Will no one stand up to Trump?
Martin Shipton
It’s quite extraordinary that when asked about the gangster-like kidnapping of a foreign head of state and his wife on the orders of Donald Trump, Keir Starmer’s response was to say that he needed to find out the facts, and that more information would hopefully come to light at Trump’s press conference later.
These comments alone reveal both the moral vacuum at the heart of Starmer’s approach to politics and the humiliating lack of influence he has over an ally with which the UK supposedly has a “special relationship”.
Contrast what Starmer said with the words of his predecessor as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a man written off by many as not of Prime Ministerial calibre: “The US has launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Venezuela. This is a brazen attempt to secure control over Venezuelan natural resources.
“It is an act of war that puts the lives of millions of people at risk — and should be condemned by anyone who believes in sovereignty and international law.”
It’s also worth recalling the words of Margaret Thatcher, when US troops invaded the small Caribbean country of Grenada in 1983, at a time when her friend Ronald Reagan was President: “We in the Western democracies use our force to defend our way of life. We do not use it to walk into other people’s countries, independent sovereign territories … If you are pronouncing a new law that wherever Communism reigns against the will of the people … there the United States shall enter, then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world.”
Trump has been back in the White House for less than a year, and he is behaving without restraint. Having said there would be no more foreign wars if he was elected, he has authorised military action against a growing number of countries, mainly in the Middle East, but now in Africa and South America too.
In a typically rambling speech delivered at his Florida resort and de facto southern White House Mar–a-Lago, Trump didn’t even bother to deny that one of his aims in deposing Nicolas Maduro and “running the country”, as he indelicately put it, is to seize Venezuela’s oilfields and infrastructure. His justification in doing so is based on the fact that in 1976 the country’s then government decided to nationalise the oil industry – something it had a perfect right to do.
The other justification for overthrowing Maduro was that he is supposedly the head of a massive drugs cartel – according to Trump, the very biggest – which is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. How strange, therefore, that a report produced by a US agency as recently as March 2025 failed to identify Venezuela as a major producer of narcotics.
Trump has certainly inaugurated a new era, and we’re all the worse for it.
The United States has long been known to intervene in the politics of other countries, and to have engaged in regime change. The CIA was involved in the violent overthrow of Chile’s Socialist President Salvador Allende in 1973, for example. He was replaced by the brutal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. But things were done more discreetly in those days, and it took time for proof to emerge. The US did not openly boast about such transgressions.
Monroe Doctrine
Trump operates on a different level. In his Mar-a-Lago speech on Saturday afternoon, he proudly proclaimed the return of the Monroe Doctrine – a foreign policy approach initiated by President James Monroe in 1823 that asserted the United States’ right to control the political development of South America. In fact, Trump went so far as to half-jokingly refer to it as the “Don-roe” Doctrine, renamed after himself.
In that context it’s no surprise that he should be talking about “running” Venezuela until it’s possible to transition to democracy – an empty promise made by many a dictator in the past.
Trump has single-handedly demolished the post-war consensus that – as Churchill put it – “jaw-jaw is better than war-war”.
In his triumphant speech to journalists at Mar-a-Lago, he showed no restraint in asserting his right to do exactly as he pleases from a military point of view. In this he has taken lessons from Benjamin Netanyahu, the war criminal Prime Minister of Israel who also has a licence to behave with impunity.
Starmer’s response was pathetic and shameful. As a human rights lawyer, he’s fully aware that Trump’s behaviour in seizing Maduro and his wife is entirely contrary to international law. Yet he’s not prepared to call it out and acts like a lapdog to Trump. If one were able to have a discreet, private conversation with him, he would probably say that he was acting in the UK’s best interests by holding back and failing to condemn Trump’s behaviour. But if political leaders don’t stand up for what is right, the danger is that international diplomacy will be reduced to the supremacy of the bully. Which will negate the purpose of the international bodies set up as part of that post-war consensus.
Sanctioned
We already have a situation where officials of the International Criminal Court have been sanctioned for daring to uphold the values that underpin the organisation. Trump’s disgraceful and immoral support for Israel has led him to characterise those august bodies who seek to hold the rogue state to account as themselves illegitimate.
Black is now white and white is now black.
Trump’s action in Venezuela undoubtedly compromises the support that Ukraine deserves against Russia. What argument could be deployed against Putin if, perish the thought, he mounted a successful operation to seize President Zelenskyy – as he initially intended? And how could one argue against China invading Taiwan?
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, there were concerns that the balance of power that had largely ensured peace during the Cold War years would be disrupted. It’s taken a few decades for that disruption to come into effect, thanks to the Americans’ decision to elect a madman as their President.
The future of international relations is on a knife-edge – and Europe’s failure to stand together on the moral high ground is making disintegration more and more likely.
Will no one stand up to Trump?
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
The only thing that will bring down Trump literally will be his obsession with a high dose of daily aspirin and the need for thin blood that cannot clot.
Tbf, it looks like Trump is going the same way as Biden… too old to do the job. Mid terms look set to give Trump a trouncing. What matters is how the different Republican factions view this latest move and whether enough of them will be shocked enough to consider voting more towards Democrat lines.
