Only feeble, woke Britain could think Trump is a threat to world peace
The People's Republic of China threatens the independence of Taiwan, has increased its Middle East arms sales by 80 per cent in the past decade, and is strategically gobbling up Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative.
The United States is a largely reliable ally, and even though its mercurial president has shredded diplomatic protocols and speaks belligerently about neighbouring countries, America remains a checking force on tyrants and terrorists within its sphere of influence. An arrogant empire, perhaps, but a more benign one the world has never seen.
So which of the two do you suppose more Britons consider a threat to world peace? According to the latest British Social Attitudes Survey, it's America, which 72 per cent of us think is a source of conflict and chaos across the globe, compared to 69 per cent who say the same of China.
As might be expected, this attitude is more common on the Left, with 81 per cent of Labour and 96 per cent of Green voters expressing that view. But even among backers of the Conservative Party, it's a ludicrous 68 per cent. Any sense of proportion is restricted to supporters of Reform, with only 41 per cent of their number going in for this hyperventilating nonsense. Well done, people of Britain. You've made Reform voters the sensible ones.
There are a number of factors at work here. The quiet but constant anti-Americanism of the British middle classes, the superstition that all cruelty and misfortune in the world can (and must) be traced to Western transgressions, but above all it's a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Orange man bad, orange man blow up world.
If president Kamala Harris had just bombed Iran's nuclear programme, imposed a ceasefire on Tehran and Jerusalem, then ordered Israel not to retaliate to material breaches, many of those currently hallucinating the brink of World War III would be filling Bluesky with paeans to girlboss peacekeeping.
Progressives cannot countenance the thought that Trump might bring hostilities to a close, and so they seethe rather than grudgingly acknowledge his achievement. Cursed be the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the wrath of The Guardian letters page.
Trump has shown markedly less enthusiasm for military entanglements than his recent predecessors in office, Republican and Democrat. He evinces little interest in being the world's policeman and many in his administration are fiercely hostile to this concept.
If there is anything the Left should be able to agree with Maga on, it's scepticism about US involvement in the world. This has been unfortunate for Ukraine, because Trump truly could not care whether a Russian or Ukrainian flag flies over Kyiv, but he shows no eagerness to expand existing conflicts or spark fresh ones.
It is possible to regard Trump as a political abomination, wholly unfit for high office, a walking repudiation of the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. But if you must also imbue him with every wickedness known to man, there's a chance you've allowed him to break your grip on reason. He's not only living rent-free in your head, you've barricaded him in there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump responds to NATO head's ‘daddy' remark: ‘I think he likes me'
Donald Trump has responded to being called 'daddy' by Nato chief Mark Rutte during a summit in The Hague on Wednesday (25 June). Mr Rutte defended the US president's expletive outburst against Iran and Israel on Tuesday (24 June), where he said both nations 'don't know what the f*** they're doing'. The secretary general excused the rant, saying: 'Daddy has to sometimes use strong language.' Asked by a journalist if he regards his Nato allies as children, Mr Trump laughed and said that Mr Rutte was being 'very affectionate' and thinks that he 'likes him'. He said that his allies 'need a little help at the beginning' but is hopeful that they will be able to defend Europe themselves.
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
What are the government's planned welfare changes?
A significant number of Labour MPs are threatening to vote against the government's working-age welfare reform plan when it comes before the House of Commons next reforms are designed to reduce the overall working-age welfare bill by about £5bn a year by the end of the rebel MPs have signed an amendment to the legislation that makes a series of objections, including a lack of official consultation and impact Verify explains the detail of the reforms and their possible impact. Which benefits would be cut? The government wants to save money by:making it harder for people to access Personal Independence Payments (Pip)cutting the rate of incapacity benefitIncapacity benefit - which is mainly paid through the health element of Universal Credit - goes to those deemed to be unable to work for health benefit is set to be reduced by 50% in cash terms for new claimants from April 2026. For existing claimants, it is due to be held flat in cash terms until 2029-30 - meaning payments will not rise in line with inflation. The government estimates these two changes will save £3bn a year by the end of the is paid to people with a long-term physical or mental health condition or a disability and who need support. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has acknowledged that almost 20% of recipients are in work. The government plans to make it more difficult for people to claim the "daily living" element of Pip from 2026-27. Under the current assessment system, claimants are scored on a zero to 12 scale by a health professional on everyday tasks such as washing, getting dressed and preparing are the Pip and universal credit changes and who is affected?Under the proposed change, people would need to score at least four on one task, ruling out people with lower scores who would previously have qualified for the benefit. The government estimates this will save an additional £4.5bn a year from the welfare bill by the end of the decade. Why is the government trying to cut welfare spending? It is concerned about the rise in the number of people claiming working-age benefits in recent years and the implications of this trend for the public Autumn, the government projected that the numbers of working-age claimants of Pip in England, Scotland and Wales would rise from 2.7 million in 2023-24 to 4.3 million in 2029-30, an increase of 1.6 that time, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the government's official forecaster, projected that the overall cost of the working-age benefit system would rise from £48.5bn in 2024 to £75.7bn by would have represented an increase from 1.7% of the size of the UK economy to 2.2%, roughly the size of current spending on defence. Ministers argue that this rising bill needs to be brought under control and that changes to the welfare system are part of that is worth noting though that - even after factoring in the planned cuts - the OBR still projected this bill to continue to rise in cash terms to £72.3bn by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) still