Tag: United Kingdom

Donald Trump’s performance, together with that of vice president Vance and his White House media coterie, had all the qualities of an ambush. 

Volodymyr Zelenksyy arrived, like Keir Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron before him, with Trump hovering in the West Wing entrance. The US president immediately drew attention to his Ukrainian counterpart’s simple, military-style attire. It was a premeditated troll. “Oh look, you’re all dressed up”, he remarked in a mocking tone. Trump waved to the cameras and then pointed back at Zelenskyy: “He’s all dressed up!”

Trump raised a fist. His famous thumbs-up stance, a gesture that could be interpreted by nervous world leaders as a sign of docility, did not appear as it had done with Macron and Starmer. A pat on the back suggested it was time for Zelenskyy to enter. 

The Ukrainian president obliged. The spectacle had begun. The trap was set. 

Zelenksyy took his place in the Oval Office, sitting in the same chair as Macron and Starmer before him. Trump began by touting the minerals deal that the meeting had been convened to formalise; he praised the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers but reiterated his call for an unconditional ceasefire. 

“We have had some very good discussions with Russia”, the US president declared in his opening statement. “I spoke with president Putin, and we’re going to try and bring this to a close. 

“It’s something that you want and that he wants. We’re going to have to negotiate a deal… I think something can happen.”

Zelenskyy shared images of Ukrainian prisoners of war held by Russia. Trump displayed minimal interest. 

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

At around the eight-minute mark, reporters began firing questions. First they focused on the details of the raw materials deal, before pivoting to the nature of US support for Ukraine. Therein came the first instance of disagreement. Trump stressed the level of US financial backing delivered under the last administration. Zelenskyy countered by pointing to the significance of European support. 

“Europe really helped”, he said. “President Trump said that they made less support, but they are our friends and they are our supportive partners. They really gave a lot, Mr President.” 

Trump replied: “They did. But they gave much less — much less”. Both leaders laughed off the apparent dispute. “We’re not arguing!”, Trump clarified jokingly as he tapped Zelenskyy’s knee. 

A few minutes later, a reporter asked what “compromises” Trump could exact from the Ukrainian government to secure a peace deal. “You can’t do any deals without compromises. So certainly he’s going to have to make some compromises”, the US president responded. 

Trump described his role in the process as that of an “arbitrator” or “mediator”. 

He added: “So all I can do is see if I can get everybody at the table and get an agreement. And I think we’re going to end up with an agreement, otherwise I wouldn’t probably be even here today.”

Zelenskyy paused for a beat before attempting to respond himself. But Trump had already pointed to a new reporter huddled to his left. Zelenskyy lifted his hands above his knees in apparent exasperation — there was a subtle head shake and an existential glance towards the ceiling. 

The question, directed at Trump, came from a sycophant: “Do you think ultimately your legacy will be the peacemaker and not the president that led this country into another war, and ended foreign wars?”

The US president responded: “I hope it will. I mean, I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker. This would be a great thing if we could do this. I’m doing this to save lives, more than anything else. Second, is to save a lot of money — but I consider that to be far less important.”

He added: “Thank you Brian for that question. It was a nice question… You know, this could lead to a third world war, this was headed in the wrong direction. If we didn’t win this election, and by the way we won by a lot — it was a mandate — the popular vote by millions and millions of votes — we won everything, the districts, look at the areas of [Republican] red, take a look at a map. This was a big mandate. 

“And this was one of the things — I said we’re going to get this thing settled. If we didn’t win, this could very well have ended up in a third world war. And that would not have been a good situation.”

Trump gestures back to the reporter — it is Brian Glenn of the MAGA media outlet Real America’s Voice, whom the president has made a member of the White House press corps. Glenn is currently dating Trump loyalist congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and was notably granted the first question at the US president’s press conference with Macron on Monday. 

Glenn’s second inquiry was destined for Zelenskyy. “Do you ever — why don’t you wear a suit? Why don’t you wear a suit? You are at the highest level in this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit — do you own a suit?”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

Trump smirks as an ill-tempered exchange ensues between Zelenskyy and Glenn. “I will wear a costume after this war is finished”, the Ukrainian president responded. “Maybe something like yours, yes, maybe something better I don’t know, we’ll see — maybe something cheaper.”