He still has 2 years to continue his reign of evil and give the green light to China. Well, he already gave the green light to Russia and zion in his first term.
Three years – unfortunately.
Sorry, yes 3 years. There was so much in the news regarding mid term elections in the US, I got confused.
Amir – look at history. 1999 American Airlines bought Canadian Airlines International with support from governments of Ontario and Alberta then tried to buy Quebecs Air Canada. There was a plan to repaint all planes as American Airlines / possibly of Canada becoming part of USA. 1 February 1999 American Airlines launched One World Alliance with a focus on members from the Commonwealth. That day Air France flew its’ entire management team to International Air Transport Association HQ in Communist Cuba. 2 February 1999 a meeting was held of airline staff from around the world and no individuals from England,… Read more »
Correct+ True -well done Martin for calling it out….
Clark of the Cinque Ports once again fails as a National Leader, a man who reached the top in the law and justice business yet is a fraud, unable to demonstrate any notion of right and wrong himself…as evidenced repeatedly in all aspects of successful governance over the last eighteen months or HR skills in who he listens to…
Belly up like a lap dog, devoid of basic humanistic principals, betrayed by his own simplicity, lawyers in parliament=morticians working in A&E
The lack of condemnation of Trump’s actions in Venezuela is shocking. The US needs to be sanctioned for its bully boy tactics, not deferred to. The rest of the world needs to stop bending over backwards to trade with the US and turn against them. Otherwise we are all going to be shafted by that abhorrent administration. We can say goodbye to the world as we know it. It’s truly terrifying.
There is realistically only three organisations that can stand up to Trump. The UN but it needs reforming – starting with scrapping the Security Council. The EU, which finally needs to get it’s act together and work together – it’s strong enough as a unit. And, the American Senate. For the Senate to counteract Trump – the American people need to vote for a democrat majority in this year’s midterm elections. The UK, on its own is a lame duck, it needs to rejoin the EU. One thing is for sure, if something is not done, the world is heading… Read more »
Security Council doesn’t need scrapping, just needs the veto diluting.
The EU cannot stand up to trump, the best you’ve got is… Russia… China and Germany. The UN certainly can’t stand up to the US, that’s where most of its funding comes from!
Is this any different to Iraq? The bad guys even have the same moustache.
It is different yes, Maduro is a) still alive, b) probably actually did sign off on the drug shipments.
Iraq, Saddam Hussein was quickly unalived and b) we all knew he didn’t actually have WMDs… toilets sure, but no WMDs.
I remember the US televising their raid on the factory… only for them to come out having found out it was manufacturing toilets. Now in my house using the toilet risks breaching the geneva conventions, but I’m not sure it’s a WMD.
Both had contrived justifications. Both were really about oil. Both reveal the US as a rogue state with no respect for international law. Trump was just a bit less subtle than Dubya.
There have been examples in Africa / Middle East that conflicts draw fighters to the conflict region. So a long conflict that spreads and involves other countries is possible.
Trumps policies show the irrelevancy of global institutions such as the United Nations. If the cluster of organisations based in New York will not influence Trump, then only USA citizens will.
USA citizens will only influence Trump if they see Apple selling less phones, fewer business people / tourists visiting USA, Facebook / LinkedIn / Uber / Coca Colas Costa Coffee etc boycotted.
Kier Starmer is a spineless coward who has not got the guts to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu. All credit to Zac Polanski and Jeremy Corbyn for condemning this act of aggression and theft of Venezuala’s oil.They have also always been on the side of the people of Gaza. I do hope the Zac Polanski’s party do well in the future because they have principles and compassion which is rare in the nasty greedy world of 2026 politics. We badly need a good left wing party!
In fairness to Kier Starmer, he was asked whether it was lawful or not. Kier Starmer is NOT by any stretch a ‘natural politician’, he’s a lawyer at heart… about as close to politics as you’ll get him is ‘Civil Servant’. That’s not to say he can’t do the job, it just doesn’t come naturally to him like it did to say Blair, Cameron or dare I say Bevan. Politically, he should have made the call there and then, but the lawyer in him is extremely wary of judgement calls like that having had a career in Justice and knowing… Read more »
The only reason he’s not doing a Blair or a Cameron is Trump isn’t asking their poodle to legitimise their rampaging this time.
Stop insulting my dog
Under international law, the threshold is much clearer. Kidnapping or forcibly removing a foreign head of state without UN authorisation is unlawful regardless of how unsavoury that leader may be. This is the classic humanitarian intervention versus state sovereignty dilemma. As uncomfortable as it sounds, sovereignty has to prevail. Once powerful states claim the right to impose regime change on moral or security grounds, they set a precedent of becoming the ‘world’s policeman’ in which that others particularly their enemy will immediately copy. Putin justified his invasion of Ukraine on alleged humanitarian grounds too citing neo-Nazi militias. That’s exactly why… Read more »
As pointed out elsewhere: ‘There’s the rub’ – a United States President will not be tied up in knots by the whims of the UN Security Council (where Russia and China has seats). US Presidents have taken like action; look at former United States President Bush who sent in the US military to invade Panama, without UN Security Council authorization, and take into custody the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking against the interests of the US.
