How to bring peace to Ukraine? Let Prince Andrew roam Mar-a-Lago like a peacock
'Russia doesn't hold all the cards,' said Keir Starmer – for Europe still has a couple of jokers to play. One is Emmanuel Macron, in Washington to try to persuade Trump that Putin is, on balance, the bad guy. He brought along his wife, Brigitte, though if he thinks she'll help change Donald's mind, he's mistaken. The president doesn't go for older women.
The other wild card – or very boring card – is Starmer, who imagines himself as a latter-day Churchill and courageously, historically joined a summit in Kyiv via Zoom.
He was introduced to the audience as 'Keira Starmera', and stared awkwardly at the camera for 10 seconds, like Orson Welles waiting for a cue. 'Colleagues,' he eventually said – his way with language is extraordinary – Britain stands with Ukraine and will be raising the pressure on Russia! This means new sanctions on mink hats and, in lieu of an Army, we'll be tooling up Princess Anne and dropping her in by parachute.
An aid package of 10,000 Paddington Bears – second-hand, we're not made of money – is also on its way.
Many a failed PM has tried to rejuvenate their leadership with an adventurous foreign policy, and Starmer apparently believes America going Awol gives Europe a chance to rearm – led by Britannia. It's a worthy cause. But can we afford it?
The question didn't come up during a low-turnout Commons statement that Reform declined even to attend (I turned on GB News to find out why but there were 'technical difficulties': a test card of Sam Fox in a thong to the tune of Spanish Flea).
Des Swayne, God bless him, asked David Lammy if he would now refute his refutation of his earlier remarks refuting Trump as a 'tyrant'. 'This is a serious matter,' replied Lammy, speaking in a soft voice to prove it. The graver the situation, the closer it comes to a whisper.
The consensus among MPs is that first Putin will come for Ukraine, and then for us – fulfilling Russia's historic ambition of occupying Surrey. Developments were reported to the House as they happened. The US had sided with Putin in a United Nations vote, which was disgusting… An alert told me Boris Johnson had called for defence spending to rise to 3 per cent, which was an important intervention by a political heavyweight (no doubt he was in a rubber ring in a paddling pool when he made it).
Meanwhile, in the land of the free and very fat, the press conference, at which Macron would pretend to take Trump seriously and Trump would pretend to listen, was delayed. They were hammering out the finer details of where Ukraine actually is and, if they don't like the Russians, why don't they just move?
The Macrons and Trumps reportedly get on well. Melania and Emmanuel, I hear, share a taste in hats. Europe's greatest weapons when it comes to America are surely our charm and our history, and we ought to deploy them better. Trump only talks to Britain because he loves the royals, so why not buy his support on Ukraine by selling him one? Prince Andrew is available. Let him roam free in the grounds of Mar-a-Lago for photographs, like a peacock on the lawn.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Not a shot that's been fired across SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile
It's a totemic place for the SNP. In 1967, Winnie Ewing's by-election success in Hamilton shifted the SNP from the periphery of politics. Today, however, the town is less hallowed ground for Scottish nationalists and more field of woe. The story which should be taken from the Hamilton result isn't of Labour's win, but of SNP defeat. A shot hasn't just been fired across the SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile. This was the SNP's battle to lose and lose they did. John Swinney talked up a two-horse race between his party and Reform, dismissing the notion of a Labour win. He looks pretty foolish today. That the SNP could go down so badly to a Labour Party which has riled and alienated voters since Keir Starmer took office is remarkable. Labour won the general election with 34%. Today, that's down across Britain to about 23%. In Hamilton, however, Labour secured almost 32% – barely a change since Starmer took power. The SNP fell nearly 17%, losing a seat previously held on a majority of 4582. These are catastrophic figures for the SNP. Even Reform's rise – it came third on 26% – isn't as significant. Reform's vote in Hamilton broadly replicates its UK-wide support. So what's happened to the SNP? Well, first of all the nationalists are nowhere near as smart as they think they are. For a long time, luck was on their side. Tony Blair's administration was tarnished with war, Gordon Brown was done in by the financial crash, and years of Tory misrule played into nationalist hands. Read more: The SNP could pose as the sane opposition to London. You don't need world-class strategy and policy if your opponents are doing all the hard work for you. Claims that the SNP ran the greatest electoral machine or had the cleverest advisors were guff. However, when you've been in power nearly 20 years you can no longer pretend to be the opposition. That outsider status is working well for Reform, but the SNP are now more status quo than either Labour or Conservatives. They're an enduring symbol now of all the mistakes that the political world has