Keir Starmer says he understands what ‘anchors' Donald Trump
He said: 'We are different people and we've got different political backgrounds and leanings, but we do have a good relationship and that comes from a numbers of places.
'I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about.
'For both of us, we really care about family and there's a point of connection there.'
Sir Keir said in the interview to mark a year in office he has a 'good personal relationship' with Mr Trump, and revealed the first time they spoke was after the then-presidential candidate was shot at a campaign rally in July last year.
He said Mr Trump had returned the phone call a few days after the Prime Minister's brother Nick had died on Boxing Day.
Sir Keir said he secretly visited his 60-year-old brother before and after the general election during his cancer treatment.
He said: 'It's really hard to lose your brother to cancer. I wanted fiercely to protect him.
'And that's why both before the election and after the election, I went secretly to see him at home, secretly to see him in hospital.
'He was in intensive care for a long time.'
Addressing recent political turmoil, Sir Keir said he will always 'carry the can' as leader after coming under fire over a climbdown on welfare reforms and that he would 'always take responsibility' when asked questions.
'When things go well… the leader gets the plaudits, but when things don't go well, it is really important that the leader carries the can – and that's what I will always do.'
Sir Keir also backed Rachel Reeves and said she would be Chancellor 'for a very long time to come', after the politician was visibly tearful in the House of Commons on Wednesday following a U-turn to welfare reform plans that put an almost £5 billion black hole in her plans.
"It was a personal matter."
Sir Keir Starmer has told @bbcnickrobinson that Rachel Reeves' tears at PMQs had "nothing to do with politics".
The prime minister has backed Rachel Reeves to remain as chancellor in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking.#R4Today
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) July 3, 2025
Ms Reeves said it was a 'personal matter' which had upset her ahead of Prime Minister's Questions.
The Government had seen off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment, the main disability benefit in England.
Sir Keir said he cannot 'pretend… that wasn't a tough day', and stressed the welfare system 'isn't working for the people that matter to me'.
'In the world that isn't politics, it is commonplace for people to look again at a situation and judge it by the circumstances as they now are and make a decision accordingly,' he said of the changes.
'And that is common sense, it's pragmatic, and it's a reflection of who I am.
'It was important that we took our party with us, that we got it right.
'And Labour politicians come into public life because they care deeply about these issues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Is Israel on the brink of a golden age?
Benjamin Netanyahu was in favour. So, too, was Ehud Barak, his defence minister at the time in 2011. But Israel's top generals and intelligence chiefs were aghast. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, they feared, could result in tens of thousands of Israeli civilian deaths. Months after retiring as Mossad chief that year, Meir Dagan – one of Israel's most revered spymasters – even went as far as to call the idea 'the stupidest I've ever heard'. Yet 14 years later, despite widespread opposition at home and abroad, Mr Netanyahu's boldest gamble appears to have paid off. In just 12 days, he humbled Iran at a cost much lower than even Israel's most optimistic military planners would have dared hope. When he walks into the White House on Monday, the Israeli prime minister's meeting with Donald Trump will therefore have the feel of a Roman triumph. Both men will portray their battlefield success as vindication over the wishy-washiness of their critics. But they are also thinking beyond victory laps. Mr Trump hopes to burnish his peacemaking credentials by brokering another ceasefire in Gaza. His guest will aim higher still, arguing that he has helped birth a new regional order – one that could mark the dawn of a golden era for Israel. Since the horrors of Oct 7 2023, Israel has made a Herculean effort to sever the limbs of the Iranian Hydra – Hamas and Hezbollah – before going for the head itself as it launched its first direct war with a foreign state since 1973. Mr Netanyahu now believes a legacy-defining peace dividend is within reach: new alliances with Arab states, containment of Iran and the isolation – perhaps even the marginalisation – of the Palestinians. Several Arab states are seriously considering the Abraham Accords, says Gen Yossi Kuperwasser, former director-general of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, referring to the 2020 deal that normalised relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan. 'There is a golden opportunity,' he said. 