Glenn: “Thank you.”

Zelenskyy: “Thank you.”

In the next notable development, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins presses Trump on whether he will agree to security guarantees in the event of a peace deal. 

He says: “I don’t want to talk about security yet, because I want to get the deal done — you fall into the same trap as everyone else… I want to get the deal done… the security is the easy part…we’ll have workers there digging, digging, digging, taking the raw earth, so that we can create a lot of great product in this country. 

“So in that sense, you have something.”

Trump adds: “I don’t think you are going to need much security, I think once this deal gets done, it’s over. Russia’s not gonna want to go back and nobody’s going to want to go back. When this deal ends. I really believe this deal is — is going to be over.”

Zelenskyy shakes his head throughout Trump’s answer. He attempts to comment, but Trump cuts him off — clearly conscious of the Ukraine president’s intention to speak. He points to another reporter. Zelenskyy throws his right hand in the air; a gesture of despair. His body language begins to reflect the more belligerent footing the conversation has adopted. 

The next question comes from another Trump sycophant.  

“You had [Emmanuel] Macron and Keir Starmer at the White House this past week both of whom praised your courage and conviction to lead the pathway towards peace.

“Part of that involved though, reengaging with Russia in diplomatic relations — something that previous leaders lacked the conviction to do so. What gave you the moral courage and conviction to step forward and lead that?”

Zelenskyy tilts his head and directs his eyes to the reporter when Putin is mentioned. He remains steel-faced as Trump responds: “Boy, I love this guy… One America News does a great job. I like the question.”

He adds: “It’s a pathway to peace… You know, we’re very much involved. We got involved. It’s too bad we got involved. Because there should have been no involvement, because there should have been no war — and there shouldn’t have been 7 October. That would have never happened.”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

Zelenskyy asserts himself — “I can answer, please”. Before he does, Trump refers back to the exchange about the Ukrainian president’s attire. “I do like your clothing by the way”, he says, “I think he’s a great guy by the way [talking about the Real America’s Voice reporter]. 

“I don’t know if you do like each other, but, you know.”

There follows a long answer from Zelenskyy, expressing the need for a US security guarantee and Putin’s history of ignoring negotiated settlements. “We can’t just speak about ceasefire and speak and speak. It will not work”, he insists.

“He broke his own signature, 25 times, he broke a ceasefire.”

Trump contends: “Never with me. He never broke it with me”

The Ukrainian president responds: “No, no, you were the president. In 2016, you were the president… That’s why we will never accept just [a] ceasefire. It will not work without security guarantees.”

Zelenskyy and Trump field further questions — including one about free speech in the UK. Throughout, the US president disparages his predecessor, Joe Biden, and claims that he has “stopped wars that nobody ever heard about.”

Zelenskyy undertakes to prosecute his case more forcefully: “Europe is very important for us, because we really defend Europe for today, all Europeans really recognise that we are defending the line… and our people are dying. That’s why they helped us. 

“And also it’s about the need  — yes like the president said, you have big, nice ocean. But… Russia will go further, to Baltics and to Poland, by the way… It’s understandable for them, because they’ve been the USSR… Putin wants to bring them back to his empire. 

“It’s a fact. And when he will go there, if we will not stay, you will fight — your American soldiers. It doesn’t matter [if] you have ocean or not, your soldiers will fight.”

Upon further questioning, Trump says he is unwilling to visit Ukraine because a lot of its cities “are not recognisable — there’s not a building standing.”

Zelenskyy again contradicts his US counterpart. “No, no, no, we have very good cities. Yes, a lot of things [have] been destroyed, but mostly cities are alive, and people work, and children go to school.”

He suggests that Trump has been influenced by Kremlin propaganda: “This is very important, and maybe it’s Putin who is sharing this information that he destroyed us. He lost 700,000 people — 700,000 soldiers.”

The US president is prompted more and more by reporters about his relationship with Putin. He reveals he has “spoken to him on numerous occasions” and that the latest call “went well”.

Trump adds: “Well, if I didn’t align myself with both of them, you’d never have a deal. You want me to say really terrible things about Putin and then say, ‘Hi, Vladimir. How are we doing on the deal?’. 

“It doesn’t work that way. I’m not aligned with Putin. I’m not aligned with anybody. I’m aligned with the United States.”

He goes on, referring to Zelenskyy: “You see, the hatred he’s got for Putin. It’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. He’s got tremendous hatred, and I understand that — but I can tell you the other side isn’t exactly in love with, you know, him either.”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

At this point, US vice-president JD Vance interjects: “So look, for four years [in] the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. 

“The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.”

Zelenskyy asks to respond to Vance directly, and the VP yields. A long question follows, in which the Ukrainian president reiterates Putin’s record of exceeding the limits imposed on him by pacts. “What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about? What do you mean?”

Vance escalates: “I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. 

“Right now you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president.”

Zelensky hits back: “During the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future.”

That comment rankled Trump, prompting the US president to intervene. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. You’re in no position to dictate that”, the US president asserted, his voice growing more irritated.

“You don’t have the cards right now. You’re gambling with millions of lives.”

Zelensky returns once more: “I’m not playing cards.”

The conversation has, at this point, devolved into a full-scale row. Vance demands that Zelenskyy thank the US for its support; Zelenskyy insists he has done so many times; Trump slams Zelenskyy’s “attitude”.

Then, in a bizarre twist, the US president says he sympathises with the criticism Putin faced over accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US election: “He had to go through that.”

He adds: “It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting.”

Gesturing to Zelenskyy, the US president concludes: “The problem is, I’ve empowered you to be a tough guy. And I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States… You are either going to make a deal, or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty…

“But you’re not acting at all thankful and that’s not a nice thing. And I’ll be honest, that’s not a nice thing. Alright, I think we’ve seen enough, what do you think? 

“This is going to be great television. I will say that.”

Zelenskyy issues an ironic thumbs-up. Trump winks at an individual behind the camera. Vance slaps Trump’s arm.

The VP and president are pleased with their work. 

The ambush is quickly celebrated by administration officials and the president’s online outriders. Elon Musk posts to X shortly after: “Time to find out what really happened to the hundreds of billions of dollars sent to Ukraine.”

The reaction of stunned European leaders took slightly longer to roll in — but their support, when it did arrive, was overwhelming. Zelensky responded to the myriad statements with a simple message: “Thank you for your support”.

Those five words today appear over thirty times on his X feed.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

Here in the UK, the saga prompted cross-party condemnation. Alicia Kearns, a Conservative MP and shadow minister, was one of the first to respond. She posted to X: “Zelenskyy is fighting for the survival of his people.

“We just witnessed what can only be described as bullying. Performative bullying for a domestic US audience. Just watching the video shamed me to my core. Utterly shaming.”

Simon Hoare, a Conservative MP and former minister, referred to a question he asked of the prime minister on Wednesday. “As I said in the commons… at PMQs: the FORMER leader of the free world.”

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said he was “sickened” by the “degrading spectacle”. Kemi Badenoch was less straightforward with her choice of language. “We need to remember that the villain is the war criminal president Putin”, she said. 

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey responded to the Conservative leader’s statement: “For someone who prides themself on being so ‘direct’, it’s striking you still can’t bring yourself to criticise president Trump directly”.

Davey had issued his own remarks calling out Trump and Vance’s “thuggery”.

Trade minister Douglas Alexander told BBC Radio 4 that not only were the scenes in the Oval Office “deeply troubling and sobering”, he argued they demonstrated “in the starkest possible terms” the extent to which “the world we’ve all experienced for the last 80 years” had changed. 

He also labelled Zelensky the “bravest political leader in Europe since Winston Churchill”.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, finally responded on Saturday morning. He referred to the debacle as “regrettable”.

For some time, the prime minister’s quiet was also conspicuous. As Zelenskyy responded to messages of support from world leaders on X, the prime minister’s views were expressed via a spokesperson. 

“The prime minister has tonight spoken to both president Trump and president Zelensky”, the statement, issued at around 10.00 pm, read.

“He retains unwavering support for Ukraine, and is doing all he can to find a path forward to a lasting peace based on sovereignty and security for Ukraine. 