wrought on citizens in recent years. The SNP has never recovered from alienating many of its progressive supporters in the wake of Nicola Sturgeon's resignation. The ensuing leadership contest revealed a level of social conservatism which shocked leftwing voters who had once backed Labour but shifted to the SNP. That – and the poison of multiple scandals – is why the SNP got hammered at the general election. Those voters haven't returned. And nor will they, for what does the SNP offer? There's been failure after failure. The word 'independence' was barely uttered during the recent campaign. If the SNP is scared to speak about independence, what's its purpose? Independence has decoupled from the SNP. The party can no longer rely on Yes voters backing nationalists. Voters long ago saw behind the Wizard of Oz curtain. The SNP managed for years to talk the talk when it came to government – with great rhetoric on climate change, child poverty, education, health and policing – but it never walked the walk. There's only so long voters will tolerate being made to feel gullible. The SNP suffers from 'the boy who cried wolf' syndrome. No matter what it says now, it's just hot air as far as many voters are concerned. The leadership took the people for granted. Evidently, the SNP has tried over the years to mitigate the worst of Westminster's excesses with policies like the Scottish Child Payment, but you can't dine out on that forever. It's like a forgotten film star showing you cuttings of their glory days. What could be more sad? Then there's the boredom factor: the SNP has been in power so long that many fancy a change, just to move the furniture around. The party ran a campaign that focused on its opponents, not on what it could offer the people. Labour ran a highly-local campaign fixed on local concerns. The SNP hierarchy is also increasingly irritating. Angus Robertson's attitude on the BBC's live coverage of the by-election was a masterclass in patrician sneering. The party comes across as entitled and full of its own self-importance. Privilege is not a good look for politicians these days. A few more humble types in prominent positions might serve nationalists better. It's also become such a bloodless party. This isn't to suggest that the SNP embrace outright populism, but if Starmer's managerialism is off-putting, Swinney is close to funereal at times. If the SNP thinks it can hold on to Holyrood at next year's Scottish election by simply giving us more of the same, then Hamilton should be taken as necessary corrective medicine. Quite simply, the people want politicians to make their lives better and the SNP are not doing that. Indeed, the people seem to be saying that even the clunking, u-turning, impossible to like policies of Starmer are more in accord with them than the SNP. That is bad.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Elon Musk picks a losing fight with Donald Trump
NEW YORK, June 6 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Money can buy power, but Elon Musk paid for someone else to have it. After spending more than $250 million backing Donald Trump's presidential campaign, an acrimonious schism erupted between the two and swiftly vaporized $150 billion of Tesla's (TSLA.O), opens new tab market value. By picking a losing fight, the carmaker's boss is putting even more at risk for himself and his investors. A cozy alliance between the world's richest man and its most powerful one pointed to a troubling oligarchy. Musk joined Team Trump to lead a controversial effort to slash costs from the U.S. bureaucracy. Tesla sales sank internationally, protests at showrooms escalated and concerns about the CEO's focus intensified. He left his Department of Government Efficiency post last week, with an amicable White House sendoff. The tone abruptly changed on Thursday. Musk's criticism of Trump's signature budget legislation and the president's retorts about government contracts with Musk's companies spiraled into a deeply personal social-media war of words. Musk is a formidable force, with a net worth approaching $400 billion, according, opens new tab to Forbes. His rocket company SpaceX accounted for 85% of orbit-bound cargo in early 2024 by one estimate. After paying $44 billion to buy Twitter, he remade it into a friendlier forum for the president's followers. Any tinkering with the algorithms might swing the tone, as could Musk's bulging wallet if used to support anti-Trump candidates. A threat, opens new tab from Trump to cut U.S. government purse strings from Musk's businesses flaunts the real balance of power, however. About $22 billion of contracts hang in the balance at SpaceX alone, Reuters reported. Tesla's deep ties in China, where it generated a fifth of revenue last year, also may tempt the president's ire as he wages a highly combative trade war with Beijing. Reprisals from President Xi Jinping also could be painful. Musk is doing his companies no favors either. He pivoted Tesla away from mass-market dominance to pursue autonomous driving instead. National regulators have nagging questions about robotic taxi services. A more hostile regulatory environment would undermine the moonshot, leaving a shrinking car business falling behind Chinese rivals. If Musk doesn't back down, as he hinted was a possibility, the costs are bound to escalate. Having already alienated pro-renewable-energy Democrats, he may scare off pro-Trump Republicans, too. An adversarial relationship with SpaceX is probably untenable for NASA. Raising money for his artificial intelligence venture may get harder, as would securing U.S. government contracts for his tunneling company. Musk achieved success by defying perceived scientific constraints, but he is now pushing up against the limits of money. Follow Jonathan Guilford on X, opens new tab and Linkedin, opens new tab.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Money can't buy him love: Republicans give Elon Musk the cold shoulder
