Newspaper Reader offers:
Jan 20, 2026
Editor: The the whole of Europe fears ‘The Trump Monster’! But Eaton spies ‘opportinity’ for Tony Blaire’s feckless political catmite Starmer?
Morning Call: The Greenland crisis is an opportunity for Starmer
Donald Trump’s threats have given the Prime Minister a chance to reset his government.
George Eaton of The New Statesman :Jan 19, 2026
Good morning. The tariffs threatened by Donald Trump against the UK and seven other European countries prompted Keir Starmer’s strongest criticism yet of the president, when he declared them “completely wrong”. But does this mark a true turning point for the “special relationship”? That’s what I explore below.
It was in 2019 that Donald Trump first expressed his desire to acquire Greenland. Dismissed as an absurdity then, this expansionist aim now represents the biggest threat to the postwar Western alliance.
As recently as the start of this year some refused to grasp the full implications of what was unfolding. Kemi Badenoch described Greenland as a “second-order issue”; Peter Mandelson chided European countries for their “histrionics” over the territory. Yet not for the first time it was prudent to take Trump both literally and seriously.
Keir Starmer, who always knew that events could force him into a confrontation with the US president, has no option but to stand with Denmark. Territorial sovereignty and integrity are the reddest of red lines. Would those Maga-aligned conservatives who urge Britain to relent say the same of the Falklands? Trump could yet extend his imperial ambitions to those islands – and their untapped oil reserves – or consent to a takeover attempt by his populist ally Javier Milei (who recently reaffirmed Argentina’s claim).
For reasons of self-interest, as much as internationalism, then, Starmer cannot afford to equivocate on this fundamental point. “Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone,” he declared at his Downing Street press conference this morning (while insisting, in a hostage to fortune, that Trump is not serious about military action). The UK, which already incurs a blanket 10 per cent tariff on most exports to the US and 25 per cent on steel, now faces further economic punishment: an additional 10 per cent rate on 1 February, rising to 25 per cent on 1 June if a deal is not agreed for “the complete and total purchase of Greenland” (though the US Supreme Court and Republican senators may yet come to Europe’s rescue).
Starmer’s remarks today confirmed that his basic approach to America has not changed. He refused to provide the Mark Carney moment that some crave, deriding “commentary and gesture politics that harm the British people”, and unusually citing the UK’s nuclear deterrent – dependent on US-leased missiles and technology – as justification for maintaining a “good relationship”. In contrast to Emmanuel Macron’s talk of a “trade bazooka”, he offered no hint of retaliatory tariffs.
But there are those inside government who believe Starmer should seek to treat this moment as an opportunity rather than a cost. Firstly, as cabinet ministers such as David Lammy and Wes Streeting have long argued, Starmer could pursue a far more ambitious economic reset with Europe, reopening the question of single market and/or customs union membership. Any notion that the UK can thrive as a freewheeling, buccaneering “global Britain” is being destroyed by events – and an increasingly pro-European electorate knows it. As the continent’s collective security is threatened, the possibility exists for a creative, dynamic negotiation in which traditional obstacles such as the return of unqualified free movement are overcome.
Secondly, Starmer could confront the reality that the UK must take greater responsibility for its own defence and level with the public about the end of the “peace dividend”. There is an argument for Rachel Reeves to turn her planned “Spring Forecast” on 3 March into a full fiscal event, recognising that the world has changed and filling the £28bn black hole left by a vow to raise defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. A year ago, when Trump’s tariffs first loomed, Reeves declined to take the advice of Ed Balls and others to deliver a British Zeitenwende and revise her fiscal approach – events may have given her another opportunity to do so.
All of this would lend new purpose to the government at a time when Starmer and Reeves, both enduring record unpopularity, desperately need it. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, said in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. “It’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” That was good advice then and it’s good advice now.
Editor: The Economist under the command of Madame Defarge (Zanny Menton Beddoes) provided some the data provided by ‘More In Common’
How is Britain doing under Keir Starmer?
Last updated on January 15th 2026
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/starmer-tracker
Keir entered Downing Street in July 2024 promising to “stop the chaos” and begin a “decade of national renewal”. He identified a list of government missions that, if achieved, would improve the lot of ordinary people. There are three problems with his approach. First, the targets are too modest. Second, in its first year the government has made very slow progress. Third, Sir Keir’s goals do not have much resonance with voters. The Economist commissioned a survey from More In Common, a polling firm, to find out the kind of metrics that people think would improve their lives and increase their propensity to support the government at the next general election. People told us, for example, that they are more concerned about their own incomes than about GDP, and about lower bills rather than clean energy. And they really dislike potholes.
