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
The Guardian
38 minutes 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
an hour 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.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?
The United Nations and its agencies have long struggled with funding shortfalls. Now an entrenched problem is becoming an acute crisis in the shadow of Donald Trump's executioner's axe. The US is the biggest contributor, at 22%, to the UN's core budget. In February, the White House announced a six-month review of US membership of all international organisations, conventions and treaties, including the UN, with a view to reducing or ending funding – and possible withdrawal. The deadline for decapitation falls next month. Trump's abolition of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and scrapping of most aid programmes, has already badly damaged UN-led and UN-backed humanitarian operations, which rely on discretionary funding. Yet Trump's axe symbolises a more fundamental threat – to multilateralism and the much-battered international rules-based order. The basic concept of collective responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, and collaboration in tackling shared problems – embodied by the UN since its creation 80 years ago last week – is on the chopping block. The stakes are high – and Washington is not the only villain. Like the US, about 40 countries are behind in paying obligatory yearly dues. Discretionary donations are declining. The UN charter, a statement of founding principles, has been critically undermined by failure to halt Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine (and by last month's US-Israeli attack on Iran). China and others, including the UK, ignore international law when it suits. The number and longevity of conflicts worldwide is rising; UN envoys are sidelined; UN peacekeeping missions are disparaged. The security council is often paralysed by vetoes; the general assembly is largely powerless. By many measures, the UN isn't working. A crunch looms. If the UN is allowed to fail or is so diminished that its agencies cannot fully function, there is nothing to take its place. Nothing, that is, except the law of the jungle, as seen in Gaza and other conflict zones where UN agencies are excluded, aid workers murdered and legal norms flouted. The UN system has many failings, some self-inflicted. But a world without the UN would, for most people in most places, be more dangerous, hungrier, poorer, unhealthier and less sustainable. The US is not expected to withdraw from the UN altogether (although nothing is impossible with this isolationist, ultra-nationalist president). But Trump's hostile intent is evident. His 2026 budget proposal seeks a 83.7% cut – from $58.7bn to $9.6bn – in all US international spending. That includes an 87% reduction in UN funding, both obligatory and discretionary. 'In 2023, total US spending on the UN amounted to about $13bn. This is equivalent to only 1.6% of the Pentagon's budget that year ($816bn) – or about two-thirds of what Americans spend on ice-cream annually,' Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted. Economic development aid, disaster relief and family planning programmes would be gutted. The impact is potentially world-changing. Key UN agencies in the firing line include the children's fund, Unicef – at a time when the risks facing infants and children are daunting; the World Food Programme (WFP), which could lose 30% of its staff; agencies handling refugees and migration, which are also shrinking; the International court of justice (the 'world court'), which has shone a light on Israel's illegal actions in Gaza; and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's and others' nuclear activities. Trump is already boycotting the World Health Organization, the Palestinian relief agency (Unrwa) and the UN Human Rights Council, and has rescinded $4bn allocated to the UN climate fund, claiming that all act contrary to US interests. If his budget is adopted this autumn, the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals may prove unattainable. US financial backing for international peacekeeping and observer missions in trouble spots such as Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, currently 26% of total spending, will plunge to zero. The withdrawal of USAID support is already proving lethal, everywhere from Somalia and Sudan to Bangladesh and Haiti. UN officials describe the situation in post-earthquake, conflict-riven, aid-deprived Myanamar as a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. Research published in the Lancet found that Trump's cuts could cause more than 14m additional deaths by 2030, a third of them children. The WFP, the world's largest food aid supplier, says its projected $8.1bn funding deficit this year comes as acute hunger affects a record 343 million people in 74 countries. And other donor states are failing to fill the gap left by the US. So far in 2025, only 11% of the $46.2bn required for 44 UN-prioritised crises has been raised. The UK recently slashed its aid budget by £6bn, to pay for nuclear bombs. UN chiefs acknowledge that many problems pre-date Trump. António Guterres, the secretary general, has initiated thousands of job cuts as part of the 'UN80' reform plan to consolidate operations and reduce the core budget by up to 20%. But, marking the anniversary, Guterres said the gravest challenge is the destructive attitude of member states that sabotage multilateral cooperation, break the rules, fail to pay their share and forget why the UN was founded in the first place. 'The charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an à la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations,' he said. Guterres says the UN's greatest achievement since 1945 is preventing a third world war. Yet respected analysts such as Fiona Hill believe it's already begun. The UK and other democracies face some pressing questions. Will they meekly give in to Trump once again? Or will they fight to stop this renegade president and rogue states such as Russia and Israel dismantling the world's best defence against global anarchy, forever wars and needless suffering? Will they fight to save the UN? Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist
