angry and anxious about  the government’s plans to cut disability benefits.

These planned cuts would see millions denied Personal Independence Payments (PIPs), whilst Universal Credit top-ups are cut in real terms for new claimants and denied altogether to many young people.

Scope has called them the “biggest cuts to disability benefits on record” — a damning indictment considering the austerity inflicted on disabled people by the last Conservative government. Anyone who paid attention to the first round of cuts could tell you that these cuts will not do what the government is claiming. The OBR has been so far unable to produce any evidence that cutting the incomes of ill and disabled people will get more people into employment.

Quite the opposite in fact. There is a mounting body of evidence that shows how hardship, anxiety around losing benefits and the threat of conditionality actually impede people from engaging with employment support in a way that gets them back into the workplace. The last government repeatedly suppressed a report it commissioned on benefits sanctions, which showed that they actually slowed people’s progress into work.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that these cuts will be devastating for disabled people’s independence and incomes. At a time when bills are rising across the board, the DWP’s own analysis suggests that they will push 250,000 people in poverty by 2030 — including 50,000 children.

1 in 5 families with a disabled member will be worse off as a result of these cuts. PIP is a gateway benefit, entitling family members to claim other benefits to support their loved ones. Half of the UK’s 1 million carer’s allowance claims, for instance, are tied to PIP, leaving many families face a double-whammy of cuts.

These cuts are likely to leave people poorer and sicker, leaving more people reliant on NHS and social care services. When families can no longer afford to care for their loved ones, this is likely to drive more people into the formal care system too. Far from creating “savings”, these cuts merely shift costs from central government onto households and local authorities, who are less equipped to cope with them.

Some of the government’s reforms are welcome. The rollout of a ‘Right to Try’ guarantee would mean people who accept a job offer are not subjected to automatic re-assessment if their job doesn’t work out. This is a compassionate and pragmatic policy which removes a big disincentive for people to re-enter the workforce. Sadly, it will be totally undermined by the sheer scale of these cuts.

Yes, the number of people who are claiming sickness and disability benefits is rising. It is worrying that this seems to come as such a surprise to some. We live in a country with an ageing population where health services were starved of investment for a decade. There are many people on NHS waiting lists who would much rather be healthy enough to return to work.

Mental health provision remains inadequate. Every week, I hear from constituents affected by mental health issues. There are well-established correlations between the mental ill health we experience as a society and the normalised austerity, low-quality work, entrenched inequality, crumbling public services, unaffordable housing and escalating living costs that characterise life in mid-2020s Britain.

Rising claims are rooted in the social realities of demographic ageing and economic decline. We need solutions that get to the root of these issues. Putting our heads in the sand and cutting support to those worst-affected by them will only make these problems worse, costing us more in the long run.

Continuing the Tories’ disgraceful legacy on benefits is not the change this government was elected to enact. This is increasingly borne out in dismal polling but there is still time to change course.

The Labour Party created the welfare state as we know it. We should be embracing this legacy. Because the truth is that any one of us may need to fall back on our social security system at any point in our lives. When that happens, we need a well-funded safety net in place.

If the safety net is cut, don’t be surprised when more people fall through it. My biggest fear of all is that we may ultimately count the cost of cuts in lost lives. One study attributed 330,000 excess deaths in Britain between 2012-2019 to the last round of austerity and cuts.

We need a new approach focused on supporting people back into work that centres more support, better jobs and investment in our NHS. To fund this, the government should follow the money. Whilst disabled people bore the brunt of vicious cuts under the last government, UK billionaires’ wealth more than trebled. Taxing the rich comes with its own challenges. However, these are challenges the government must rise to if it is going to reverse our country’s trajectory of decline. You do not cut your way to growth.

These cuts would be the worst of all worlds. I remain resolutely opposed and will be voting against them if they come to pass. But it is not too late for the government to think again. 

I urge them to do so.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

Feeling “liberated” yet? Armed with a sprawling country-by-country chart, questionable arithmetic and a lax grip of economic principles, Donald Trump outlined his administration’s new tariff regime in the White House rose garden yesterday evening.

“Our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike”, the US president declared to an audience of media reporters and MAGA lackeys. Britain soon learned its fate: Trump’s scheme to right these historic wrongs involves a 10 per cent tariff on all UK goods and a 25 per cent duty on all vehicle imports.

The expert-defying move has prompted furious if predictable reactions the world over — from those countries faced with new Trump-branded trade barriers.

The British government’s consciously cautious response therefore, is proving something of an outlier. Addressing a roundtable of business leaders at Downing Street this morning, Keir Starmer reiterated the position he set out in the House of Commons yesterday: the UK will act with “cool and calm heads.”

He began: “Last night, the president of the United States, acted for his country. That is his mandate — today, I will act in Britain’s interests, with mine. I understand how important this is for your business as it is for the British people. So we move now to the next phase of our plan.”

He added: “Clearly, there will be an economic impact from the decisions the US has taken, both here and globally. But I want to be crystal clear: we are prepared, indeed one of the great strengths of this nation is our ability to keep a cool head.

“I said that in my first speech as prime minister and that is how I govern, that is how we have planned and that is exactly what is required today.”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

Making a statement in the House of Commons this afternoon, business and trade secretary Jonathan Reynolds provided some further detail. The mooted US-UK economic deal, he declared, “would deepen our economic relationship on everything from defence, economic security, financial services, machinery, tech and regulation.

“There are clear synergies between the US and UK markets, and this is reflected in the fair and balanced trading relationship that already exists between our two countries.”

Reynolds added: “I have heard some members cling to the security of simple answers and loud voices.

“I understand the compulsion, but I caution members of this house to keep calm and remain clear-eyed on what is in our national interest, not to simply proclaim that we follow the actions of other countries.”

Crucially, the trade secretary confirmed that the government is now opening a consultation on possible retaliatory tariffs, in the event that an economic deal falls through. He said this approach will “enable the UK to have every option open to us in future.”

Reynolds continued: “We will seek the views of UK stakeholders over four weeks until 1 May 2025 on products that could potentially be included in any UK tariff response.

“This exercise will also give businesses the chance to have their say and influence the design of any possible UK action.”

That is the government’s position. But alongside Trump’s tariffs has arrived a deluge of political advice from a range of sources — and not all of it helpful.

For what it is worth, the Conservative Party is generally aligned with the government in its initial response to Trump’s overnight proclamation. Kemi Badenoch took to X/Twitter this morning to condemn the new US tariffs, noting that if “we fail to learn the lessons of history we will be doomed to repeat them.”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

In a conniving aside however, the Tory leader added that her party stands “ready to help in the national interest”, boasting of its recent experience of negotiating trade deals. Badenoch served in Reynolds’ trade brief from 2022-2024, remember.

The Liberal Democrats have adopted a more overtly hostile footing, urging the UK to stand firm with its allies against Trump’s attempts to “divide and rule”. Picking up where he left off at PMQs yesterday, Ed Davey thinks the government should “bring our Commonwealth and European partners together in a coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs, using retaliatory tariffs where necessary and signing new trade deals with each other where possible”.

In a further press notice this morning, the Lib Dems called on the PM to launch a “Buy British” campaign to back businesses hit by Trump’s tariffs.

Davey has put his finger on one of the dilemmas that is defining Starmer’s response to Trump’s tariffs — and even his government generally. In a speech at the lord mayor’s banquet last December, Starmer rejected what he sees as the “false choice” between Europe and the United States — vowing to work with both in the national interest.

The calculation has shaped Starmer’s diplomatic strategy since. The prime minister’s self-styled status as a “bridge” between European and US interests involves cordial relations in both directions — something we witnessed, potentially infamously, during Starmer’s visit to Washington DC in February. That resulted in an unprecedented second state visit for the US president and a clean sweep of congratulatory front pages in the British press. That, of course, was several geopolitical eras and doses of reality ago.

In the wake of Trump’s tariffs, Starmer still believes this approach is tenable. The US has not pulled up its drawbridge yet, he contends. And so the PM is putting the majority of his eggs in the basket marked bespoke US-UK economic deal.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

But this too will come with potentially significant political sacrifices. Culture secretary Lisa Nandy appeared to suggest in the House of Commons this morning that the creative industries will not be damaged by a US-UK deal, following reports the government could offer concessions around AI regulation. But that is not a promise she is in a position to make, evidenced by her somewhat non-committal language.

On the broadcast round this morning, Reynolds expressed a more typical ministerial non-denial when prompted on food standards arrangements — which the US wants to relax to distend the UK single market with hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken.

In these terms, it is easy to see how a US-UK economic deal comes unstuck as negotiations progress — and/or the political problems the government will create for itself if it acquiesces to the Trump position.

Starmer’s “bridge” metaphor is worthy rhetoric then. But it cannot disguise the difficult decisions that await the government over the coming period — as the mainstream of global opinion errs definitely on the side of retaliatory tariffs.

As Labour grandee and former home secretary Lord Blunkett put it in the House of Lords this morning: “Difficult as these matters are, isn’t there a good rule of thumb for government to decide whose side they’re on?”

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Labour grandee says UK government must decide ‘whose side they’re on’ after Trump tariffs

Lunchtime soundbite

‘They claim to be the party of patriotism. I’ll tell you this, there’s nothing patriotic about fawning over Putin.’

—  Launching Labour’s local elections campaign this morning, Keir Starmer accused Reform UK of “fawning over Putin”.

Now try this…

‘“Nowhere on Earth is safe”: Trump imposes tariffs on uninhabited islands near Antarctica’
Via the Guardian.

‘Europe slams ‘illegal’ Trump tariffs, vows unified response’
Politico reports.

‘Trump’s tariffs could have been worse — but they will still hurt’
If America’s 10% tariffs are not quickly replaced with a bespoke deal, the prime minister may live to regret his conciliatory tactics, writes The Times’ Steven Swinford. (Paywall)

On this day in 2023:

Government plans to crackdown on grooming gangs completely ‘inadequate’ says Shadow Home Secretary

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Keir Starmer has vowed the UK will respond to the imposition of US tariffs with “cool and calm heads.”

Speaking to business leaders at Downing Street, the prime minister said that “clearly there will be an economic impact” from Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The US president imposed a 10 per cent tariff on US imports of UK goods as he set out sweeping trade levies hitting countries across the world on Wednesday evening.

The US president insisted his “liberation day” announcement was a “declaration of economic independence”.

Starmer issued a response on Thursday morning from 10 Downing Street as he spoke to business bosses including AstraZeneca’s Pascal Soriot, BAE’s Charles Woodburn and Jaguar Land Rover’s Richard Molyneux.

He said: “Last night, the president of the United States, acted for his country. That is his mandate. Today, I will act in Britain’s interests, with mine.

“I understand how important this is for your business as it is for the British people. So, we move now to the next phase of our plan.”

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

He added: “Decisions we take in coming days and weeks will be guided only by our national interest, in the interests of our economy, in the interests of businesses around this table, in the interests of putting money in the pockets of working people.

“Nothing else will guide me. That is my focus.”

“Clearly, there will be an economic impact from the decisions the US has taken, both here and globally. But I want to be crystal clear: we are prepared, indeed one of the great strengths of this nation is our ability to keep a cool head.

“I said that in my first speech as prime minister and that is how I govern, that is how we have planned and that is exactly what is required today.”

The prime minister continued: “Nobody wins in a trade war, that is not in our national interest.

“We have a fair and balanced trade relationship with the US. Negotiations on an economic prosperity deal – one that strengthens our existing trading relationship – they continue and we will fight for the best deal for Britain.

“Nonetheless, I do want to be clear I will only strike a deal if it is in the national interest and if it is the right thing to do for the security of working people. Protects the pound in their pocket, that they work so hard to earn for their family.

“That is my priority. That is always my priority. So – today marks a new stage in our preparations.

“We have a range of levers at our disposal, and we will continue our work with businesses across the country to understand their assessment of these options.

“As I say – our intention remains to secure a deal. But nothing is off the table. We have to understand that just as with defence and security, so too for the economy and trade we are living in a changing world, entering a new era. We must rise to this challenge.

“That is why I have instructed my team to move further and faster on the changes I believe will make our economy stronger and more resilient.

“Because this government will do everything necessary to defend the UK’s national interest. Everything necessary to provide the foundation of security that working people need to get on with their lives.

“That is how we have acted and how we will continue to act, with pragmatism, cool and calm heads – focused on the national interest.”

Jonathan Reynolds, the business trade secretary, has said the government will not retaliate immediately and would pursue an economic deal with the US to remove Trump’s tariffs.

He told Sky News: “I hope perhaps if we are successful there will be a template for other countries to resolve some of these issues.”

He added: “There’s a set of complaints from the US on some of how the current global trading arrangements work. They won’t get their own way on all of that. But there are some things to talk about.