'Iran is weakened. The Iranian threat feared by many countries in the Middle East is much decreased. We are even talking about countries like Syria and Lebanon hopefully joining the Abraham Accords. Who would ever have dreamed that?' But while Mr Netanyahu may have won the war, there is scepticism over whether he is the man to win the peace. Much depends on whether he can reverse Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum and pursue diplomacy 'as the continuation of war by other means', says Col Eran Lerman, a former deputy national security adviser. That Mr Netanyahu is even in a position to consider reshaping the Middle East would once have seemed miraculous. In 2010 and again in 2012, as he edged towards war with Iran, senior military and intelligence officials were so anxious they took to privately briefing The Telegraph and other Western media on the risks. Iran's Lebanese proxy Hezbollah had amassed such a vast missile arsenal they estimated retaliatory strikes could kill up to 50,000 people. Entire neighbourhoods of Tel Aviv would be reduced to rubble. The political cost – a possible rupture with Barack Obama, then US president – was also deemed too great. In hindsight, Israel may have overestimated the potency of Iran's proxies. By 2024, Israeli missile defences and battlefield intelligence had dramatically improved, allowing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to defeat Hezbollah in eight weeks last year and Iran itself in under a fortnight. But this was not simply a 12-day campaign of air strikes and covert hits. It was the culmination of 46 years of hostility, dating back to 1979, when Israel made peace with Egypt, formerly its greatest foe, and lost Iran – once its closest regional ally – to revolution. From the outset, the Islamic Republic waged an undeclared war on Israel, pledging its destruction and founding Hezbollah to fight Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. But for years Israeli strategists focused more on Palestinian militants than the Iranian threat – so much so that during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Israel secretly sold arms to Tehran through the Iran-Contra Affair. After the first Lebanon war, Israel redoubled its efforts to penetrate Hezbollah. But in 2006, when Israeli troops re-entered southern Lebanon, the results were sobering. The 34-day war ended in stalemate. Gen Assaf Orion, the IDF's former head of strategic planning, calls it 'not the brightest campaign we've run'. Few understood that better than Gen Mickey Edelstein, then commander of the Nahal Brigade, who recalls how unprepared his troops were. Accustomed to small operations against Palestinian groups, they struggled with full-scale warfare. Tactical goals were vague. Air support was inconsistent. Orders were sometimes contradictory. 'My brigade was shifted between three different divisions over the war,' he recalled. 'We would go into Lebanon, be pulled back into Israel and sent out again with a different division. A lot of mistakes were made.' After the war, senior commanders privately acknowledged failures in planning, command and intelligence – and lessons were learnt. Soldiers were retrained for major warfare. When Gen Edelstein returned to battle in Gaza in 2014, the forces he led were significantly more capable. Intelligence also underwent wholesale reform, said Col Lerman. 'Intelligence in 2006 was clearly insufficient for the conduct of successful operations. After the war, there was serious self-questioning about how well intelligence was collected and how well it was distributed to forces on the ground.' Amos Yadlin, then head of military intelligence, led sweeping changes that continue to shape Israeli warfare. From 2006 on, Israel grasped the full extent of the Iran-Hezbollah nexus. Of the 121 Israeli soldiers killed in 2006, many died from Iranian-made weapons – some fired by Iranian troops embedded with Hezbollah, according to Israeli officials. In the following years, Iran poured resources into Hezbollah, providing cash, training and ever more sophisticated rockets, missiles and drones. The goal was clear: build a deterrent so fearsome it would stop Israel from ever striking Iran's nuclear programme. But that scale became a vulnerability. 'From a nimble guerrilla organisation, it became an established army, requiring greater management,' said Gen Orion. 'And with that came the exposures and weaknesses of larger organisations.' Israeli intelligence infiltrated Hezbollah deeply. It even sold the group the explosive-laden pagers and walkie-talkies that maimed thousands of Hezbollah operatives over two days last September. Most of Hezbollah's senior leadership, including its overall commander Hassan Nasrallah, was also assassinated thanks to what Col Lerman describes as a 'deeply penetrating, co-ordinated effort stretching back decades'. It wasn't just personnel. Israeli planners had mapped Hezbollah and Iranian missile sites with such precision that they destroyed most launch capabilities before the first volleys were fired. As a result, Israel was able to strike Iran, kill much of its leadership and damage its nuclear programme – and face far more muted retaliation than once feared. Although 28 Israelis were killed and 15,000 lost their homes, neither Hezbollah nor Hamas launched a single rocket in Iran's defence. 'Really the most dramatic aspect of all this is that the organisation exclusively built for one purpose – to punish Israel horrendously if it dared attack Iran – did not fire a single shot during 12 days of war,' said Col Lerman. How should Israel use its dominance? Israel has therefore emerged as the dominant military force in the region, with Mr Netanyahu's allies believing they can dictate a new dispensation for the region. Yet how the Israeli prime minister uses that dominance is now a central question. Since a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah in November, Israel has killed some 300 members of its fighters in targeted strikes – reportedly with the tacit consent of parts of the Lebanese government, which may now be looking to disarm the group entirely. Covert action in Iran is also expected to continue. Military action beyond Israel's borders aside, however, what kind of future Mr Netanyahu envisions is up for debate. There are three possible paths, says Eran Etzion, a former deputy head of Israel's National Security Council and a critic of Mr Netanyahu. One is to 'live by the sword', fighting a 'forever war', a view, he said, preferred by elements on the Right of Mr Netanyahu's coalition, who argue Israel will never be accepted in the region. Another is 'conflict management' – continuing low-intensity fighting with Hamas, expanding West Bank settlements and perhaps trying to remove Palestinians from Gaza even while seeking friendship with Arab states. 