Is the PM on another planet? Reader reacts to Starmer's comments on Trump
I've never been a fan of our prime minister but listening to Sir Keir Starmer's interview with BBC Radio 4 marking his first disastrous year in power left me feeling ashamed of this country.
Starmer stated that he liked Donald Trump, respected what he was doing and that the two of them shared the same family values!
One has to ask just what planet our dear leader is on. And what our friends in the EU plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Commonwealth will make of that, I dread to think.Bob Readman, Sevenoaks
Starmer says of Trump, 'I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about.'
We all know the answer to that, prime minister – Trump is a selfish, narcissistic, greedy, egomaniac. Look at his posturing over Greenland and Canada and realise that US democracy is in its last phase. Henry Page, London
Labour watered down its welfare reform bill to quell a backbench rebellion, having already undone plans to remove the winter fuel allowance from all but the least well-off pensioners. Why so much fuss about government U-turns and climbdowns?
Isn't it a good thing we finally have one that listens to people? Pedro, Hammersmith
Things could be a lot worse in this country – we could have Jeremy Corbyn or George Galloway as prime minister. Just imagine that. Richard Farrar, London
So, the UK has decided that protest group Palestine Action are 'terrorists'.
Other people who were 'terrorists' according to the British government at the time, include Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Suffragettes.
I'd much rather be on their side than on the side of our snivelling shower of politicians any day. Mo, Bradford
What kind of world we are living in? In some parts of it, there are food banks where the less fortunate are given free food. There are also free kitchens where anybody get a meal.
But in some parts of the world – in Gaza, it seems – the hungry are fed with bullets, What has gone wrong with the humanity? Pritam, London
A teacher was banned from the classroom for being drunk in class, swearing and turning the lesson into a mini-rave (Metro, Fri).
Of course her actions were wrong but maybe she was going through a depressive episode. Ese, Birmingham
Well done, Metro, for the lovely piece about trans couple Hannah and Jake (Metro, Wed). No matter who we are, we all need to be shown kindness, tolerance and understanding. Your article did just that. Bernadette, Watford
Steve Coogan spoke about him bringing back Alan Partridge for a new podcast series (Metro, Fri). What we all want to see is middle-aged Paul and Pauline Calf and Fat Bob. Molly Gilligan, London
Andrew Edwards (MetroTalk, Fri) says the Royal Family's green credentials have been 'ruined' by giving up the Royal Train and Yacht (MetroTalk, Thu).
I would say rather they never had any. With them, it has always been all talk and no action – banging on about the environment but keeping up a life with an exorbitant carbon footprint is not environmentalism. More Trending
Not that any of them would claim to be abandoning the Royal Train for environmental reasons. Rather, they are claiming to be doing it for value for money. Well, that claim has no grounding in fact, either.
According to Republic, the UK spends 100 times as much on the royals as Ireland does on its president, despite having only 13 times the population size.