2 things here mate. Venezuela was not a rusk to USA security and the USA have broken international law. Period.
Let’s bear in mind the need to bare our souls occasionally.
‘Will no one stand up to Trump?’ Since the UK, and for that matter western Europe in general, has for 80 years opted to rely on the USA as ‘the leader of the free world’, all of us in Europe – and the UK no less than any of the rest of the European nations – are in no easy and immediate position to c**k a snook to the United States of America, given that US voters have elected an administration which has shown itself clearly to be at best indifferent to, and arguably actually hostile to, most of their… Read more »
The people who can stand up to Trump in the first instance are Congress. According to the US constitution, war can only be declared if a vote is taken there as happened with Bush and Iraq. Do we have to wait for the midterms before Representatives and Senators discover a backbone?
FYI: the United States War Powers Resolution of 1973 (War Powers Act) allows a U.S. President to deploy troops for short-term military action, but requires notification to Congress within 48 hours and limits the deployment to 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) without a formal declaration of war.
Trump really does act like a gangster. I think the chance of Trump annexing Greenland at the end of his second term has increased significantly. Venezuela doesn’t really effect European leaders so wouldn’t expect them to take a public stance of disapproval or risk tariffs or worse. Greenland being annexed would mean Denmark leaves Nato, others would likely follow it could be the start of the end of the post second World War II era into whatever comes next. However Europe is so reliant on the U.S. currently perhaps countries would find a way to look the other way again,… Read more »
Europe and the UK are learning, far too late, what dependency really costs. Militarily, European states have become heavily reliant on US capabilities and US defence supply chains, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a brutal stress test of that dependence. Recent tracking suggests Europe has struggled to fully compensate when US support falters, which should concentrate the minds of all European leaders. That’s why Trump’s behaviour matters beyond Venezuela. If a US president can undermine sovereignty to impose regime change and “run” another country, then the so-called rules based order becomes selective and brittle. Furthermore, it’s hard to… Read more »
I would have no problem ignoring the US products on your list, especially since I don’t buy them anyway, and I don’t feel my life is the poorer, quite the opposite. Give me a european film over hollywood any day. My loathing for sport in general , and football in particular, makes this an easy decision of course, so I will be ignoring the world cup anyway, as I have ignored all the world cups since I was born, regardless of who is playing in it .
That’s your choice and your right, the problem is not everyone is going to fall in line.
Either Stamer
Or the King next?
Who will stand up to Trump? Not Starmer obviously! Sickening to be a governed by a cowardly, immoral, complicit piece of animated cardboard.
Trump has given China a green light to invade Taiwan…
Trump wants the Epstein files gone. The ones he has been heavily redacted from. Why would he be redacted from this?
So lets invade a nation to steal the oil.
Confirmation that we have well and truly entered the age of the international hooligan politician. Willing to go to undeclared war against weaker nations, just like his buddy Putin attacking Ukraine. This could become US’s repeat of the Vietnam misadventure and this time the US is not too far away from other Latin American nations who would/could discreetly funnel all sorts of criminal and subversive elements to wreak havoc north of the Rio Grande. China, Russia and others will sit back and enjoy Trump’s discomfort.
Having a moral conscience does not imply having the capacity to perform the role of Prime Minister. Be good to see someone with both
Hands Off Latin America protest, 6pm Monday 5th, Canal Quarter Cardiff.
Correction: the rally will start at Nye Bevan’s statue, Queen Street.
When Cuba falls don’t forget to remind folks that this is all Corbyn’s fault. His lukewarm support for Remain as Labour leader was responsible for Brexit and the resulting collapse in the international rules based order.
Are you trolling?
It’s a serious point that the left-left are responsible for all of this just because Jezza wanted the 70s back.
Are the left left in the room with you now?
Corbyn was center left at most.
The Overton window has lurched right since your era.
That still makes Corbyn center left.
Not when Thatcher’s now a centre right wet.
The ‘rules based order’ has been under strain since the financial crash. The US ruling class sees the world slipping from its grasp as China rises so wants to reassert its dominance over the resources of Latin America. Trump is quite explicit about wanting Venezuela’s oil.
As we have seen over Israel’s genocide and now on Trump’s kidnapping of a head of state, Starmer has no wish to defend international law.
Corbyn campaigned for Remain, as did I, knocking doors night after night and distributing hundreds of leaflets. Did you do the same?
Uh, I wasn’t Leader of The Opposition.
“Corbyn office ‘sabotaged’ EU Remain campaign”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36633238
So you did nothing, just moan, whine and find someone to blame. Pathetic.