“And I do hope there’s a chance to take some lessons from that if we are successful for the wider world economy.”

Reynolds also revealed that Trump’s team had raised objections to UK food safety standards, appearing to refer to tensions over the UK’s ban on US chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef.

“We have a food standards regime which we’re very committed to in the UK which they have some objections to. So they put a number of factors into this”, he told the BBC.

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

When the Modern Slavery Act passed into law, the day that Westminster prorogued for the 2015 general election, parliamentarians from both chambers and all parties, demonstrated what can be achieved when collaboration and consensus is sought. 

The Modern Slavery Act was a world-leading piece of legislation, one which has provided inspiration across the globe for other similar laws. We should rightfully be proud of this Act; of the measures it introduced and the ambitious path it set the UK on. Modern Slavery has been described by Theresa May as ‘the great human rights issue of our time’. This Act set out to make a serious impact on challenging traffickers and supporting survivors.

While the Act may have been world-leading, it was not perfect. People may point to Overseas Domestic Worker visas, or the use of goods created by forced labour in our supply chains.  As has been shown over the past decade there are issues with the Act, like all good legislation it should evolve to address needs as they become apparent. Rather than the finishing line, the passing of the Modern Slavery Act was another hurdle overcome, we have someway to go before our race is run.

On Thursday 27th March, I sponsored a backbench business debate to mark the anniversary of the Act, it was almost ten years to the day that it became law. We permitted ourselves a moment to consider the impact of this legislation that has been, in many cases, life changing. What encouraged me most however, was the clear focus on the future, on the work yet to be done, and there is work that we all must do.

I am still sometimes asked ‘what is modern slavery?’, it is a financial crime; it is invariably for financial gain. It is the exploitation of one human being by another human being for financial gain. It is a coercive crime, and it is happening globally. It is estimated that there are 50 million people globally living in modern slavery, with over 122,000 here in the UK. Despite these numbers, I still worryingly hear ‘it doesn’t happen here’. It does. It can happen anywhere, in towns and villages, in cities and in the countryside, no community is immune to exploitation.

The reality is that modern slavery can be found everywhere. It can be found affecting children, who are exploited in numerous ways. Falling through the gaps of services, children are found and preyed upon by traffickers. We now see the reality of county lines exploitation, the young forced to sell drugs for criminal gangs. Around 31% of all referrals to government support in 2024 were for those under the age of 18. But it isn’t just criminal exploitation, indeed just two years ago, Sir Mo Farah disclosed that he is a survivor of domestic servitude, forced as a boy to work for those who claimed they would care for him. The Modern Slavery Act started a pilot of Independent Child Trafficking Guardians, a system of support I’m delighted to see this new government commit to extend fully across the country.

It can be found in our care homes, the shortage of staff in our social care system has proved to be another opportunity for traffickers to exploit and find profit. Workers are asked to pay tens of thousands of pounds for an opportunity to work in these essential roles, only to find they have been misled, with wages held and the threat of joblessness. The number of reported cases in the care sector has risen continuously since 2022.

It can be found in our pockets, on our roofs, and the very fabric of the clothes we wear. The Modern Slavery Act put an obligation of companies that provide goods or services in the UK, with an annual income over £36 million pounds to produce a modern slavery statement, which sets out whether there is modern slavery within their supply chains and what acts have been taken to ensure they are removed if ever found. Time has come for this provision to be tightened, the US has the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act 2021 and its hot goods provisions, whereby items cannot even enter the US market unless the importer can prove that there was no slavery in the supply chain. This government cannot allow our transition to green energy, or the building of new towns and homes, to be facilitated by forced labour here in the UK, or where our goods are extracted and made in other countries.

These are but few of the many issues that face us. It is as clear now as it was ten years ago that action must be taken. The passing of the Act ten years ago has set a precedent that we must build upon. When closing the debate, safeguarding minster Jess Phillips, who has demonstrated incredible determination to address this issue, stated that in relation to new modern slavery legislation, “nothing is currently off the table for members who want to work with the government on that.” 

We must come together around this table, ensuring there is room for survivors, civil society and statutory bodies. Guided by our reflections on hard learned lessons from the past decade, the time is right to build upon the Modern Slavery Act.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

Rhetoric around enforcing tariffs in the name of “protecting” the domestic market is often a false narrative. It is invariably framed around bringing more business to domestic producers and manufacturers, leading to the protection of jobs. However, history has shown us time and time again that tariffs provide a short term, artificial boost in performance; followed swiftly by an inevitable decline in not only the domestic economy but also the global economy.