'It's a vision of perpetual war with the Palestinians while striking normalisation agreements with other Arab countries,' says Mr Etzion, who believes this is the strategy Mr Netanyahu is most likely to adopt. 'Peace is off the table' The third option – long-term peace-building – is, in Mr Etzion's view, off the table under the present government. Critics warn that Mr Netanyahu's vision of victory risks being both fragile and short-lived if it depends solely on violence. The idea that Israel can indefinitely deter aggression without addressing Palestinian aspirations may prove illusory. Saudi Arabia, the biggest prize of all, insists that any Abraham Accords-style agreement requires progress towards a two-state solution. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is thought to be eager for a deal, but without movement on a Palestinian state, his hands may be tied by public opinion, inflamed by the devastation inflicted on Gaza. Lebanon and Syria may also see advantage in rapprochement with Israel. But public sentiment remains volatile in both countries, too. Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria's new president, appears conducive to the idea of better ties, particularly as he seeks to rebuild relations with the West. But many members of his group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), are deeply hostile to Israel. A splinter faction recently claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in a Damascus church that killed 25 people last month. Mr Sharaa may fear pushing his hardliners too far. Israel, for all its strengths, may overreach. It is 'still numerically and materially inferior to the sum of all its potential enemies', said Gen Orion. 'Which is why it must retain its qualitative military edge and creative diplomacy.' Meanwhile, unless a robust diplomatic agreement emerges, Iran is likely to attempt to rebuild the triad of threats that once made it so formidable: its nuclear programme, ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxy network. 'The regional landscape is shifting dramatically,' said Shai Agmon, a fellow at New College, Oxford and academic director of Molad, a liberal Israeli think tank. 'Israel can reshape it to serve its own security interests and create a thriving regional order – or it can squander it. 'Israel is the strongest force around for now. But in the absence of a stable diplomatic resolution, Iran and its proxies will regroup and try to escalate the situation again. 'And unless the government is willing to consider a path towards regional peace – which necessarily entails some form of two-state solution, an idea it has so far refused even to entertain – it is hard to see how lasting stability will be achieved.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Big pay days and top of the polls: Nigel Farage's first year as an MP
Nigel Farage has had one of the best years of his political career after voters finally elected him to parliament at the eighth time of asking. He is odds on to be the UK's next prime minister, vying with Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting, with Kemi Badenoch trailing behind. Here are the key facts and numbers behind his first year in the House of Commons. Farage has been flying high in the polls, leading the pack in terms of popularity and outstripping Keir Starmer in some areas – although opinion is still divided. One achievement, aided by Starmer, is that the public is now more likely to see Farage as the main opposition rather than Badenoch, according to the pollster Ipsos. Although many people have no confidence in any party, the pollster found they are more likely to be confident in Reform UK (37%) compared with Labour (32%). Just a quarter (24%) chose the Conservatives. Farage has taken a relaxed view to being present in the House of Commons, telling a press conference this month that his vote doesn't make any difference much of the time. 'We are stuck in a very funny parliament. Occasionally you'll get a vote like on assisted dying. Everything else the government wins by 180 to 200,' he said, when quizzed on why he was absent for the debate on decriminalising late-term abortion. He has voted about 95 times over the course of the year out of about 250 divisions – a similar record to Badenoch, the Conservative party leader, but less than the Lib Dem leader, Ed Davey, or the Green party leaders Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer (who had one of the highest voting records at 209). Data compiled by campaign group Hope Not Hate found that Farage had also spoken less in parliament than other comparable party leaders – just 45 times, against 226 for Badenoch (who has more opportunities as leader of the opposition), 97 for Davey and 182 and 86 respectively for Denyer and Ramsay. Farage is one of the most vocal and prominent party leaders on broadcast channels. He recorded dozens of episodes of his midweek 7pm GB News show and had prime time appearances on Question Time, Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, ITV This Morning and ITV's Peston. One of the main ways in which Farage has outstripped the other party leaders is on social media. He has 2.2 million followers on X – more than the prime minister who has 1.9 million. On TikTok he has 1.3 million followers, reaching a younger audience, whereas few other politicians even have accounts – partly for security reasons. Farage is the highest paid MP of this parliament by a long way. He earned at least £970,000 from outside employment ranging from speeches to bringing in £280,000 as