“The prime minister looks forward to hosting international leaders on Sunday including president Zelensky.”

The comment, its timing and the channel through which it was issued reflect the precariousness of Starmer’s position as it relates to Ukraine and Trump. The prime minister’s visit to Washington DC on Thursday was hailed as a personal and diplomatic triumph. Sceptics had doubted Starmer’s ability to act as a “bridge” between the European continent and a White House as capricious as this. But Trump’s seemingly sincere praise, his endorsement of the Chagos Islands deal and his suggestion that the UK could avoid being hit by tariffs — were all recorded as meaningful victories. An impetuous Vance had tried to ambush the prime minister on free speech, a sinister portent of his attack on Zelenskyy; but Starmer parried those attacks effectively. Meanwhile, the PM’s offer of a second, unprecedented state visit appeared to genuinely move Trump. 

But Friday’s White House debacle has upended — in a singularly spectacular fashion — any diplomatic advances Starmer made this week. The US president has proved, once again, that he is untameable. He intends to end the Ukraine war by whatever means necessary — seemingly, on whatever terms are available. Right now, those are Putin’s terms. 

The prime minister’s statement yesterday evening suggests his ostensible strategy to operate as a transatlantic “bridge” persists. The summit of European leaders he is set to host on Sunday, attended by Zelenskyy, will test the opinion of one half of this formulation. Already, a view on the continent is hardening that Europe must achieve strategic “independence” from the White House — in both its current and future forms.

It begs the question: where will Starmer stand if Trump decides he does not need a bridge to “Europe” — and Europe, simultaneously, seeks strategic “independence” from the US?

The situation is at once delicate, urgent and fast evolving. 

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

Kemi Badenoch has dismissed the Liberal Democrats as a party of “foolish ideas” while appearing to acknowledge their advocacy of the interests of local communities. 

The Conservative leader was asked to summarise the United Kingdom’s political landscape for an international audience during an interview with Canadian psychologist and DailyWire host Jordan Peterson. 

In her reply, Badenoch sought to correct Peterson’s suggestion that Reform UK, lead by Nigel Farage, is the UK’s third party after Labour and the Conservatives. 

“The third party in this country is the Liberal Democrats, who have more votes and have fourteen times as many members of parliament as Reform has”, she said. 

The Lib Dems, led by Sir Ed Davey, won 12.2 per cent of the vote and 72 seats at the 2024 UK general election. Reform UK won 14.3 per cent of the vote but only five seats. 

Badenoch went on to dismiss the Lib Dems as a “protest” vehicle “for mainly people on the left”, despite the gains the party made across several onetime Conservative stronghold constituencies, such as Maidenhead (ex-PM Theresa May’s former seat) and Esther and Walton (ex-deputy PM Dominic Raab’s former seat). 

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

The Tory leader said: “Now, the Liberal Democrats are basically a protest party for mainly people on the left, and they don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice. They will go with all sorts of extreme things, you know, extreme gender ideology, etc.

“Reform is representing the rage that a lot of people are feeling about things going wrong in the country, but it’s all rage. It’s not courage.”

She added: “And a lot of traditional Labour voters are also going to Reform because they’re angry with their traditional party, and then people who don’t want to have anything to do with it vote Liberal Democrat.”

NEW: Kemi Badenoch acknowledges the existence of the Lib Dems- Considers them a “protest party for mainly people on the left”- "They are not on Twitter, but they are in local communities"- "They will destroy the whole country…"Transcript from DailyWire interview with Jordan Peterson

— Josh Self (@josh-self.bsky.social) 2025-02-19T08:53:20.725Z

Asked by Peterson why the Lib Dems get less coverage “on the international side” than other parties, Badenoch responded that they are “not on Twitter”. 

She said: “They are not on Twitter, but they are in local communities. A typical Liberal Democrat will be somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And, you know, the people in the community like them, they are like ‘Fix the church roof, you should be a member of parliament’. 

“And they want to be nice. But actually, they’ve got lots of very silly and foolish ideas, along with, you know, being able to fundraise for a local community. And then they have bad views on national security, for example, they don’t want us to keep maybe a nuclear deterrent.”