As the Member of Parliament for Solihull West and Shirley, my constituents will directly feel the repercussions of the decisions made in the United States. The proposed tariffs on cars, which come into place this week, and the looming threat of tariffs being placed on car components later this year will have a significant effect on the regional economy.

In 2023, in the Midlands region of the United Kingdom, more than 51,000 people were employed in the automotive sector. This accounts for 25% of the total UK automotive employment, and the highest regional concentration nationwide. Of that number, over 10,000 people are currently employed by JLR at their plant in Solihull — many of whom are my constituents.

This drastic shift in US policy towards the United Kingdom is a significant failure of diplomatic negotiation by our prime minister, who had previously pledged to do “whatever is necessary” to protect jobs in the steel industry. However, in spite of this commitment, the prime minister failed to negotiate with president Trump’s team for five months after his presidential election victory. To compound matters, he allowed the departure of Sir Crawford Falconer, the UK’s top trade negotiator to the US, without replacement.

If the prime minister had been effective in his negotiations with the President of the United States, we could have avoided a repetition of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, which spelt disaster for the American economy and those who exported to the US; overseeing a 67% fall in both US exports and imports.

Pursuing protectionist policies, especially amongst long-term allies, can lead to unintended economic consequences for both sides. It opens the risk that, rather than suffer ruinous economic outcomes, nations look to forge new relationships with countries where they have less natural alignment on values and world view. In my view, this would be a mistake. At the very time there is growing geopolitical unrest in the world, we must deepen our ties with our longstanding allies.

The very real possibility of this scenario taking place has been escalated by the poor choices this Labour government has made since coming into office. A series of reckless policies introduced in the chancellor’s autumn budget, along with the introduction of the Employment Rights Bill, have left us with an economy less resilient to weather global economic storms. The danger is that it will lead to the ministers making unwise decisions to pull themselves out of their own self-inflicted fiscal hole.

The challenge to the government is clear. It must now urgently engage with Washington and get a free trade deal signed before irreparable damage is done to our country’s historic car and manufacturing sector.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

Ed Davey launched the Liberal Democrats’ local elections campaign this week by bounding (stumbling) over ankle-high fences in Henley-on-Thames. The message was that in such “Blue Wall” areas, council contests are a “two horse race” between the Liberal Democrats and the beleaguered-looking Conservative Party.

The quippy stunt secured headlines for the Lib Dem leader — alongside a reasonable share of ridicule. That’s par for this particular course. But Davey’s underlying contention, that the Lib Dems can supplant the Conservatives as the “party of Middle England”, shone through. (The Lib Dems recently topped a YouGov opinion poll in the south of England after all).

Back in the House of Commons for prime minister’s questions this afternoon, Davey exchanged his equine metaphors for a more familiar hobby-horse: his anti-Donald Trump attacks.

Since November, when Trump swept up the swing states to secure a second non-consecutive presidential term, the Liberal Democrats have moved definitely towards an anti-MAGA position. Davey has ratcheted up his reproval in recent weeks, responding to developments on the Ukraine war and now Trump’s protectionist threats.

According to reports, the White House has drafted a proposal for the US to impose wounding tariffs of about 20 per cent on most imports to the world’s largest economy. Trump is expected to announce as much in a Rose Garden address at around 9pm UK time. Britain, like every other historic US ally, is in the firing line.

Keir Starmer began PMQs today with a statement on the government’s planned response. “A trade war is in nobody’s interest”, the prime minister told MPs, “and the country deserves — and we will take — a calm, pragmatic approach.”

He added: “That’s why constructive talks are progressing to agree a wider economic prosperity deal with the US. That’s why we’re working with all industries and sectors likely to be impacted.

“Our decisions will always be guided by our national interest, and that’s why we have prepared for all eventualities and we will rule nothing out.”

Kemi Badenoch eventually turned to tariffs during the despatch box tussle this afternoon. The former trade secretary accused Starmer of failing to negotiate a trade deal with the US. But it was Davey who delivered the session’s most thoughtful contribution.

The Lib Dem leader began by praising the prime minister’s “commendable leadership” over Ukraine and his attempts to convene a military “coalition of the willing” to police any future peace deal. Davey then co-opted this term, first coined by US academics in the 1970s, to describe the action he believes the government should take in response to Trump’s tariffs.