Elon Musk may believe his money bought the presidential election and the House of the Representatives for the Republicans. But he is discovering painfully and quickly that it has not bought him love, loyalty or even fear among many GOP members of Congress on Capitol Hill. Faced with the choice of siding with Musk, the world's richest man, or Donald Trump, after the two staged a public relationship breakdown for the ages on Thursday, most Republicans went with the man in the Oval Office, who has shown an unerring grasp of the tactics of political intimidation and who remains the world's most powerful figure even without the boss of Tesla and SpaceX by his side. The billionaire tech entrepreneur, who poured about $275m into Trump's campaign last year, tried to remind Washington's political classes of his financial muscle on Thursday during an outpouring of slights against a man for whom he had once professed platonic love and was still showering with praise up until a week before. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk posted to his 220 million followers on X, the social media platform he owns – and which he has used ruthlessly to reshape the political agenda. It was a variation on a theme from a man who has repeatedly threatened to deploy his untold millions in funding primary challengers to elected politicians who displease him or who publicly considered blocking Trump's cabinet nominations. But a gambit that had been effective in the past failed to work this time – and might not be enough to sink the 'big, beautiful bill' that Musk this week condemned as a deficit-inflating 'abomination'. One after another, Republican House members came out to condemn him and defend Trump, despite having earlier been told by Musk that 'you know you did wrong' in voting for what has become Trump's signature legislation that seeks to extend vast tax cuts for the rich. Troy Nehls, a GOP representative from Texas, captured the tone, addressing Musk before television cameras: 'You've lost your damn mind. Enough is enough. Stop this.' It chimed with the sentiments of many others. 'Nobody elected Elon Musk, and a whole lot of people don't even like him, to be honest with you, even on both sides,' Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey congressman, told Axios. 'We're getting people calling our offices 100% in support of President Trump,' Kevin Hern, a representative from Oklahoma, told the site. 'Every tweet that goes out, people are more lockstep behind President Trump and [Musk is] losing favour.' Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican, called Musk's outburst of social media posts – that included a call for Trump's impeachment, a forecast of a tariff-driven recession and accusation that the president is on the Jeffrey Epstein files – 'absolutely childish and ridiculous'. Musk had 'lost some of his gravitas'. There were numerous other comments in similar vein. They seemed to carry the weight of political calculation, rather than principled sentiment. Republicans were balancing the strength of Trump's voice among GOP voters versus the power of the increasingly unpopular Musk's money – and most had little doubt which matters most. 'On the value of Elon playing against us in primaries compared to Trump endorsing us in primaries, the latter is 100 times more relevant,' Axios quoted one unnamed representative as saying. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Another said: 'Elon can burn $5m in a primary, but if Trump says 'that's the person Republicans should re-elect,' it's a wasted $5m.' Trump himself said on Thursday that he would have won the battleground state of Pennsylvania even without his former benefactor's significant financial input. But it is also evidence-based. In April, Musk discovered how finite his influence was when a Republican judge he had backed with $25m of his own money lost by 10 percentage points in an election for a vacant supreme court seat in Wisconsin. It was a chastening experience that bodes ill for any hopes he has of persuading Republicans to change their minds on Trump's spending bill. Yet Musk still has his sympathisers on Capitol Hill, even if they are a minority. With the 'big, beautiful bill' still likely to pass through the Senate, Thomas Massie, a senator for Kentucky – who has been labelled 'a grandstander' by Trump for his consistent criticism of the legislation – was unambiguous when CNN asked which side he choose between Trump and Musk. 'I choose math. The math always wins over the words,' he replied. 'I trust the math from the guy that lands rockets backwards over the politicians' math.' It was a rare case of economics trumping politics on a day when political self-interest seemed paramount.