True, the king rules Australia, Canada and assorted smaller countries but those countries should pay their fair share. So let's see 'No Kings!' follow 'MeToo' and 'Black Lives Matter' across the Atlantic onto the lips of equality-supporting Brits. Charles EL Gilman, Mitcham
Russell Stevens (MetroTalk, Thu) jokes that 'pavement' was missing from Metro's cycling-themed wordsearch. You also missed out 'traffic lights'. John Coyne, Leeds
MORE: Met chief says county police forces 'failing for two decades'
MORE: Man caught hurling his elderly dog over a fence and onto concrete path
MORE: Manchester United's surprise move for free agent Dominic Calvert-Lewin makes perfect sense
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
7/7 London terror attack was 20 years ago but UK security risk worse than ever
Twenty years ago four Islamist extremist attackers set off suicide bombs that ripped through central London ending and changing many lives of innocent civilians - now Britain's leading counter-terror experts warn the threat is still here TWENTY years ago today these four men killed themselves and 52 others when they detonated their bombs on three trains and a bus in London in the first Islamist suicide attack on UK soil. A further 770 people were injured in the 7/7 bombings, which signalled the start of a new era of terrorism in Britain. There is now an ever-present terror threat, and with ever-changing weapons would-be attackers are adapting. But, in the shadows, MI5 and counter-terror police are surveilling terror cells and lone wolves, building up evidence and striking to prevent attacks. They have seen terrorism up close and understand what the public do not see – that evil is out there and another attacker could strike at any time. As Richard Kemp, a former adviser to the government on terrorism, tells the Mirror today: 'Twenty years on, this insidious threat remains with us and will never go away.' Britain's leading security experts have revealed how the UK's security risk is as bad as it was 20 years ago - and in some cases, worse. The war on terror continues exactly 20 years on from one of the worst attacks in the UK. On 7 July 2005 four suicide bombers struck London's transport network, killing 52 people and injuring over 770 others in an atrocity that shocked the world. These experts below have seen terrorism up close and have a deep understanding of what the public do not see - that evil is out there and the attackers could strike at any time, here's what they have to say about the state of the threat today: Colonel Richard Kemp, former adviser to government on terrorism "Twenty years ago, on 7th July 2005, we saw the most deadly terrorist attack ever committed on UK soil when 52 were killed and 770 wounded. I was chairman of the COBRA Intelligence Group, responsible for coordinating the national intelligence services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as well as military and police intelligence in support of the UK crisis management committee, chaired by the prime minister. Following 9/11, in which more British people were killed than in any other terrorist attack anywhere, our intelligence efforts against Islamic jihadists had been redoubled. But nevertheless there had been no warning of the 7/7 attack and many experts believed that a suicide bombing would not take place on British soil, despite the involvement of many British Muslims in a wide range of terrorism outside the UK — including suicide attacks. COBRA met as soon as it became clear that the Underground had been bombed. The number one priority of the Intelligence Group was to identify any information that might indicate further immediate danger so that any secondary or follow-on attack could be prevented by the police and MI5. Key to that was clearly connections between the terrorists directly involved and any other individuals or networks either in Britain or abroad. That obviously took some time until the terrorists were identified. Then the stops were pulled out and the agencies feverishly drew not only on their own sources but also international intelligence allies. The London bombings essentially emerged from the importation into the UK of Islamic grievances inside Pakistan, the country of origin of the parents of terrorist ringleader Mohammad Sedique Khan. The conflict in Kashmir especially had been his start point and as his religious fervour grew, he also came under increasing influence from Pakistani mujahideen and supporters of Al Qaeda, both here in Britain and while travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan. His pre-7/7 video of course blames British violence against Muslims for his planned attack, while conveniently ignoring the reality of infinitely greater levels of violence against Muslims perpetrated by his own Al Qaida heroes. The catalogue of jihadist attacks in the UK since 7/7, including the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, horrific though it is, doesn't come close to the full picture. MI5 and the police constantly monitor thousands of suspects and thankfully have prevented dozens more mass murder plots. Twenty years on this insidious threat remains with us and will never go away." Major Chris Hunter QGM, ex-SAS bomb disposal expert "When the 7/7 suicide bombings tore through London's transport network, I was an Army Major, working for Defence Intelligence and seconded to COBRA, the UK Government's emergency crisis response committee. For days, I was immersed in intelligence feeds, risk assessments, and the horrific aftermath of an attack on our own streets. That evening I walked home - through a city changed forever - toward my wife and children in Putney, carrying with me the realisation that the frontlines were no longer just overseas. At that point in my career, I had already served as a bomb disposal officer with the SAS, disarming IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'd trained for years for an incident like this, but 7/7 brought the reality home: the enemy no longer needed to cross borders. The war could be brought to us, through ideology, radicalisation, and cunning ingenuity. Since then, the threat has evolved - mutated, even. Where once it was crude homemade devices in backpacks, it's now 3D-printed components, encrypted planning apps, and lone actors radicalised online from bedrooms thousands of miles away. The accessibility of lethal technology is greater than ever. The barriers to entry are lower. The ideology, tragically, is still thriving. For the past ten years, I've worked as a humanitarian Explosive Ordnance Disposal operator in conflict zones across the world - Libya, Syria, Iraq – where my colleagues and I are saving lives and denying terrorists the weapons they leave behind. We've cleared thousands of IEDs: everything from Daesh 's suicide belts to booby-trapped schools and hospitals. I've seen, and continue to see first-hand how this threat doesn't just persist - it adapts. And it doesn't respect borders. I'm writing this from another conflict zone in the Middle East. And the hard truth is this: while the faces and factions may change, the tactics don't. We must remain vigilant - not paranoid, but prepared. We must invest in intelligence, prevention, and resilience. Because terrorism never sleeps. And neither should we. They only have to be lucky once; we have to be lucky always." Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon, chemical and biological weapons expert "At the time of 7/7, 20 years ago I was commanding the UK's Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Regiment and was on operations in Iraq. We were dealing with a potential al-Qaeda biological weapon attack against British troops in southern Iraq. Had 7/7 been a CBRN attack, God only knows what the death toll might have been. I saw up close the terror state of Assad's Syria, killing thousands of civilians with the deadly nerve agent Sarin, but also with readily available chlorine. When I was fighting with the Peshmerga against ISIS, 2015-17, the terrorists frequently fired mortars at us full of mustard agent aka mustard gas. ISIS also tried to obtain highly enriched uranium to make an improvised nuclear device which could have devastated whole towns and villages. The offspring of the jihadists of 7/7 have tried and so far, failed to devastate the hated West with some form of CBRN attack. It is not just the terrorists who view this type of attack as the 'gold' standard, but also tyrants and rogue states. The dictator of North Korea had his stepbrother assassinated with the nerve agent VX, and my hometown of Salisbury was attacked by Russian hitmen on the orders of Putin himself, with Novichok, the deadliest chemical man has ever produced. There was enough Novichok used in the attack to kill half the population of Salsibury. It seems every terrorist, dictator, despot and rogue state sees CBRN as morbidly brilliant weapons, but there is mitigation to every threat, and it is the one that is ignored or put in the too difficult bracket, that will cause us serious harm. However, we in this country are fortunate to have the brilliant MI5 and MI6, the counter-terror police, the SAS and many other agencies that keep us safe in our beds and will continue to do so if we support and fund them properly." Peter Clarke, former head of counter-terrorism, Scotland Yard "It's the only time we've had this scale of multiple attacks, in the capital, targeting innocent members of the public. Lockerbie saw far greater loss of life but there were different things about this one. It turned out it was British citizens killing and injuring their own citizens, on and under the streets of London. Unprecedented. You have to ask yourself, what did they achieve? It's been 20 years now. All that pain and suffering they caused, and death, what did they actually achieve by that?' What has changed is that we adapted the way we worked after 9/11 to the different threat posed by the Islamist groups as opposed to the Irish paramilitaries. That involved MI5 and the police working much more closely together than they ever had before to try and capture these people at the planning stages or as early as possible before they killed too many people. Their ambition was to kill as many people as possible, which the Irish hadn't because they were part of a political process. So we found a new way of working where lots of material that MI5 had gathered became available to us as evidence and that enabled us to intervene earlier, in some cases. The closeness of that relationship made it increasingly difficult for Al Qaeda to operate large terrorist networks. You had 7/7, then the transatlantic airline plot in 2006 and the last network was the NHS doctors who attacked Haymarket and then Glasgow Airport in 2007. What had happened by then is that it became too difficult for large networks to operate in this country. It's around that time that Al Qaeda changed its tactics and said that individual terrorists could choose their target and their timing. In the past these networks had had to be centrally authorised by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That was certainly the case with 7/7. So the method of launching terrorist attacks has changed since then. There is obviously a huge terrorist threat.'