The Liberal Democrats’ 2024 general election manifesto states that the party supports “maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent with four submarines providing continuous at-sea deterrence, while pursuing multilateral global disarmament.”

Badenoch added: “They have silly ideas about education. They don’t want people to go to prison. They want prisons closed down. Let’s just have restorative justice. You know, people being nice, and if you’re not paying attention, you will think ‘that’s good, these are nice people. We should vote for them’, but actually they will destroy the whole country if you if you let them at it.”

Peterson then asked the Conservative leader if the Lib Dems are distinguishable “ideologically” from the Labour Party. 

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

Badenoch responded “no”, but went on to note the Lib Dems’ appeal in more rural areas compared to Labour’s urban base. 

She said: “You will find Liberal Democrats in a lot of rural constituencies, because they talk about the environment, something that we care about as well, but they talk about it in a way that resonates with people who want to maintain things as they are. 

“So Liberal Democrats don’t like building anything. They want everything to stay as it is, which itself appeals to a certain kind of conservative. ‘You know, I don’t want anything to change’, and they will block any kind of thing being developed.”

She added: “And what is interesting is that as politics becomes more volatile, as we have more social media and people retreat into echo chambers of agreement with this, we’re seeing a lot more fragmentation across the board. 

“If this was a country where you had proportional representation, it would probably come out in the wash, but we don’t. So you will have a party like Labour, which has won a landslide majority on 34 per cent of the vote. That is a scandal.”

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.

Why the Liberal Democrats are taking on Trump and Musk

Source: Politics

Donald Trump’s decision to dismantle USAID and halt its £55bn of spending has far-reaching consequences. Vaccination programmes, clean water projects, food aid and humanitarian work have all been abruptly halted, causing distress to millions of vulnerable people around the globe.

Refugee resettlement has also been badly hit. The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants has called this a ‘devastating development’ for refugees in the process of being resettled to the USA. It also means that many people who have been waiting patiently to get on a plane, having been selected and vetted for resettlement, are now in limbo. I met two women in this position this week, as I visited Cairo with a parliamentary delegation.

Both are lone mothers and Christians from Sudan who have faced persecution for their faith, including being physically attacked in Egypt.  Both families were scheduled to come to the UK as part of our very small resettlement programme.

Our failure to find them a resettlement place meant that the UN removed them from the UK list last year. They have respectively spent five and seven years waiting, and are still stuck in appalling circumstances.  The UN put one woman on the list to go to Canada, and the other to the USA.  The latter’s hopes of being able to make a fresh start free from persecution have now been dashed twice.  I felt ashamed as I spoke to these women, and promised to pray for them by name.  Someone once said that “If all you’ve got left to do is to pray… it’s still the most powerful thing”, but I felt powerless as I sat with two beleaguered women who have suffered more than most of us, and whom we had promised to help – but had let down.

I also spent an hour with a dozen young refugees from Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Syria; all living in Cairo, in poverty and in danger.  I heard accounts of girls raped and becoming mothers, of friends whose sense of utter hopelessness led to suicide, of those who contemplated leaving Egypt and slipping into the lawless horror that is Libya, and then onto Europe via a rickety boat across the Mediterranean. I heard incredibly able and inspiring people speak of their inability to access education, of feeling trapped, without any prospect of becoming the doctors, teachers, architects and engineers they aspired to be.  I asked them what turned out to be a pretty crass question: “What do you plan to be doing in ten years’ time?” There was a snigger around the room, gallows humour. A lovely young man called Thomas from Eritrea replied, “we can have no plan… but we do have hope.”

Inspired and heartbroken by these young people, we then met a family from Syria and one from Sudan, both containing vulnerable members, and due to be resettled in London. We spent time with them on their British orientation programme.

Numbers on the UK Resettlement Scheme have dropped off since 2020: only 506 people arrived last year. But the UK must now step up in the international community. We cannot match the funding that the US provided, but even taking a few thousand vulnerable people each year will make an enormous difference to these families. Their stories are of persecution, violence and abuse.

In terms of its global commitments, America has just left the room. The ‘soft power’ impact of building trust through being present, supporting local projects and communities, is just as vital as the hard cash.  And despite the ill-judged closure of the Department for International Development under our last government, Britain is still well-respected in terms of influence, diplomacy and aid.

A multi-year quota commitment for the UK resettlement scheme would demonstrate the British government’s intention to stay in the room. We can’t allow the support systems for the world’s most vulnerable people to collapse because Trump chucks his toys out of the pram.

The more the president throws his weight around, the less credibility the US will have in the eyes of other nations. At first people may jump to his tune, but they will soon find a way to work around this erratic behaviour. Countries will start re-building without the US, which will ultimately weaken its position. Instead they will look to allies they can depend on. We know that China and Russia are jostling to fill the vacuum.

Churchill said: “Democracy is a terrible system…but it’s better than all the alternatives!”

The alternatives are despots and dictators who make war on a whim and would readily strip us of our freedoms.  So, flawed as we are in the liberal democratic ‘West’, we are nevertheless the only show in town if we are to prevent the slide to a new dark ages.  A united Europe and an engaged UK have no option.  It’s time to step up and lead the free world.

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

You can understand why a global conservative organisation, soaked in muscular traditionalism and religiosity, would call itself the “ARC”. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship — founded by Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Tory peer Philippa Stroud — is holding its annual conference in London this week, timed ideally for the relative monotony of parliamentary recess. So far, both Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform chief Nigel Farage have addressed delegates — as the competition for cultural clout intensifies on the British right.

For the religious right, the acronym “ARC” [sic] will inspire the image of a safe vessel — mighty and divine — constructed ahead of a civilisational cataclysm. Right-wingers arrive two-by-two — Peterson and Stroud, Badenoch and Farage — to simultaneously protect and practise the principles of their ascendant strand of paranoid conservatism. Despite recent advances — notably by Donald Trump in the United States, the ARC worldview requires its patrons to fear an unrelenting, apocalyptic siege. That provides for the imperative of protection.

Old Testament allusion aside, the word “arc” also refers to the development or resolution of a principal theme, typically in literary or theatrical sense. It is in these terms that Peterson’s conclave this week is best understood. In her address on Monday, Badenoch in particular exhibited her understanding of and appreciation for the ARC narrative. Warning of an imminent societal collapse, she argued that the Conservative Party has acted for centuries as a civilisational bulwark — the frontier legion defending Britain’s political order from encroaching barbarians.

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

This is comfortable territory for Badenoch. Unlike some of her predecessors as Conservative leader, we have no reason to doubt Badenoch’s fervent belief in the worldview she propounds. This was no performance; the Tory leader’s speech demanded no ideological contortion. When it comes to Badenoch’s politics, what you see is what you get. There is no need for finer scrutiny or deep doctrinal analysis. Her influences, modes and motivations are manifest.

Indeed, Badenoch addressed ARC’s inaugural conference last year in its own — and her — terms. There can be no meaningful differentiation. In a sit-down with UnHerd editor-in-chief Freddie Sayers, she told the conference floor that “silly things like pronouns” and considering “people’s skin colour” were distracting the UK from major challenges like the rise of China.

The world has undergone transformational change since Badenoch last addressed ARC activists. But her remarks yesterday were in effect identical.

Badenoch began appropriately. “Western civilisation is in crisis”, she informed nodding delegates. “Our ideas and our culture have dominated the world for well over two centuries. This is not a crisis of values, it’s a crisis of confidence that has set in at exactly the same time that we face existential threats.”

The Conservative leader continued: “We know that the West has given the world amazing ideas and values, from democracy and free markets to our banking systems, yet around us, we see so much cultural and economic decline.

“We doubt ourselves. We doubt our ability to build like our predecessors Did. We doubt liberal values of tolerance or free trade, demanding a post-liberal world.”

She went on to critique “leftwing progressivism” and its various manifestations in Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) practises, climate activism and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). She reserved particular scorn for Keir Starmer, whom she derided for “taking the knee” during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

The prime minister “was cowed by the mob”, Badenoch said. For the Conservative leader, the PM’s bent knee — which no one beyond the Online Right or those who cover it remembers — epitomes the West’s “weakness”.

Then came a warning about mass migration. Badenoch suggested some of those who come to Britain bring “behaviours, cultures and practices” that undermine Western civilisation. She added: “They find common cause with our useful idiots who don’t appreciate their own inheritance.”

Trump came in for praise. The US president, Badenoch said, is “showing that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around when you really know how to fix them.”

For those who have been paying attention to Badenoch’s tenure as Tory leader, these pronouncements will prove no cause for surprise. She has referenced the “take the knee” trope in several sessions of prime minister’s questions. And in a speech late last year at a dinner hosted by the International Democracy Union Forum (another global conservative organisation), she blasted “Progressive Authoritarianism”. To make her point, Badenoch quoted the film The Usual Suspects: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.”

She clarified: “That is the trick that our opponents on the left, whatever you want to call them — communists, socialists, in this country they call them liberal — I don’t know why, there’s nothing liberal about them.”

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

Badenoch’s worldview is unapologetically uncomplicated, steely in its simplicity. On just about every issue — particularly those cultural ones that concern the Online Right — her pronouncements are predictable. Despite advocating the “small target” strategy pursued by Starmer in opposition from 2020-2024, what — after just three months — more is there to learn about Kemi Badenoch and her politics?

The incumbent Conservative leader is doing what Liz Truss did upon leaving office: performing for radical right institutes and conservative “movements”. There is no ostensible strategy. There is no gain to be found in courting Jordan Peterson. Badenoch’s worldview demands ideological maximalism at every possible moment. There can be no room for temperance or concession. This is simply what Badenoch thinks. Therefore she does.

After all, the Tory leader is not policing the border between the mainstream and the online fringe. She is opening the floodgates — one intervention at a time.

That is before we consider Badenoch’s speech yesterday in the context of international developments. The Conservative leader’s consideration of civilisational threats did not include any acknowledgement of the geopolitical ructions the European continent is currently undergoing. The decision to praise US president Donald Trump as “fixing” things — indeed the decision to deliver the speech at all — reflects a distinct lack of strategic awareness.

Starmer will appreciate the dichotomy. As he negotiated with fellow European leaders in Paris over an agreed stance on the future Ukraine, Badenoch took to the stage to denounce “cultural” threats before a mainly American audience.

New YouGov polling released today speaks to the pitfalls of issuing such sweeping statements when the British public — far from enamoured with the current government — could be genuinely considering the Conservative Party’s offer. On the month, the number who hold a negative view of Badenoch has increased from 46 per cent to 51 per cent, while the number with a positive view fell from 22 per cent to 17 per cent.

The Conservative leader’s struggles, it is often commented, have not prompted a wider strategic rethink. Her PMQs style remains maladroitly scattergun; her charm offensive on the Online Right, the cultural space in which the ARC operates, is intensifying.

That, more than anything, should concern those Conservative MPs and activists for whom a sense of “buyer’s remorse” may already be crystallising.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

MPs would get vote on deployment of British troops in Ukraine, minister suggests

Lunchtime soundbite

‘Both question and the answer were unacceptable. It is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary’

—  The lady chief justice, who is the head of the judiciary for England and Wales, tells reporters that she was “deeply troubled” by an exchange between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badnenoch at PMQs last week.

The discussion related to a Gazan family who a court ruled were allowed to stay in the UK under the Ukraine scheme.

Dame Sue Carr said: “I think it started from a question from the Opposition suggesting that the decision in a certain case was wrong, and obviously the prime minister’s response to that…

“Where parties, including the government, disagree with their findings, they should do so through the appellate process.”

Now try this…

‘Russia says talks with US on Ukraine were ‘positive’ after four-hour meeting’
BBC News’ live reporting.

‘Prison system crisis due to overreliance on long sentences, says Gauke review’
Via the Guardian.

‘Here’s what Nigel Farage’s voters really think about UK help for Ukraine’
Politico reports.

On this day in 2024:

Keir Starmer says North Sea oil and gas work will continue for ‘decades to come’ — full speech

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

MPs would get a vote before British troops were sent to Ukraine “if circumstances allow”, a cabinet minister has indicated. 