The Leader of the Opposition is an absolutely legitimate person to blame. His failure to properly back Remain was easily worth the 4% Leave won by. Which was enough to nudge Trump to victory in 2016. But this is what the left-left do. They keep things bad so they have something to campaign against. It’s the reason we rarely have a left leaning government in Westminster. There is no better bogeyman to moan, whine and blame than the Tories on a protest. And what is life without protest? Next stop for the left-left: get real fascism in power. That’s campaigning… Read more »
If you’d bothered to get out of your bubble in 2016 and talk to people fed up with their lives under austerity, you would have quickly learnt how hard it was to persuade people to vote to remain as they were. Corbyn was right to recognise that simply trumpeting the merits of the EU would never have convinced them. The politics of the so-called ‘centre-left’ have failed. Blair and Brown encouraged the growth of the financial sector that crashed so badly in 2008 that we are still picking up the pieces. It was only the vagaries of FPTP that allowed… Read more »
That was Corbyn’s failure, to allow the debate to rest on the so-called merits of the EU when he should’ve talked about the benefits of it stopping the Tories do their very worst. He couldn’t do this because he wanted the Tories to be freed to do their very worst, just as they could in the 70s when the protesting life was a dream.
You are so full of ignorant prejudice. Stopping the Tories doing their worst is what most of Corbyn’s political life has been about. The ‘centre-left’ has just adopted slightly softened Tory policies.
Do you really think we have nothing better to do this evening than stand in the cold (as people are doing around the world) to protest this act of blatant aggression. Grow up.
The awkward thing about democracy is the need to get people to vote for you. If you proudly state that you’ll never compromise your principles then you are committing to staying out of power and letting the right in, time and again. Imagining that the masses will one day realise their stupidity and agree with you is a dark and twisted fairy tale that hints at a hatred of humanity. The only way to stop the right-right running riot is by building alliances with enough folks that represent people you don’t completely agree with, but can find common ground. And… Read more »
You are blinded by prejudice and hate.
We will be seeking to build as wide an alliance as possible against Trump’s threat to the people of Latin America and to the peace of the world. Join us.
If you had to choose between backing a Starmer-led coalition of the willing, or standing back and allowing a Ref-Con alliance to take control in 2029, which would you pick?
Reform should be stopped from entering government. I doubt Starmer will still be around by 2029.
Maybe not but he may be replaced by another centrist candidate and the question remains. Because the bitter pill to swallow about politics and democracy is that progress can only be made in partnership with folks you may not like. Those who aren’t prepared to compromise their beliefs simply shouldn’t be in politics. It’s always better to deliver half of a ten point plan in power than none of it in opposition. The dominance of the Conservatives over the last two hundred years isn’t because they agree with each other. They are at least two totally different factions who fight… Read more »
Starmer isnt a centerist. He’s further right than Blair and he was Thatchers greatest achievement.
The right-right today can’t see a difference between Thatcher and Corbyn.
And one more thing. Labour was elected under Starmer’s 2024 centralist manifesto. Anyone replacing him should broadly honour that platform. Those hoping for a left-left candidate to take control of government and rip that platform up is hoping for an antidemocratic coup à la Liz Truss.
It’s not May that’s the concern. It’s 2029 when the left-left will help fascism win. Even the leader of the Greens said he’d rather have Reform than Starmer. The fundamental problem is that neoliberalism hasn’t worked because it was never going to work. But communism isn’t the answer, that’s the same extremism flipped on its head. All state no profit is just as bad as all profit no state. The answer is a balance between state and private sector. The Singapore hybrid model that balances free market principles with strong targeted state intervention. The left-left aren’t ready for that conversation… Read more »
You may not be worried about Reform in May. I am. If Farage wins in 2029, Starmer and Reeves will be to blame. How can you blame the ‘left-left’ when it is the current Labour government(s) that are making all the decisions that are encouraging the growth of Reform? Did you read Labour’s 2017 and 2019 manifestoes? They were certainly not proposing communism. By the standards of 1945 or indeed most Labour manifestos until the 1990s, they were quite moderate in their proposals for balancing the private and state sectors. They look extreme only in comparison with the neoliberalism that… Read more »
And Thatcher’s manifesto didn’t propose neoliberalism. People vote on instinct not words in a document. Corbyn was the problem, his was a reputation built over decades.
And I would point out one more thing. 2019 was never going to happen but 2017 might have been different under a different voting system. Unfortunately it was the Labour left that killed that off in 2011. This inate desire to keep the right in power isn’t new.
Corbyn was much more popular even in 2019, after a concerted campaign of vilification, than Starmer is today.
You seem to have no respect for facts. The campaign against AV in 2011 was led by the Labour centre-right. Margaret Beckett was President of NOtoAV; its supporters included David Blunkett.
That’s distorting facts, twice.
2019 was a two horse race between the anyone but Boris folks and the anyone but Corbyn types. 2024 was a four horse race. Using these results from very different races to make a relative popularity assessment is dishonest. What should make a real democrat pay attention is that 37m registered voters didn’t want Corbyn.
And Labour’s official position under Red Ed was neutral. That’s a strange way to support change. If the Labour left had united this would’ve been enough to swing the party officially behind abolishing FPTP.
You seem to be quite paranoid. Ed Miliband was not a supporter of Corbyn. Do you see reds under every bed?