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
US trade deal makes Britain top investment destination in the world
Britain has become the most attractive place to invest in the world after Sir Keir Starmer struck a trade deal with Donald Trump. A survey of the finance chiefs of some of Britain's biggest listed businesses found that the UK was now their preferred country to invest in, overtaking the US, Japan and the Middle East. The UK has leapt up the rankings since the end of last year, when it came in at sixth spot. Deloitte, which conducted the survey, said the boost was 'in the light of the UK-US trade deal announced in early May.' Conflict in the Middle East has also weakened that region's relative appeal as a destination for investment. Ian Stewart, chief economist at Deloitte UK, said: 'Despite conflict in the Middle East and volatility in oil prices, levels of concern about geopolitical risk fell slightly in the second quarter. This may reflect an easing of concerns around trade in the light of the UK-US trade deal announced in early May.' It comes as the world braces for the return of US tariffs on trading partners when a 90-day pause on Mr Trump's 'liberation day' levies expires this Wednesday. The president said be would notifying about a dozen countries on Monday of the new tariff level on their shipments to the US. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that the new tariffs would take effect from August 1. He said several trade deals were close to completion. 'We're going to be very busy over the next 72 hours, ' Mr Bessent said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. 'If you don't move things along, then on Aug 1, you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level.' In the latest Deloitte survey, a net 13pc of UK finance chiefs described Britain as very or somewhat attractive for investment. Only India ranked as highly, with the two countries sharing the top position. Meanwhile, more finance bosses said they were open to expanding, with 17pc saying now was a good time to take risks. The survey covered finance chiefs for both public and private businesses, including FTSE 100 companies. While they are UK-based, a majority of the companies surveyed have international operations. Richard Houston, chief executive of Deloitte UK, said: 'This renewed confidence, coupled with a rise in risk appetite, is welcome and underscores the considerable investment potential the UK offers.' Britain was the first country to secure a trade pact with the US in May. Mr Trump at the time hailed the UK as 'truly one of our great allies' and said it was a 'great honour' to have Britain sign the first deal with the United States. Under the terms of the agreement, the Prime Minister secured lower tariffs on UK car imports into the US, while the aerospace sector was shielded from levies. The Government called it a 'landmark' deal that would save thousands of jobs and make it easier for British companies to do business across the Atlantic. The findings will be a welcome boost for the Government, which has been battling to convince companies to invest in Britain. Last year, foreign investment into Britain plunged to a record low. Official figures showed the number of inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) projects dropped to 1,375 last year, down 12pc from the 1,555 in 2023-24. Deloitte's positive findings also come after a torrid week for Labour that has seen Sir Keir's authority significantly weakened by a rebellion on cuts to welfare spending. Ms Reeves said: 'Finance leaders see the UK as the best place in the world to invest. Under this Government we are open for business, delivering more investment, more jobs and putting more money in people's pockets across Britain.'
