With the world’s military and economic apparatus feeling fragile in Donald Trump’s hands, the Prime Minister is clearly channelling Winston Churchill’s famous wartime slogan. And doing his utmost to avoid sounding anything like the sitcom Dad’s Army character Lance Corporal Jack Jones.
The man’s catchphrase ‘don’t panic’ meant he was wetting himself.
And Trump’s potential terms for ending the Ukraine war do carry ugly echoes of the appeasement policies that emboldened the Nazis to do their worst.
There’s a symbolism in the choice of Munich as the location of this weekend’s security conference, at which the biggest European conflict since World War Two is the top topic.
It was after another get-together in that same city that the then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed he’s secured: ‘Peace for our time.’
Hitler had other ideas. And the fear is that the terms Trump seems to have in mind to end the fighting in Ukraine might trigger a copycat operation by Putin.
Basically, what he’s saying is the Russians can hang on to the territory they’ve snatched. Same as the 1938 offer to the Germans to keep the bit of Czechoslovakia that they’d stolen.
Trump, who’s shown over the years that he rather likes Putin’s strong-arm style, seems ready to believe his promise not to come back for more. Same as Hitler, who did it anyway.
It’s consoling that the word ‘seems’ seems to be cropping up so much in this article. What Trump promises/threatens/demands tends to bear a hugely variable relation to what actually happens.
That clearly is Sir Keir Starmer’s rationale at this stage. Whatever angst/exasperation he might be feeling, he’s trying at all times to sound like a moderate-minded moderator.
But he has at least stuck his neck out to the extent of flatly contradicting Trump’s claim that there’s no way Ukraine will in the future be able to shelter under the protective arm of NATO.
That organisation’s central tenet is that an attack on one is an attack on all. Which is why Ukraine’s so keen to get in. And why Starmer too thinks that as an insurance policy it’s a must.
We await developments.
Meanwhile, Starmer’s also trying to duck and weave his way out of another Yankee-inspired tight spot, this one over the future of the British economy.
After Trump decided to bung a tax on goods exported from abroad to America, a fair few countries have responded with tit-for-tat measures.
To which he in his turn has responded with tit-for-tat-for-tat measures. Suddenly scooping up all nations that put VAT on stuff in the shops.
While we Brits might have been able to swerve the worst of his original onslaught, there’s no getting round the fact that we do charge VAT.
However, the minister responsible for relations with other governments, Pat McFadden, says we won’t ‘overreact’. Instead we’ll ‘wait and see’ whether the tariffs ‘actually come to pass’.
It’s unclear whether that really means keep calm and carry on or don’t panic. Bit of both, probably.
Just as unclear is how much damage any of it will do to our economy. If the first threat is carried out there are fears that our steel industry will cop it.
Not so much because of how much of it we sell Stateside as how the really big exporting countries like China are likely to react.
If they decide to give up on the US of A they may well dump their product on places like Britain. At stupidly cut prices. Leaving our lot in the lurch.
Besides which, if Starmer can’t wheedle his way out of the threatened blanket tariffs, then some experts fear our overall exports could fall by a third.
Which wouldn’t do a lot for what he’s bet his shirt on – growing the economy.
And behind all that is the niggling anxiety that trade wars inevitably fuel international tensions, make everyone poorer, and provoke governments into getting harsher on everyone else.
Countries gave it a go in the nineteen-thirties. And, well, the rest is particularly nasty history.
Against that troubling background the day-to-day political trials and tribulations at Westminster feel like rather small beer.
But they’re going on anyway.
What British punters might make of the current ups and downs of the major parties is anyone’s guess.
Polls tell us that they’ve given an almighty thumbs down to the Labour government that only a few months ago they voted in on a massive majority.
And the Tories hoped that they’d begin consolidating that edge a hundred or so days back when they chose Kemi Badenoch to blow Starmer out of the water for them.
After all she’s a real tooth and claw operator, they decided. Could even start a fight in an empty room if she felt like it.
But what they’re finding out, and not liking one little bit, is that she’s all too good at losing the fights she picks.
Typical case in point, her last weekly joust at Prime Minister’s Question Time. Commentators right across the political spectrum gave her nul points.
The Times led off with: ‘ Six balls, zero wickets. Call it PMQs by right-wing newspaper front page.’
The Independent described her performance as ‘lumbering’, adding: ‘Even Badenoch’s aides know she’s failing.’
And even the Telegraph, nicknamed with good reason The Torygraph, ruefully had to admit that her efforts were ‘pretty woeful’.
The unattributable word seeping back to hacks is: ‘Morale is rock bottom. She’s unpopular and has failed to bring in money.’
This kind of matters, for two reasons.
One, the party’s already had to slash its crucially important headquarters staff by three-quarters. And may even be forced to move out of the building.
And two, the reason why they’re so strapped for cash is a whole bunch of donors have decided to put their money on the Reform Party instead.
All this as Nigel Farage’s insurgent grouping is starting to tie in the polls with Labour, pushing the Conservatives way back into third place.
Surely then, logic dictates that the two parties of the the right at very least form a pact, thus pushing Labour into a cramped little corner?
Nonsense, declares Ms Badenoch. The very idea is: ‘For the birds.’
Calls to mind King Charles the first, who conceded that the MPs he’d stormed into parliament to arrest had got away, with the words: ‘I see the birds have flown.’
Who knows what fate awaits the Tory leader? He, for one, definitely was for the chop.
No need to be brutal on the barnet though. Back in October the Chancellor Rachel Reeves didn’t even have a snip, let alone a chop.
But she did, on her own admission, make a ‘huge, massive mistake’ in pouring a bottle of ginger dye over her hair.
She did, however, revert to her usual brunette look after consulting the guy she describes as her most important adviser – her nine-year-old son.
He obviously gave this a fair bit of thought, very possibly stroked his chin a few times, before reminding her that at school they were taught always to be kind and honest.
‘So if I’m being kind, you look beautiful, he faltered, as his brain argued with itself. ‘But if I’m being honest…’
Suck it up, grownups. Kids know best!
Comments