You paint a grim and terrifying picture of the four years ahead, and I find it hard to disagree with any of your dark prognostications. And yet, and yet . . . could we not allow a scintilla of sympathy for our beleaguered government? Could we not see David Lammy's words, not as craven and subservient capitulation to a newly crowned tyrant, but just realpolitik through grimly gritted teeth? Robust statements of moral principles are satisfying to make, but if they incur the tyrant's vengeance, with subsequent swingeing trade tariffs and economic pain, would the government not incur shrill criticism from every quarter? Obsequious flattery, however distasteful, is a known method of managing a monster ego that wields enormous power.
That's certainly an argument worth considering Jennifer, but I have little sympathy with a government that appears to have no red lines it won't cross, and no principles that it won't abandon, and which seems to think that flattery will assuage an administration that loathes the very idea of a Labour government. Today Labour refused to even criticize Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the WHO - effectively refusing to defend the international agreements it signed up to. Even von der Leyen criticized these decisions. The Spanish Socialists are also beleaguered, but they haven't grovelled the way that Lammy has - two ministers have withdrawn from X in protest at Musk's destruction of the platform. The problem with Labour is not just that it's beleaguered - it's increasingly weak and isolated. It's not in the European Union, and appears to be pinning everything on the prospect of a US-UK trade agreement in which it will be the weaker negotiator, with only the overrated charm of Mandelson as its chief political instrument.
This doesn't bode well. I recognize that diplomacy imposes different strategies, but when facing a dangerous administration like this, something more than obsequious flattery is required and I suspect that the Trumpies will recognize its inauthenticity and smell weakness.
You make telling points about the WHO and the Paris Accord (I didn't know about that failure to criticize when I wrote), and it is very true that bullies smell weakness and exploit it accordingly. Brexit chickens coming home to roost with a vengeance.
There’s too many rewards to be had to play on the far-right.
Give a person power and they will show you what they are - those who aspire to it and support it are greedy, craven and willing to torch whatever reputation they had.
You paint a grim and terrifying picture of the four years ahead, and I find it hard to disagree with any of your dark prognostications. And yet, and yet . . . could we not allow a scintilla of sympathy for our beleaguered government? Could we not see David Lammy's words, not as craven and subservient capitulation to a newly crowned tyrant, but just realpolitik through grimly gritted teeth? Robust statements of moral principles are satisfying to make, but if they incur the tyrant's vengeance, with subsequent swingeing trade tariffs and economic pain, would the government not incur shrill criticism from every quarter? Obsequious flattery, however distasteful, is a known method of managing a monster ego that wields enormous power.
That's certainly an argument worth considering Jennifer, but I have little sympathy with a government that appears to have no red lines it won't cross, and no principles that it won't abandon, and which seems to think that flattery will assuage an administration that loathes the very idea of a Labour government. Today Labour refused to even criticize Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the WHO - effectively refusing to defend the international agreements it signed up to. Even von der Leyen criticized these decisions. The Spanish Socialists are also beleaguered, but they haven't grovelled the way that Lammy has - two ministers have withdrawn from X in protest at Musk's destruction of the platform. The problem with Labour is not just that it's beleaguered - it's increasingly weak and isolated. It's not in the European Union, and appears to be pinning everything on the prospect of a US-UK trade agreement in which it will be the weaker negotiator, with only the overrated charm of Mandelson as its chief political instrument.
This doesn't bode well. I recognize that diplomacy imposes different strategies, but when facing a dangerous administration like this, something more than obsequious flattery is required and I suspect that the Trumpies will recognize its inauthenticity and smell weakness.
You make telling points about the WHO and the Paris Accord (I didn't know about that failure to criticize when I wrote), and it is very true that bullies smell weakness and exploit it accordingly. Brexit chickens coming home to roost with a vengeance.
There’s too many rewards to be had to play on the far-right.
Give a person power and they will show you what they are - those who aspire to it and support it are greedy, craven and willing to torch whatever reputation they had.