The prime minister has declared he is prepared to put “our own troops on the ground if necessary” in Ukraine if there is a deal to end the war with Russia. Ahead of an “emergency meeting” of European leaders on Monday, the prime minister said he was “ready and willing” to send British troops as part of a peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Keir Starmer insisted the UK was “ready to play a leading role” in Ukraine’s defence and security.

Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, was asked on Tuesday whether MPs would be given the chance to vote on the deployment of British troops in Ukraine. 

She told Times Radio: “It is my understanding that before any troop deployment, it would be normal, if circumstances allow, for parliament to be consulted.

“But, as I say, I do think that we are some way away from this at the moment.”

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

Alexander was also asked if the armed forces could be deployed for peace-keeping in Ukraine without the backing of other European countries.

The transport secretary responded that any such talks were in the very early stages.

She added: “The prime minister has been clear to date that he sees that partnership with the US as being absolutely essential, that any security guarantee must be worked through both with our European allies and with America.”

The Liberal Democrats have called for a vote in parliament “in principle”, with party leader Ed Davey pledging his support to the government. 

The Lib Dem leader posted to X: “In principle there should be a vote in parliament when troops are deployed. I’m confident all sides of the House are likely to agree with the prime minister apart from those [Donald] Trump bootlickers in Reform.”

Rupert Lowe, the Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, responded by calling on Davey to “grow up”. 

Former prime minister Rishi Sunak is another senior parliamentarian who has committed to voting in favour of troop deployment in Ukraine. Speaking in the House of Commons last week, Sunak said Britain and Europe should consider providing Ukraine with a “military presence across land, air and sea”.

He added: “Can I assure the government that it will have my support if that’s what it decides to do?”

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.

Rishi Sunak: UK and Europe must consider ‘military presence’ in Ukraine

Source: Politics

Sadiq Khan is set to tell European Union (EU) diplomats that “Brexit was a mistake” as he renews calls for closer alignment and a youth mobility scheme.

At a summit hosted by the London mayor and attended by the EU’s Heads of Mission in the UK, Khan will tell delegates that Britain’s withdrawal from the trading bloc “continues to have a negative impact”.

Khan, who campaigned prominently to remain in the EU during the 2016 referendum, will promise to make the case for “being bold” in efforts to seek closer alignment.

Prime minister Keir Starmer has made resetting relations with the EU a priority for his government, but has repeatedly ruled out returning to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement.

In a major speech earlier this month, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister for the constitution and European Union, called for an end to “ideologically driven division” between the EU and the UK and for a new “ruthless pragmatism”.

Speaking in Brussels at the UK-EU forum’s annual conference, Thomas-Symonds said: “It is through a new partnership between the UK and the EU that we will deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and for people across the continent.

“The future of the EU and the UK lies beyond the status quo, reaching forward to deliver benefits for all our people to share.”

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

However, ministers have so far resisted proposals from Brussels for a new scheme allowing under-30s from the bloc to live, work and study in the UK and vice versa. 

Khan is now set to repeat his call for a youth mobility scheme. “As mayor, I’m strongly in favour of a new youth mobility scheme”, he is expected to say on Tuesday.

“This would help to aid economic growth across Europe, but also give young Londoners and EU citizens important life experiences — like the opportunity to work abroad and learn more about our respective languages and cultures.

“As part of this, I’m keen for us to look at how we can make it easier for school children from the EU to visit the UK and learn more about our shared ties and history.”

The London mayor will also insist European allies must come together to tackle a series of “shared challenges” including “the rise of an intolerant and anti-democratic populism” and “tariffs posing a real threat to international affairs.”

Khan will say: “I’m a proud European and of the view that Brexit was a mistake that continues to have a negative impact — not just on my city and country, but on the European community as a whole.”

“I remain passionate about growing and improving our relationship across every area possible, and I believe this is essential if we’re to effectively tackle a host of shared challenges — relating to trade, our economies, security, the environment and the rise of an intolerant and anti-democratic populism.”

He is expected to add: “Indeed, at a moment when we see trade wars and tariffs posing a real threat to international affairs, I’m convinced that we should be looking at what more we can do to strengthen our relationship as a counterweight to these trends.”

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.

Lib Dem MP urges government to back EU youth mobility scheme as part of Brexit reset

Source: Politics