Even more registered voters rejected Starmer in 2024 and far more would now. But no doubt you were happy to see Johnson rather than Corbyn become PM.
What I wanted was to be rid of FPTP in 2011 so this damaging and dangerous choice wasn’t even on the agenda, having been replaced by a new collaborative form of politics that meant Brexit, Boris and Trump never even happened.
But the left-left made sure that didn’t happen.
You have an obsessive belief that the ‘left-left’ should be blamed for everything you dislike, even when there is negligible or no evidence for it. In 2011, the ‘left-left’ was a marginal force in British politics. Even if it had campaigned against AV, it would have made no difference to its rejection by 2/3 of voters. In reality, there has always been a diversity of views on the left over the voting system. Most would now reject FPTP but there is little agreement on what should replace it. Corbyn voted in the HOC in favour of holding the referendum in… Read more »
This isn’t about holding a grudge for past decisions. This is about calling out a pattern of behaviour on the left that will continue to be responsible for avoidable negative consequences. If the UK ends up heading down a dark road in 2029 it will be because of these forces sabotaging attempts to unite against such a move. The fake progressives who use perfect as the enemy of the good to ensure the bad continues. The best outcome is that Zack hoovers up the genuine progressives from the left-left to become a serious but pragmatic force for change in politics,… Read more »
The most divisive force within the labour movement has been the Starmer clique who lied their way to the party leadership with a set of pledges, none of which have been kept, then proceeded to suspend and expel dissidents on fraudulent charges. Corbyn never sought to purge his opponents. Don’t rewrite history by now calling for unity. Starmer has encouraged the growth of Reform by pandering to Farage like he grovels before Trump. From Gaza to Venezuela, international law has been ignored. Reeves has been a disastrous Chancellor. Wales has been treated with contempt. The ‘left left’ is not responsible… Read more »
What kind of progressive defends FPTP.
Very few on the left now would. It’s served its time. Starmer still supports it but he’s no progressive.
Did you vote to abolish FPTP in 2011?
If not do you now acknowledge and regret your small role in enabling Brexit, Boris and Trump which wouldn’t have happened under AV?
If you did, do you acknowledge the damage many of the old guard socialists caused with their Tory enabling over many decades?
And does Zack offer a bright future for a left-left purged of these regressive dinosaurs?
Or is factionalism on the far left inevitable, gifting power to the right for ever more?
The 2011 referendum was not for or against FPTP but specifically on AV which Cameron had insisted on against Clegg’s preference for PR. I voted against what felt like a stitch-up. Only 14% of the electorate voted Yes. The big issue in 2011 was not Brexit but austerity. AV was never a credible option at the time. A footnote to history. Interestingly, some research has suggested that under AV Labour would have won more seats than the Conservatives in 2017. The next three elections following the AV referendum were (outside Scotland) fairly traditional two party contests but the world has… Read more »
And there it is. Champions of perfect as the enemy of the much better than now giving us bad time and again. That’s why the left-left will never stop backing the right.
The ‘left-left’ has never backed the right. We resist in whatever way we can. Electoral reform was never a serious proposition in 2011, just a token gesture from Cameron to keep Clegg on board. There was no public demand for it. The Labour right was much more engaged in defeating AV than was the left, more interested in fighting the austerity that was ruining so many lives. Today, electoral reform is a real and achievable need, which could gain wide public support. The ‘left-left’ will not defend the FPTP status quo, although agreement on its replacement might be harder to… Read more »
Refusing to do whatever it takes to defeat the right enables the right. That shouldn’t need explaining.
The ‘left-left’ will do whatever it takes to defeat the right. It is the right of the Labour Party who are endorsing Farage’s racism and encouraging the rise of right wing populism by economic policies that prioritise the needs of the wealthy.
Do you have any respect for facts?
Yet in 2011 you found yourself on the same side as the Daily Mail supporting a voting system that kept the right in power.
It is your rabid hostility to left politics that belongs in the Daily Mail. In 2016, Remain campaigners found ourselves on the same side as Cameron and Osborne. It happens. There was no clear left-right split in 2011 on AV (which the Electoral Reform Society sees as just watered down FPTP). Right-wing Labour MPs led the campaign against it. In 2011, AV could have consolidated the right-wing Tory-LibDem coalition that was destroying essential services. Brexit was a remote prospect. Many serious political analysts thought FPTP might be a bulwark against far right populism, which had used non-FPTP systems to gain… Read more »
You misunderstand. It’s not left-left politics I’m opposed to, it’s the regressive permaprotesting virtue signalling Tory enablers pretending to be progressives that have no desire to get into power and actually change things. I’m hopeful that Zack can hoover up the real progressives and become a genuinely influential left-left force in politics that leads to real meaningful change. Change that is only possible through coalition. Because the point about AV isn’t that it was a perfect system, it was a better system (the ERS give it two more stars than FPTP) that would have led to permanent coalitions which would’ve… Read more »
And the reason this matters isn’t about picking over the bones of the past. It’s about understanding the future. Until the left-left grasp how they are responsible for where we are, they will blindly repeat the same mistakes to gift power to a Ref-Con alliance in 2029.
The responsibility for where we are now rests with the right-wing Labour MPs who voted with the Tory right to stop the softening of Brexit proposed by Corbyn, and with today’s UK Government for grovelling to Farage and Trump, and putting the interests of big banks and corporations above those of ordinary people.
You have some truly bizarre ideas about the left. Fantasies divorced from evidence. You claim that the left has ‘no desire to get into power and actually change things’. Yet we campaigned hard for Labour victories in 2017 and 2019 that would have made Jeremy Corbyn PM. Would that not have constituted getting into power? Did you campaign for a Labour victory then, or did you prefer to see Theresa May and Boris Johnson in Downing Street? You seem quite obsessed with the 2011 AV referendum which the public has almost entirely forgotten. You insist on blaming the left for… Read more »
I agree that Starmer drinks the kool aid as far as the constitution is concerned and should be busy remaking it as a modern democracy. But what reforms are you demanding? The problem with the 2017 and 2019 elections is left failed to understand that the majority of the 47m voters are small c conservative. The focus was on trying to hoodwink enough of these voters rather than comforting them with a centrist offer. In the chaos of Brexit they came close to doing exactly this in 2017 but the right organised (united again by the fear of socialism) to… Read more »
The worst recent example of championing perfection at the cost of better comes not from the ‘left-left’ but from the right-wing Labour MPs who refused to accept Corbyn’s January 2019 Brexit proposals, including membership of the customs union and alignment with the single market. Their fool’s quest to reverse the people’s vote of 2016 defeated several Parliamentary votes that could have eased our exit. They were directly responsible for Boris Johnson and a hard Brexit.
Which is irrelevant because Brexit wouldn’t have happened under AV.
Your attempts to blame the entire course of global politics rest on the failure of more than 14% of the electorate to vote for AV in 2011 are becoming ever more desperate. I trust you’ve written to Margaret Beckett, who was chair of NOtoAV, to tell her how much responsibility she has for the mess we are in.
It’s a sliding doors moment that altered global history even if you prefer to erase that history. And it’s a perfect example of how the left’s inability to come together to keep the right out lets the right in time and again. Of course the Labour left and the Labour right were both responsible but neither side can blame the other when both were complicit. Prove to me that lessons have been learnt by confirming that, if circumstances came to it, you’d back Starmer to the hilt to keep Reform out in 2029. A simple and unqualified “of course” will… Read more »
You haven’t answered my question. Did you back Corbyn or Johnson in 2019?
I will do what is necessary to stop Reform. I doubt Starmer will still be PM by 2029.
I backed my Labour MP in 2019 to stop Johnson and the Dems in 2017 to stay in the customs union and single market. Both would’ve happened too had Labour not thrown away the opportunity for reform in 2011.
I knocked many doors in 2017. Very few people talked about Brexit. Labour’s promise to respect the referendum result and seek a new partnership was widely acknowledged to be necessary. I certainly never met anyone who wanted to talk about AV.
The challenge on doorsteps was to convince people that there was a viable alternative to austerity. But you seem to be indifferent to the destruction of public services and increased poverty.
Let’s say Labour got behind AV in 2011 and won the argument on the basis of it being the only way to keep the Tory extremists at bay. What would’ve happened in 2015? Three possible outcomes. Either another 5 years of the ConDems, aka restrained Toryism, or a LabLib coalition, or a surprise Labour victory. What wouldn’t have happened is an outright Conservative victory ushering in an era of unconstrained Toryism. So don’t pretend AV isn’t relevant to “the destruction of public services and increased poverty”. All of the scenarios under AV were less worse than what happened. Which begs… Read more »
Correction: not a suprise Labour victory but a surprise Lab-Green coalition if Greens benefited from the small party boost.
Your view of the left is verging on the delirious. A few days ago, someone recommended you lie down. It would be a good idea. Then you can dream your nightmares. When you get up, try reading some history and learn some facts.
Seriously, where do you get this utterly bizarre notion that the left wants a descent into fascism or war. It’s a crazy fantasy.
Nobody has done more than the left to oppose racism and illegal wars. Not just directly but also by seeking to defend the social fabric by opposing closures and cuts to everything from libraries to bus services.
Without austerity there would have been no Brexit. Your beloved Tory-LibDem coalition was responsible. If you want someone to blame for Brexit, start with Nick Clegg.
Imagine your shed catches fire. You rush out with pots of water. Your neighbours pop round with placards and start chanting “down with fire” conveniently leaving their high power hosepipe behind.
Are they just not very bright or are they wanting to be seen as being opposed to the destruction while allowing it to continue in the hope it’ll spread to their house which can get redecorated for free on your insurance.
instead of talking in riddles, why not try evidence and analysis?
Let me help. In that “riddle” the fire is rampant Toryism, the hose is AV and those saying “of course we did everything to oppose Toryism” are those standing around chanting “down with fire” and the neighbour’s planned reburb is remaking a socialist nirvana out of a disaster. I would point out one fly in the ointment for anyone hoping to go down this road. The world is totally different to when past socialist eras emerged from fascism and war in Spain, Germany and the UK. When London is a glowing smouldering wreck and all democratic institutions and bank balances… Read more »
In 2011, we already had rampant Toryism enabled by the LibDems who were the main advocates and likely beneficiaries of AV. No wonder there was little public enthusiasm. The left was not as hostile to AV as the Labour right, but it’s not surprising that they did not want to see the austerity coalition prolonged. The AV hose in 2011 pumped petrol not water. You have a feverish obsession that the left wants to see disaster. Why? All our efforts are devoted to preventing the destruction of our communities and the wider world. The left has been at the forefront… Read more »
Go Zack. Let’s hope he can finally consign the Red Tories, the left-left Tory enablers, to history.
You’ve also evaded my questions about how right-wing Labour MPs collaborated with the Tories in 2019 to ensure a Johnson government and a hard Brexit.
You need to live in the real world, not a fantasy alternative history.
Um, it was the left-left under Corbyn that gave us Johnson and his rock hard Brexit. Let me explain why. Assume the electorate can be pigeonholed equally into five camps. The left-left, the centre-left, the centre, the centre-right and the right-right. To be legitimate any government needs a majority which means three of these five groups need to form a coalition. Under FPTP this rarely means parties formally working together, it means people holding their nose to vote outside their preference. So there are three types of government possible to get a majority: Left-left + centre-left + centre Centre-left +… Read more »
This kind of crude pigeon-holing wouldn’t pass muster as an undergraduate politics essay. The real world is much more complicated. Factors like nationalism cut across a simple left-right divide. Proportions shift over time and as circumstances change. The centre can be hollowed out when it fails to deliver, as is happening today. The number of people who turn out to vote matters. You seem to believe that politics must be all about pandering to the middle ground. Wrong. That was not how Labour won in 1945, not how Corbyn defied expectations in 2017, not how Mamdani won the New York… Read more »
It is the left that will allow in Reform, by splitting the anti-Reform vote in a refusal to accept the political spectrum exists and politics is about coalition building not convincing people their political “religion” is better and others must covert.
It is Starmer who has split the left vote by driving out of Labour socialists who had devoted much time and effort to the party. You can’t kick people then complain if they fight back.
Your assumption that ending FPTP would stop right-wing extremism is historically ignorant. Meloni in Italy heads a coalition elected under proportional representation.
PR was also used to elect the Reichstag in Weimer Germany. It didn’t stop Hitler. Only united working class action could have done so.
Hence the qualification below “unless there’s genuine democratic support for extremes”. Genuine democracy can’t deny populism, it can only raise the bar to needing majority support.
The big difference however between a populist government under FPTP and a coalition cobbled together from a number of smaller parties is the first can do whatever it likes for five years without any safety valve, whereas any one member of a coalition can become uncomfortable with the rounding up and disappearing and decide to collapse the government.
Did you really argue in 2011 that AV would stop Brexit and Johnson?
Yes, coalitions keep extremes like Johnson and Brexit away, unless there’s genuine democratic support for extremes.
Coalitions can also keep right-wing governments in power, as happened with the Tory-LibDem alliance, which in 2011 was conducting a brutal campaign of austerity. This was a key factor in explaining why there was so little enthusiasm for an electoral system that appeared designed to perpetuate that. Very few people were talking about Brexit as a likely outcome at that time.
You can condemn the ConDem government because you disagree with its politics but you can’t deny its democratic legitimacy was far greater than usual. The combined vote share represented 59% of voters. It’s the only UK government in living memory that’s enjoyed majority support. Any genuine democrat should celebrate that even if they didn’t celebrate the governance it produced.
Just for the factual record (although I know you struggle with that) the Public Whip website (which uses Parliamentary votes as its data source) rates Corbyn’s position on the AV referendum as ambiguous leaning slightly towards PR.
In contrast, PW rates Margaret Beckett as strongly against AV. Why are you ignoring the role of right leaning Labour MPs in the referendum? You do seem to have difficulty adjusting your world view to the evidence.
So you are now claiming that in 2011 you predicted Brexit and Boris Johnson as PM if the AV referendum was lost? I don’t believe you. Prove it.
More inevitable extremist right-right outcomes of the sort already seen in the form of Thatcherism.
Not literally foreseeing the future. What a strange suggestion.
In 2011, there was already a right-wing coalition carrying out a brutal austerity worthy of Thatcher. The presence of the LibDems did nothing to restrain that, just give it a democratic veneer. You might want to celebrate that but the many millions of people who suffered it will not. The LibDems were justly punished by the electorate in 2015.
On many criteria, austerity was far more damaging to the British economy that Brexit has been. And without the damage to people’s lives from austerity, the Leave campaign would not have won the referendum.
You have chosen to ignore the evidence of Meloni in Italy. Coalitions do not always keep extremes out of power. Sometimes they enable extremists (such as Geert Wilders in the Netherlands) to obtain government posts.
I will repeat a fact you choose to ignore: Hitler came to power despite elections to the Weimar Reichstag being proportional representation.
This is not to defend FPTP in all contexts. Just to show that history is much more complex than your schoolboy models.
I think you need to have lie down.
Haha the BBC being impartial about Corbyn. Find a more reliable source.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/corbyn-must-resign-inadequate-leader-betrayal
“Corbyn sabotaged Labour’s remain campaign. He must resign” [Guardian]
That’s the best you can do for a “reliable source”? Phil Wilson, the author of that article, started off as a shill for the gambling industry, and was a thorough Blairite; so no, not impartial at all. He got his reward, and is now in the House of Lords. That is the problem with google, it doesn’t encourage you to think; just click away.
Labour’s campaign was a disaster. No-one argues with that. Whether it was deliberate or incompetent leadership doesn’t really matter because the result was Brexit.
Does Corbyn live rent free in that head of yours?
How about showing some humility and contrition about his role in the mess we are in today. He thought he was running a harmless protest club when he was actually the Leader of the Opposition in a unique position to stop the Tories causing domestic and global mayhem. Instead, with your blessing, he helped the Tories make the lives of ordinary working people far worse.
I’d say the right of Labour sabotaging two general elections and Starmers push for second referendum in 2019 got us the mess we have now. Why arent you blaming Cameron for his lack of backbone on calling for the referendum or his lack of campaigning for the remain vote, whilst Prime Minister?
Blaming one politian for the failed remain campaign shows you fail to see the bigger picture.
If you can’t see that Boris’s greatest electoral asset in 2019 was Mr Corbyn then you don’t understand the electorate you seek to govern.
And that’s a trait of the left-left and the right-right, both think they know better than the electorate and will happily subvert democracy if they disagree with the result. Maduro and Trump have that in common.
The main problem with Corbyn, as with many on the “left-left” (did you think that one up all by yourself?) is that they mistakenly assume that the mass of the population are intelligent enough to be open to reasoned arguments. As you clearly demonstrate, they are not.
I find that “far left” causes offense.
What are you talking about? How can you blame an old man in London for a super power causing the fall of a Caribbean island?
Corbyn enabled Brexit which helped nudge Trump 1.0 over the line. The rest is history.
I find it very hard to believe that an old man in an insignificant place like the uk caused all of that. I think there were quite a few other factors involved
Which step are you struggling with?
That the leader of the official opposition could mastermind a lacklustre campaign that let populism edge a narrow win in 2016?
Or that that win could be influential in the US where Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3m?
Or that Donald would still be President today doing what only Donald can do if he’d lost in 2016?
The prime minister at the time Cameron was the one who was leading the Remain campaign. Corbyn attended nearly every rally in favour of Remain. Unlike Cameron. Whose family incidentally had a great deal to lose of we remained a part of the EU. When regularion came in about off shore banking.
Yet you fail to mention Camerons role on ushering in Trymp and every other one of your crazy fantasies.
You highlight the problem with putting a protester in charge of the official opposition. Protesting is for the powerless. It achieves nothing but it’s all those involved can do. Those with power should be using that power to affect change.
Interesting to see UN reaction. Unfortunately no one in Europe will have the balls to stand up against it. Will the senate vote against it? Somehow I doubt it. Its OK for Trump to call other leaders crazy, but forbidden for international leaders to call him although they all know he is a nutcase.
‘Will no one stand up to Trump?’ Realistically, probably not – not in western Europe at any rate. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the former ‘Warsaw Pact’ countries of eastern Europe as fully autonomous nation states which, in reaction to their recent history, quickly applied to join NATO. In consequence the west European members of NATO all to varying degrees eased back on their defence spending because the forty-odd year threat of Russian aggression seemed to be over and done with, and they were confident that the USA, with all its wealth and power,… Read more »
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,“ We appear to have too many leaders who are not strong enough to stand up to a Bully. Are we now heading towards a world where imperialism is making a comeback and countries can take over others ?
Press reporting Trump doesn’t want the opposition leader installed because she accepted the peace prize.
Fragile ego eh. Oil barons are happy though. The ones that donated to trump.
Focus on the men in the grey suits behind all Presidents. What you see with Trump is all Kayfabe.
The last one to stand up to them, got shot in Dallas.
Corbyn and many others can say what they like because there is no comeback. For Starmer to renounce Trump is completely different.
In the absence of any force to enforce ‘International Law’ its up to others and in this case the US to do what the UN (without teeth) couldnt do I.e remove Maduro.
But you support Farage one of Trumps biggest bootlickers
The rest of the world seems to be quiet as well. Is everyone else as scared and spineless as Keir Starmer? Is everyone so scared of bruising the ego of this overgrown schoolyard bully? The UN behaves like a neutered labradoodle. All that is needed are last rites from them. But trump is about to fracture NATO and no other world leaders can offer anything apart from a few choice words here and there? Pathetic and shameful that we have such ineffectual world leaders that nobody can stand up and call out the trump administration for what they are…..the biggest… Read more »