Schoolboy Starmer is trying to cosy up with the White House cool-kids
'Mr Starmer goes to Washington' sounds like a straight-to-video offering you'd only find in the bargain bin at the Middle Temple Christmas Jumble Sale. Still, here we were; with the least predictable leader in the Western World meeting a Prime Minister who gives the impression that he uses a ruler to measure out his toothpaste.
As Donald emerged from the White House, Starmer looked nervous, in the way that a sea snail might look if its journey across the bottom of the ocean floor were interrupted by an encounter with a Great White. Or in this case, a Great Orange. Trump grabbed his lapel and praised his suit. Over in a Covent Garden penthouse, Lord Alli did a little squeal of delight.
A fireside chat, of sorts, followed. Actually the fire wasn't on and they didn't really chat at all. The PM gave off the air of a nerd trying to cosy up to the school bully. The President's monologues were occasionally punctuated by rather pathetic squeaks of agreement from Starmer. Bizarrely, the topic on which Sir Keir managed to talk most during the entire bilateral was the fate of Andrew Tate and his brother. It's an intellectual stretch to imagine Churchill/Roosevelt, Macmillan/JFK, even Blair and Bush discussing a pair of TikTok sex-pests. Not even just the main Tate brother either; Sir Keir had to mention the secondary one too, both Scrappy and Scooby. He looked more like he was passing a gallstone than comment.
The President began a stream of consciousness about those he did like; Vladimir Putin, the Royal Family, even Starmer's own wife. Not, however, Sir Keir, who he simply reminded people he had met 'multiple times'. By contrast King Charles was 'a beautiful man, a wonderful man'. The press pack stared in silence as Trump ripped open his formal invitation from His Majesty, like a family watching rapt as a four-year old unwraps their presents on Christmas Morning. Trump was enamoured of the monarch's enormous Sharpie-pen signature, which he declared 'very beautiful' before making sure that Sir Keir didn't take it back home with him.
Similarly, Trump was 'very impressed' with Victoria Starmer, whom he described as a 'beautiful, great woman'. There was a momentary sense that because he'd pulled a fittie, Starmer was now allowed to sit on the jock table. But not for long. Even when the subject was his own wife, Sir Keir barely managed a word in edgeways. This was a live action conversational cuckolding.
That said, the most agonising part of the whole affair was probably when the PM did brave a lame attempt to butt into the conversation. 'Whenever necessary we've absolutely backed each other up', insisted Starmer. 'Could you take on Russia by yourselves?' chipped in Trump. Starmer let out a startled giggle – doubtless the Kremlin will be terrified.
It was particularly extraordinary to watch acclaimed Europhile Sir Keir having to genuflect, kiss the ring and nod along gamely as the President slagged off the mysterious organisation he referred to as 'E-YU'. Sir Keir adopted the avowedly metrosexual pose of President Macron, perching daintily on the edge of his seat, legs crossed at the knee. He didn't, however, manage to follow the French President's lead in contradicting Mr Trump. Instead his interludes grew meeker and milder. When the President spoke of the Ukrainian death toll on the Ukrainian frontlines all we heard was 'terrible numbers', from Sir Database from the sideline.
Yet, it wasn't just a humiliation for Sir Keir and his gaggle of useless idiots. There were a few body-blows to the British self-esteem. 'Will you be discussing AUKUS?' asked one reporter. 'What does that mean?' said Trump. Things got worse when the Donald momentarily handed over to JD Vance, who went straight for the jugular by bemoaning 'infringements on free speech' in the UK. 'We've had free speech for a very, very long time' stuttered the PM. ('Had' being the operative word). Vance, ominously, vowed to discuss this further over lunch.