brand ambassador for a gold company. In April, he got a 10th job, making £25,000 (AU$52,000) as a commentator for the Rupert Murdoch-backed Sky News Australia, with the MP telling the channel that Britain was 'going downhill'. The portfolio of gigs on top of his role as an MP also includes a £4,000-a-month column for the Daily Telegraph and presenting for GB News, which has paid him more than £330,000 since July. Farage has made at least nine trips abroad, including eight to the US, since he was elected MP for Clacton in Essex last July, with many of them either funded by donors or undertaken for paid employment such as speeches. These include fundraisers for Donald Trump and the Republican party, celebrating Trump's inauguration, and a visit to meet Elon Musk – which preceded the fall out between the pair over Farage's decision to distance Reform from far-right agitator Tommy Robinson. Domestically, he has found time for trips to Ascot and Cheltenham to watch horse racing while the Commons was sitting. And he also took a week-long break in May to an unknown location during parliament term time. Farage has embedded himself quickly as MP for Clacton and is there many Fridays doing events. However, he has said he is not doing surgeries for safety reasons – although he had to backtrack on a claim that he was advised not to by parliamentary security advisers. He has also not been turning up to the Clacton town board despite being invited. A Clacton Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage claimed he cared – that he'd put Clacton on the map. Yet while we face real challenges here, he's been jetting off around the world, leaving our voices unheard. He's here so little, he probably needs that map.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk faces glaring hurdle as he forms new America Party after Trump feud
Elon Musk could be facing a major challenge as he works to launch his new 'America Party'. The former 'First Buddy' announced the foundation of the new party on his X social media platform on Saturday. However, there currently exists a bureaucratic obstacle to Musk getting the new movement off the ground: the Federal Elections Commission. The FEC states that 'new party organizations must register with the FEC when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election.' So far, it appears no such registration has been made by Musk, as The New York Times reported the Tesla CEO's game plan to this point has been 'more conceptual than pragmatic.' Even if he had, however, there may be no potential approval coming from the FEC in the near future by design. The agency is meant to be run by six commissioners, appointed by the sitting president. Right now, there are three empty seats on the FEC, not enough to form what's known as a quorum necessary for governing. Three commissioners have stepped down since the president began his second term in January, leaving it essentially defunct until Trump makes those appointments. Trump has yet to name any potential nominees and the White House has yet to address Musk's intention to form a new party. has approached the White House for comment. Democrat Ann Ravel, who served on the FEC from 2013 to 2017, believes Trump may already want to leave it in shutdown mode for his own motivations. 'Clearly, there is no doubt that President Trump wants to purposely leave the FEC without a quorum,' she claimed to Open Secrets. The America Party's founding came after Musk created an online poll on July 4 asking his followers whether to establish the new party. The results came back 65.4 percent in favor, leading Musk to make the announcement. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk wrote. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Musk had been elevated to a prestigious role within the White House acting as a special advisor to the president and overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency. But in recent months a rift has emerged and the two former friends have been embroiled in embarrassing public spats played out over social media. Many had predicted that Trump and Musk's rosy bromance wouldn't last long and some pointed to betting markets on when they would turn on each other. Betters heavily favored a fallout before July 1, 2025, less than six months after Musk joined Trump's administration as a special advisor. In just a matter of months Musk went from spending $288 million for Trump's election campaign, to slinging insults about him online. The bust up occurred after Musk stepped down from DOGE over Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' which ends tax breaks for electric vehicles, which are Tesla CEO Musk's passion project. Musk also argued that the bill undercut DOGE's cost-cutting efforts by increasing the deficit. The rift deepened after the president rescinded his nomination offer to Musk-ally Jared Isaacman for NASA administrator over donations he made to the Democrats. Since then Trump and Musk have engaged in public mudslinging against each other. Musk accused the president of ingratitude and claimed he would have lost the election without him, while Trump branded him 'crazy '. Since their public break-up, Musk has threatened to start a new, third political party and buttress the reelection campaign of Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the no votes on Trump's big bill. Trump recently outed himself as the person who leaked details about Musk's alleged drug use, according to author Michael Wolff, who penned the eye-popping book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. The New York Times reported that during the 2024 presidential campaign, the billionaire used so much ketamine he was having bladder problems and also used Ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and what appeared to be Adderall.