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Reeves' tears should make us rethink our worst assumptions about politicians
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Rachel Reeves has said she is "cracking on with the job" of Chancellor after her visible distress in the House of Commons last week. Reeves said she had been upset about a personal matter; the slight difference is that the Chancellor is the second most visible person in the UK Government. Her tears were widely interpreted as the result of a bust-up with the Prime Minister over the calamitous, watered-down Welfare Bill. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Had the head of His Majesty's Treasury been a male, would, in all honesty, our minds have wondered whether his boss was upsetting him so? Or would we assume that something genuinely so distressing had happened to tip them over during the most public domain TV can afford, the government front benches during Prime Minister's Questions? Chancellor Rachel Reeves crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during Prime Minister's Questions | PA The concept of the stiff British upper lip originated with the Victorians, who considered it beneath one's dignity to express emotion, a trait that Winston Churchill routinely disregarded openly. When it came to blood, toil, tears and sweat, Churchill routinely 'blubbered'. Lachrymosity was as constant a feature for Churchill as his bulldog spirit, stirring oratory, and steely resolve. Born in 1874, his patrician and aristocratic background could not suppress the man's sheer emotion. Behind the defiant V-signs, cigars, and defiant speeches was a person who wore his heart on his sleeve – but Churchill has never been decried as unmanly or irrational, and public emotion has only deepened his reputation for authenticity. Sir Winston Churchill gives his famous wartime V-sign | Getty Images The Victorian era has left us with a problematic inheritance of sentimentality and repression. The accession of the eighteen-year-old Queen Victoria in 1837 was met with cheers and applause by crowds, at which the new monarch "burst into tears, which continued, notwithstanding an evident attempt on the part of her Majesty to restrain her feelings, to flow in torrents down her now pallid cheeks, until her Majesty retired from the window". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Victoria became a model of a grieving widow but also the epitome of Britishness as Empress of India, a title conferred on her in 1876. By the time of her death in 1901, youthful pathos had been subsumed by a cultural restraint of temper, heralded as the prerequisite for maintaining a quarter of the world. In earlier periods, tearfulness did not imply a lack of manliness or self-control. The eight admirals who carried the coffin of Admiral Horatio Nelson in January 1806 at St Paul's Cathedral were in tears, as was at least half of the all-male congregation. Regency men were not expected to govern their emotions in the way that their Victorian grandsons and great-grandsons were. Deep cynicism towards politicians Emotions in our modern politicians are often dismissed as taboo or tactical, revealing how deeply our cynicism runs. In our media-saturated era, authenticity is a moving target. There is an innate feeling that politicians must be putting on an act. There's even a Japanese term - namida enjou – which critically refers to emotional displays used to attract sympathy or deflect criticism. In many Western cultures, women in politics are expected to be empathetic; however, they are often derided as "too emotional" if they openly express their emotions. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In classical antiquity, particularly in ancient Greece and Rome, Stoics believed that public displays of emotion, especially tears, indicated a lack of self-mastery. For leaders, weeping could suggest weakness or a failure to control passions. Roman emperors, military generals, and senators were expected to exude gravitas, a solemn dignity that left little room for tears. Biblical and ancient Eastern traditions often portrayed rulers and prophets crying in moments of national or spiritual crisis. King David famously wept over the death of his son Absalom. In Chinese history, emperors were sometimes praised for compassionate weeping during times of famine or war. Even in the Roman world, Julius Caesar was known to cry when Alexander the Great's accomplishments were recounted to him—a blend of ambition, envy, and historical candour. As Christianity spread throughout Europe, the concept of the "man of sorrows" gained resonance among Christian leaders, who were encouraged to emulate Christ's compassion. Monarchs and rulers could cry, but only in ways that aligned with their roles as paternalistic figures grieving for their people. Political crying became problematic with the rise of Enlightenment values in the 17th and 18th centuries. Figures like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin emphasised rational governance - tears were considered more suitable for the cultural and literary spheres. Male leaders were expected to display firmness and rational judgment, and to cry in public would risk ridicule or accusations of instability. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Contradictory expectations In the 20th century, mass media, especially radio and television, brought politicians' emotions into living rooms. The expectations were contradictory: leaders were supposed to be human, available, and yet entirely unflappable. In 1990, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was seen with tears in her eyes as she departed from 10 Downing Street after resigning. The attitude that a senior politician 'got what they deserved' is a prevailing one: tears are seen as a sign of weakness to a baying public. Margaret Thatcher leaves Downing Street at the end of her premiership | PA Tony Blair and New Labour were considered a huge modernising force, spearheading the 'Cool Britannia' movement. He coined the term 'People's Princess' to describe Diana in her death and is thought to be the force that convinced Queen Elizabeth II and the Royal Family to change the way they grieved publicly. In the last 20 years, a total public collapse in political confidence has led to an unrelenting scepticism of our leaders' motives. In 2021, when UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock was filmed tearing up during a TV interview about COVID-19 vaccines, critics accused him of faking it for political gain. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