Finally came the body-blow that, rather than save Britain from a self-inflicted moment of idiocy over the Chagos, Trump looked likely to 'agree' with the deal. To call this a 'joint' engagement would be like calling the relationship between Britain and America 'special'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Youngsters could face two-hour social media cap per app in online safety package
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle will announce a new 'package of measures' in a major drive to stop kids wasting their childhoods doomscrolling on social media on their phones Youngsters could have their time on social media capped at two hours per app under online safety measures being considered by ministers. The package could include blocking kids from accessing social media after 10pm and during school hours. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is drawing up plans to stop kids wasting their childhoods doomscrolling on their phones. He told the Mirror his approach "will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online". Talks have focused on curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps in a drive to tackle a spiralling screen time crisis among teens. A two-hour cap per social media app has been suggested to ministers in the talks. Under the measure, kids would be blocked from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, once they have reached the limit. Officials admit this won't solve the problem completely as kids could still rack up screen time across multiple apps but believe it could be a starting point. Mr Kyle and his team have been in discussions with current and past employees of social media firms, who have suggested they'd be prepared to block kids' access at night, during school or after a certain amount of time using an app. No decision has been made on what age bracket could apply. Elsewhere, officials have also looked at raising the legal digital age of consent from 13 to 16. This is the age at which a child may give consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. But insiders believe this is not a silver bullet, as there is little evidence of a huge impact in countries that have introduced the move. Mr Kyle is expected to make a major intervention in the coming months setting out new measures to improve kids' relationship with the online world. The Cabinet minister told the Mirror: "I have been working really hard on a package of measures that will move online safety forwards under this Labour government, and I can't wait to start talking about it when I have the opportunity in the not too distant future. "But I can say right now that my approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online, and that's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline." In April, the regulator Ofcom published a new children's code instructing social media firms to tame toxic algorithms, take faster action on removing harmful content and introduce robust age verification measures. Age checks must be vigorous, with Ofcom recommending online platforms use measures including photo ID matching and facial recognition estimation to ensure below-aged kids can't create accounts on their sites. This should also mean online sites have better access to a user's age if they were asked to impose measures such as curfews on younger people. If tech giants don't stick to Ofcom's new rules from next month(JULY), they could be fined up to 10% of global revenue or, in the worst cases, have access to their platforms banned in the UK. In April, Mr Kyle celebrated the "first step" in the journey to improving kids' safety but admitted the UK's online safety laws are "lopsided" and more action is needed. He has since been taking a step back to think about how the addictive nature of phones and social media is "disrupting the childhood experience". Parents have been crying out for action to help their kids curb the amount of time spent behind their phone screens. A major report released by Ofcom last year(2024) found almost half (49%) of parents of teens aged 16-17 said they were concerned about their children's screen time. But it also found young people are similarly worried. Just over a third (35%) of eight to 17 year olds said their own screen time is too high, which rose to 44% among those aged 16 to 17. Keir Starmer has faced calls to prioritise online safety amid concerning levels of suicide, self-harm, anxiety and depression linked to social media use among teens. Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful posts online, has called for the Government to make tackling online harms its legacy. "What is needed is for the Prime Minister to champion online safety," he told The Mirror in April. "The lead has to come from Keir himself. There's never really been a Prime Minister who's championed online safety and it's time there was." A major report released by Ofcom last year(2024) found almost half (49%) of parents of teens aged 16-17 said they were concerned about their children's screen time.
Daily Mirror
6 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
'Donald Trump's attack dog Marjorie Taylor Greene is furious - with herself'
Moronic Marjorie Taylor Greene is furious - with herself. After voting for her idol Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill, she took to X in a blaze of indignation… because, oops, she didn't read it. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279,' she wrote, as if a 400-page bill was supposed to come with footnotes, emojis, and a TikTok explainer. According to Greene, the part she missed - you know, the one that blocks states from regulating AI for 10 years - is a total dealbreaker. It's the political version of signing a mortgage without noticing your house is underwater. A wild video out of Vancouver, Washington, showed a drunken DoorDash delivery driver throwing hands with a grandfather - all because he allegedly didn't get a tip. Customer Anthony Volino says the man showed up at his home, banged on the door, and demanded money for a grocery order delivered the night before. To add to the insanity, the now ex-DoorDash employee had a gun. In a groundbreaking and honestly eye-watering procedure, surgeons in Maryland removed a spinal tumour through a 19-year-old's eye socket. Karla Flores thought her double vision was a learner-driver problem. Instead, there was a rare jelly-like bump behind her left eye. The successful surgery, a medical first, opens doors for complex tumour removal. Officials near the Canadian border were left swatting for their lives after honeybees made a break for it when a truck flipped over in Washington state. The cargo? Roughly 70,000 pounds of the insects and their hives. Locals were advised to avoid the area unless they were wearing a beekeeper suit or had a death wish involving pollen. Chaos took flight aboard a Delta flight from Minnesota to Wisconsin after not one, but two pigeons started flying around the cabin like it was their personal loft. Passengers preparing for takeoff suddenly found themselves in a live-action remake of The Birds. One flier, Tom Caw, said the first pigeon made its move before the wheels even left the ground. No word yet on whether the pigeons reached their destination or just wanted the free snacks. Police in Independence, Ohio, say a man accidentally shot himself in the leg while trying to show off a handgun to his brother-in-law, whom he was attempting to sell it to. Both men were legally allowed to own firearms, but apparently not legally required to think things through. The man was taken to the hospital and later cited for illegally discharging a weapon. It's safe to say that the sale did not go through, and his street cred and leg took a direct hit.
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