Our metrics cover eight domains: immigration, income, housing, health, energy, crime, transport and the environment. By normalising every metric on a scale from zero to 100 and taking the average we get an overall government-performance score (read our methodology for further details). It is not a perfect measure—for example, it equates changes in NHS waiting lists with increases in housebuilding—but it serves as a useful gauge which we can track over time. And on this basis, things do not look rosy for Labour. Although the index has risen slightly from its nadir in 2023, the improvement has been painfully slow. Between now and the next general election—which is not expected until spring 2029—we will update the metrics each month to see whether the government is making progress. Explore the eight indicators in detail below.
Editor: Starmer’s ratings look like failure!!!
The Ecomomist offer this seemingly endless set of challendes, problems that Starmer faces!
How is Britain doing under Keir Starmer?
Last updated on January 15th 2026
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/starmer-tracker
Immigration:
Income:
Housing:
Energy:
Health:
Crime:
Environment:
Transport:
The Economist’s resident Madame Defarge, longs for Mrs. Thatcher, though in this itertion the presence of women must be primary!
The Times
Headline: Trump’s Chagos intervention is a major headache for Starmer
Sub-headline: The US president’s comments will make life worse for the prime minister — yet they also indicate weakness on the issue of Greenland
Things have just got much worse for Sir Keir Starmer. Just three days after threatening the UK with up to 25 per cent tariffs for standing up for Greenland’s sovereignty, President Trump has now taken an axe to one of the most sensitive issues in transatlantic diplomacy: the Chagos Islands.
The islands, which host the critically important US/UK base Diego Garcia, are due to be handed to Mauritius. Diego Garcia will then be leased back at a cost of up to £34 billion for the next 100 years.
The deal was always controversial for the government and Trump has now weighed in, describing Starmer’s decision as an “act of GREAT STUPIDITY and total weakness”.
For Starmer, who on Monday went out of his way not to antagonise Trump over Greenland, it is hard to see the president’s latest missive as anything other than an unprovoked and contemptuous diplomatic slapdown.
…
Is Starmer’s approach to Trump working?
by Isabel Hardman
Oh for the halcyon days when foreign policy felt like a bit of escapism for Keir Starmer. Now, the Prime Minister is trying to work out whether he really has got himself into as good a position on the world stage – in particular in his relationship with Donald Trump – as he had previously congratulated himself on.
Today we’ve had stand-offs with the US over both the Chagos Islands and Greenland – and ministers trying to explain what many in parliament believe to be the inexplicable reason why the government has now approved the Chinese ‘super embassy’.
The Chagos case was the first on the agenda this morning, with Donald Trump turning on the Labour government over what he called an ‘act of GREAT STUPIDITY’ and ‘total weakness’ in ceding sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius. Starmer has been so careful to tiptoe around Trump, hoping to avoid any disagreements by distracting the US President with flattery and letters from the King – but this outburst underlines that Trump has not been fully mollified.
Neither has he been placated by the UK’s approach on Greenland, which has led some to question once again whether Starmer should be more like Emmanuel Macron (in rhetoric if not sunglasses) and directly take on Trump in a show of verbal force that the President might respect more. Macron today warned other European leaders not to ‘passively accept the law of the strongest, leading to vassalisation and bloc politics’.
In Davos, telling people to ‘keep cool heads’, is Rachel Reeves. ‘That’s what we did all through last year and it actually served us pretty well,’ she told an event at the World Economic Forum. But has what Starmer and his team achieved in their relationship with Trump really landed them in a better position now?
Their approach might have helped with tariffs last year, and it clearly helped mend bridges after Trump’s meltdown with Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, but that doesn’t mean it will serve the UK – or indeed its other allies – well in the long term. Expect plenty of questions about the approach as well as the current situation at Prime Minister’s Questions tomorrow.
As for what will serve the UK well in the long run, that’s precisely how ministers are trying to present the decision to approve the new Chinese ‘super-embassy’ at the former Royal Mint building near the Tower of London. Security Minister Dan Jarvis had the difficult task of telling MPs about that decision in the Commons today, and he argued that, since the embassy will replace seven different diplomatic sites across London, ‘this consolidation should bring clear security advantages’. Not all MPs were convinced, though Jarvis had plenty of endorsements from intelligence service chiefs to back up his line.
Then there’s parliament’s intelligence and security committee, which has said that ‘on balance we are content that the UK intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns and that ministers had the necessary information on which to base their decision’.
On our latest Coffee House Shots podcast, James Heale asks what the economic return will end up being from this: Starmer has his visit to Beijing later this month, where he will be hoping he can use the improved relationship to boost the UK’s flagging economic growth. The Prime Minister may, though, decide that he’d rather spend more time in the House of Commons where things currently seem comparatively simple.
Editor : One more voice
StephenKMackSD's Blog 