projected the total number of working-age Pip recipients to rise by 1.2 million between 2023-24 and 2029-30 - after the cuts. In this sense, the main effect of the Pip cuts would be to reduce the increase in claimants that would otherwise have occurred. What would the impact of the reforms be? The government's official impact assessment estimates that about 250,000 additional people (including 50,000 children) will be left in "relative poverty" (after housing costs) by 2030 because of the that assessment included the impact of the government deciding not to proceed with welfare reforms planned by the previous Conservative administration, which government analysts had judged would have pushed an additional 150,000 people into charities and research organisations have suggested this means the government's 250,000 estimate understates the impact of its own reforms, since the previous administration's reforms were never actually Porter from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has suggested the actual poverty impact of the government's changes could therefore be up to 400,000 (adding the 250,000 figure to the 150,000 figure to generate an estimate of the total numbers affected).However, the government's impact assessment cautions against simply adding the two figures together, noting that "some people are affected by more than one [reform] measure", meaning this approach risks double counting account of this, the Resolution Foundation think tank has estimated that the net effect of the government's reforms would mean "at least 300,000" people entering relative poverty by 2030. What about the impact on employment? The government has claimed that its reforms are not just about saving money, but helping people into Rachel Reeves told Sky News in March 2025 that: "I am absolutely certain that our reforms, instead of pushing people into poverty, are going to get people into work. And we know that if you move from welfare into work, you are much less likely to be in poverty."To this end, the government is gradually increasing the standard allowance in Universal Credit - the basic sum paid to cover recipients' living costs - by £5 a week by is projected to be a net benefit to 3.8 million households and the government argues it will also increase the incentives for people to work rather than claim incapacity government is also investing an extra £1bn a year by 2029-30 in additional support to get people out of inactivity and into employment. What are the rebels' objections? The rebel MPs say disabled people have not been consulted on the proposed also say there has been no evaluation of the overall employment impacts by the is true that the government has not consulted disabled people on the specific cuts to Pip and incapacity benefits, though it is now consulting on the broader reform is also the case that the OBR has not yet done a full employment impact assessment, though the forecaster says it will do one before the Autumn the Resolution Foundation has done its own estimate of the employment impact of the overall reform estimates the total increase in employment could be between 60,000 and 105,000, although it stressed that these figures are highly positive employment figure contrasts with the 800,000 people who are projected to lose part of their Pip payments by 2029-30 and the 3 million people families who will see a cut in their incapacity benefits. What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Bipartisan bill seeks to ban Chinese AI from federal agencies, as U.S. vows to win the AI race
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Wednesday vowed to keep Chinese artificial intelligence systems out of federal agencies while pledging to ensure the U.S. will prevail against China in the global AI competition. 'We are in a new Cold War, and AI is the strategic technology at the center,' Rep. John Moolenaar, the Republican chair of the House Select Committee on China, said as he opened a hearing on the matter. 'The future balance of power may very well be determined by who leads in AI.' The hearing on Capitol Hill comes about five months after a Chinese technology start-up called DeekSeek introduced an AI model that rivaled platforms from OpenAI and Google in performance, but cost only a fraction to build. This raised concerns that China was catching up to U.S. despite restrictions on chips and other key technologies used to develop AI. The ever-tighter race is now a central part of the U.S.-China rivalry. And so much is at stake that the U.S. must win, witnesses told the congressional panel. The two countries are 'in a long-term techno-security competition that will determine the shape of the global political order for the coming years,' said Thomas Mahnken, president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Jack Clark, co-founder and head of policy at Anthropic, told the committee that AI has built-in values. 'I know that AI systems are a reflection of the societies that are built from. AI built in democracies will lead to better technology for all of humanity. AI built in authoritarian nations will... be inescapably intertwined and imbued with authoritarianism,' Clark said. 'We must take decisive action to ensure America prevails.' Earlier this year, Chris Lehane, OpenAI's head of global affairs, told reporters in Paris that the U.S. and China were the only two countries in the world that could build AI at scale. The competition, which he described as one between democratic AI and autocratic AI, is 'very real and very serious,' and the stakes are 'enormous,' he said, for 'the global rails of AI will be built by one of those two countries.' The 2025 AI Index Report by Stanford University's Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence center has the U.S. in the lead in producing top AI models. But the report notes China is rapidly closing the performance gap, reaching near parity in 2024 on several major benchmarks. It also shows that China leads in AI publications and patents. At the hearing, Clark urged the lawmakers to maintain and strengthen export controls of advanced chips to China. 'This competition fundamentally runs on compute,' he said. The U.S. must control the flow of powerful chips to China, Clark said, 'or else you're giving them the tools they will need to build powerful AI to harm American interests.' Mark Beall, Jr., president of government affairs at The AI Policy Network, said there are 'a number of very glaring gaps' in the U.S. export controls that have allowed China to obtain controlled chips. Lawmakers earlier this year introduced a bill to track such chips to ensure they would not be diverted to the wrong hands. In another legislative step, Republican and Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate on Wednesday introduced a bill to ban Chinese AI systems in the federal government. 'The U.S. must draw a hard line: hostile AI systems have no business operating inside our government,' Moolenaar said. The No Adversarial AI Act, as proposed, seeks to identify AI systems developed by foreign adversaries and ban their use in the U.S. government, with exceptions for use in research and counter terrorism.