He contended: “The prime minister has shown commendable leadership over Ukraine with his plan for a military coalition of the willing.

“Will he now provide similar leadership with an ‘economic coalition of the willing’ against Trump’s tariffs, for free trade, so he can avoid a global trade war and a global recession?”

There is a compelling logic to the position: a united response to Trump’s tariffs could galvanise political and business criticism in the United States, potentially forcing the US president’s hand. If the US president proves stubborn, the UK government could invest its efforts in building the economic relationship between those parties similarly affected by Trump’s protectionism. This strategy would, at least, limit the US president’s ability to “divide and rule” by playing economically weakened countries off against each other.

But the prime minister, who opened the session insisting no response would be ruled out, appeared to rule out the response. He commented: “I think that’s the wrong choice on defence, on security intelligence, for reasons that we’ve rehearsed across this chamber. I also think it’s wrong on trade and the economy.

“We have a balanced trade relationship with the US, and I believe that our interests are best served by calmly trying to secure a deal which is in our national interest, whilst at the same time preparing and leaving all options on the table.”

Davey responded: “One of the options must be to work with our European allies, our Commonwealth allies and others. Because if we don’t tackle Trump’s tariffs, we could be saying goodbye to free trade for a generation.”

A Liberal Democrat press release overnight has more detail on the party’s stance. In it, foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller urges Starmer to work “with our Canadian and European allies in a united front against Trump, including retaliatory tariffs where necessary — as well as negotiating a bespoke new customs union agreement with the EU to better protect British businesses.”

In this area, Davey has placed his party broadly in line with British public opinion — never a bad political strategy. YouGov polling this week notes that 71 per cent of Britons would support retaliating with tariffs if the US strikes. Just 11 per cent oppose this position.

Meanwhile, polling for Best for Britain has found 43 per cent of Britons believe that increasing trade with the EU is the best course of action. Just 14 per cent think improving relations with Trump in order to extract a tariff exemption is the right approach.

These surveys reflect a wider trend: Britons do not like the US president.

Davey, leader of the third largest party in the commons, is uniquely placed politically to own the mantle of Britain’s premier anti-Trumper. The Conservatives under Badenoch, who boasts of a friendship with veep JD Vance, have flirted with MAGA opinion in recent time. The Greens, who too treat Trump with contempt, have struggled to cut through this parliament. And Reform operates as MAGA’s UK office — increasingly to its electoral detriment.

But most significantly, Starmer cannot — no matter how much Britain’s collective conscience wills it — turn on Trump like the star in a Richard Curtis flick. An overtly hostile footing would risk pushing Trump deeper into Putin’s sphere of influence.

Nonetheless, there is a balance to be struck — especially with a president so uniquely unpopular in Britain as Trump. And Davey’s implicit charge is that Starmer has proved too accommodating.

No 10 will recognise the political problem. Firstly, Starmer risks coming across as weak if he refuses to adopt the retaliatory footing that the EU, Mark Carney’s Canada and other allies look set to assume. Secondly, by continuing to hold Trump close — and even hosting him at a state visit — the president’s unpopularity risks rubbing off on Starmer.

The prospect of an unprecedented second state visit for this unpopular president has become an albatross around Starmer’s neck.

If Britons rally against Trump, his MAGA ideologues and economic ultimatums, right now it is the Liberal Democrats that are best placed to benefit. The local elections on 1 May could represent the dawn of a broader political windfall.

Starmer, if his “pragmatic” approach fails to yield significant reward, could suffer.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Trump tariffs of 20 per cent could ‘knock out’ government’s fiscal headroom, OBR warns

Lunchtime soundbite

‘Labour’s record is a car industry in crisis, even before tariffs. There are 25,000 more jobs now at risk.’

—  Kemi Badenoch accuses Keir Starmer of a “failure to negotiate” a trade deal with the US at prime minister’s questions.

Now try this…

‘Starmer offers big US tech firms tax cuts in return for lower Trump tariffs’
Via the Guardian.

‘Government Joins Reddit In Bid To Step Up Its Online Communications Strategy’
PoliticsHome reports.

‘Could time be up for the triple lock?’
Tali Fraser in ConservativeHome.

On this day in 2021:

Keir Starmer’s School Report

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics