All hail Emperor Trump
Wielding the 'bully-boy' threat of trade tariffs, the President is enjoying unprecedented influence. But should European leaders learn from the more combative approaches taken by Canada and France?
Megan Gibson joins Tom McTague on the New Statesman podcast.
[See also: Can Starmer and Trump come to an agreement on Gaza?]
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
39 minutes ago
- New Statesman
It's time for angry left populism
Illustration by Rebecca Hendin / Ikon Images 'Populism, I'm very sceptical of,' said Adrian Ramsay in the New Statesman's Green Party leadership hustings. 'I… don't want to see the kind of politics you get from populism which often brings about a divisive, polarising approach: Green politics is about bringing people together, respecting different views, having respectful discussion,' added the MP, and current party co-leader. On the contrary, countered Zack Polanski, the party's current deputy and London Assembly member, who's running for the top job promising 'bold leadership' and 'eco-populism'. 'Populism just means the 99 per cent vs the 1 per cent,' he said. He was reviving the old slogan of the Occupy movement. But he was also stating a clear position on a debate which has wracked the intellectual left for more than a decade. If Polanski's right, and if he wins, then there's more at stake than the leadership of England's fifth party. Should they adopt the attitude of their insurgent new political star, then the Greens have an opportunity to change the political climate in Britain, pointing the way to a durable populism of the political left. It's not just the Green Party; a similar phenomenon is emerging across civil society. Under newish, millennial co-directors, Greenpeace UK have adopted an angrier, anti-elite tone. 'Did you know that one of the richest billionaires in the UK is destroying our oceans with plastic?' the NGO asked in one recent online post, linking a traditionally soft-focus issue to spikier class politics. The most significant academic advocates of left-populism have been the Belgian political scientist Chantal Mouffe and her late husband and academic collaborator, the Argentine philosopher Ernesto Laclau. They saw populism as 'a political strategy based around constructing a frontier' between the privileged and the downtrodden, and 'appealing to the mobilization of the 'underdog' against 'those in power''. Mouffe argued that neoliberalism has impoverished not just the working class, but also the middle class, has depoliticised the bulk of the population, and produced what she calls 'oligarchisation' – that is, both radical wealth inequality, and also the political dominance of a growing international billionaire class. This context, she argued in 2016, produced a 'populist moment', one which led to radical political changes on right and left: as well as Trump, Brexit and (later) Johnson, there were Corbynism, Syriza, Bernie Sanders, Podemos, and Jean Luc Mélenchon. Even the more successful centrists of that era – Emmanuel Macron (during his first election) and Nicola Sturgeon – painted themselves as direct opponents of 'those in power'. Nearly a decade later, much of that post-2008 context remains, to which we could add the surge in anxiety about the environmental crisis in 2019, the anger with elites which emerged from the pandemic, and the daily nausea millions of us feel watching a Western-backed genocide livestreamed through our phones. In this context it's absolutely vital, as Mouffe argues, that the left try to mobilise the overwhelming majority of people together against that oligarch class and those in power who protect them. Doing so will require telling clear political stories about the world, which express the tension between 'us' – the majority of people – and 'them' – the oligarchs and their allies. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is not a time to tell citizens to 'calm down, dear'. It's a time to focus righteous rage into change. This will require rhetorically 'constructing a boundary' between 'the 99 per cent' and 'the 1 per cent' and their outriders on the right. It's drawing this boundary to which Ramsay and, in another debate, his running mate Ellie Chowns, object when they describe populism as 'polarising'. But any good story needs conflict and villains, and the real world has plenty for Polanski to point to. Oligarchs and their allies must be curtailed, and we're not going to do that by 'having respectful discussions' with them. Anger has to be focused upwards, or the political right will channel it down. In the context of environmental crisis, economic inequality becomes even more urgent. As Oxfam calculated in 2024, billionaires emit more carbon every three hours than the average British person does in a lifetime. The richest 1 per cent of humanity are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 66 per cent, and are increasingly insulating themselves from the impact of the disaster they've created, flitting around between air-conditioned mansions in private jets while the rest of us swelter. Despite this, Reform's fossil fuel financed anti-environmental populism has managed to rhetorically spin action on climate change – framed as the technocratic sounding 'net zero' – into an 'elitist' project, one which they can blame for rising energy bills, neatly deflecting blame from the fossil fuel industry and energy companies. As Polanski himself pointed out during the New Statesman debate, Ramsay is happy to call for a wealth tax, and clearly wants to curtail the oligarch class. So what's he's afraid of? Perhaps the most articulate intellectual opponent of populism is the Dutch social scientist Cas Mudde, who defines it as an ideology which divides society into two groups, 'the pure people' and 'the corrupt elite', and which regards politics as 'an expression of the general will of the people'. While he sees it has a role in bringing issues that elites don't want discussed to the fore, he worries that it ultimately undermines systems of liberal democracy. And it's this that Ramsay and Chowns really fear: if you channel anger at elites and the system which sustains them, you risk attacking those systems of democracy that we have, and replacing them not with more democracy, but less. But to me – certainly in Britain and the United States – this fear is itself dangerous. Britain has astonishingly low levels of trust in our political system for a simple reason: Westminster stinks. Too often, in Britain (as in America), the left ends up defending that system from right-wing attacks, because the right wants to replace it with authoritarianism, or market rule. Which means voters see us propping up an obviously rotten system, and turn to the right to replace it. This is how Trump won twice, it's how Johnson crushed Corbyn in 2019, and it's why Farage is ahead now. For an alternative strategy, look across the Channel. In France's 2024 legislative elections, the left-wing New Popular Front came first after making radical constitutional change a central message, promising an assembly to write a new constitution, and launch a sixth Republic. Progressives – including Greens – shouldn't fear hatred of our politics any more than we should worry about anger at our economic system, rage at rising bills, or horror at genocide in Gaza. We should express that collective fury, and channel it into serious ideas for the radical change we need. [Further reading: Are the Greens heading left?] Related
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Small boat migrant deportation scheme to begin this week
The process of deporting the first Channel migrants under a new deal with France will begin within days, Sir Keir Starmer has announced. The Prime Minister disclosed that Britain had ratified a treaty with France which means those entering the UK on a small boat can now be detained on arrival and returned across the Channel. It is believed that around 50 migrants will be returned to France each week, with the numbers expected to climb by the end of the year. Migrants will be detained for deportation in the coming days before being deported. Sir Keir is facing continued public dissent over mass migration, with protests outside hotels housing migrants across Britain, prompted in part by reports of crimes by asylum seekers. As it tries to quell mounting anger and show it is taking the concerns seriously, on Monday, Downing Street said that the police should be able to release information on the ethnicity of criminal suspects, after demands for more clarity. Sir Keir's deal with France will mean that about 800 people will be taken back by France by the end of the year, compared with tens of thousands of migrants who have arrived since Labour won the election last July. The 'one-in, one-out deal' means that a similar number of asylum seekers with family connections to the UK will be accepted by Britain. British authorities are now said to be 'operationally ready', with detentions expected to begin within days. Sir Keir said: 'This Government has been fixing the foundations of the broken asylum system we inherited and today we send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France. 'This is the product of months of grown-up diplomacy delivering real results for British people as we broker deals no government has been able to achieve and strike at the heart of these vile gangs' business model. 'The days of gimmicks and broken promises are over – we will restore order to our borders with the seriousness and competence the British people deserve.' Plans for the one-in, one-out deal were signed by the Prime Minister and Emmanuel Macron last month. It had been expected that the scheme would not come into operation until the end of the month, but it has now been brought forward. As part of the quid pro quo with France, the UK will take an equal number of migrants from France if they have not attempted an illegal crossing before. These will be subject to full documentation and security and eligibility checks. The EU Commission, Germany and other EU members have given the green light to the plan. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, said: 'This is an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs that are behind these crossings – undermining their claims that those who travel to the UK illegally can't be returned to France. 'It is also right to make clear that – while the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict – this must be done in a controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous, illegal, and uncontrolled routes.' Immigration Enforcement has set aside space at immigration removal centres, while Border Force has an operational strategy ready to identify and process groups of inadmissible migrants for removal. The treaty governing the pilot scheme will remain in force until June 2026, and over this period both countries have committed to continually review and improve the process and effectiveness of this innovative approach. As part of the deal, the French authorities have agreed to increase their enforcement activity to prevent small boat crossings, disrupt supplies of equipment to the French coast, and arrest members of the criminal groups behind the trade. A new Compagnie de Marche of specialist enforcement officers, supported by increased local policing, has been put in place and a specialist intelligence and judicial police unit has been established in Dunkirk to speed up the arrest and prosecution of people-smugglers. A review of the French maritime approach has been undertaken to allow greater interception of boats in shallow waters. Migrants in France who want to come to the UK legally, will be able to submit an Expression of Interest application for the new legal route online and the Home Office will make a decision. France long resisted signing the treaty because the Dublin returns agreement was scrapped after Brexit. They also argued that new agreement would have to be EU-wide. Separately, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that law enforcement agencies and governing authorities 'should always be as transparent as possible' about criminal cases. He spoke after two male asylum seekers in Warwickshire were charged in connection with the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton last month. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, said that the migration status of suspects should 'absolutely' be released in order to quell online conspiracy theories.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
No 10 declines to say if Palestine will be recognised with Hamas in power
The prime minister's spokesman has refused eight times to confirm whether recognition of Palestine could go ahead if Hamas remain in power and the hostages are not released. Keir Starmer's spokesman was questioned by journalists for the first time since the announcement last week that the UK will formally recognise the state in September - unless Israel meets certain conditions including abiding by a ceasefire and increasing aid. The policy has been criticised by the families of UK hostages, campaigners and some Labour MPs, who argue it would reward Hamas and say it should be conditional on the release of the remaining hostages. A senior Hamas politician, Ghazi Hamad, speaking to Al Jazeera, said at the weekend that major nations' decision to recognise a Palestinian state "is one of the fruits of 7 October". The PM's spokesman said on Monday: "The PM is clear that on 7 October, Hamas committed the worst act of terror in Israel's history. That horror has continued since then. "As the foreign secretary said over the weekend, Hamas are rightly pariahs who can have no role in Gaza's future, there is a diplomatic consensus on that. Hamas must immediately release all hostages and have no role in the governance of Gaza." But asked whether removing Hamas from power and releasing hostages were conditions for statehood, he said a decision on recognition would be made at the UN General Assembly meeting in September, based on "an assessment of how far the parties have met the steps we have set out. No one side will have veto on recognition through their actions or inactions." 2:25 He added: "Our focus is on the immediate situation on the ground, getting more aid in to end the suffering in Gaza and supporting a ceasefire and a long-term peace for Israelis and Palestinians based a two-state solution." Starmer, who recalled his cabinet for an emergency meeting last week before setting out the new position, is following the lead of French president Emmanuel Macron, who first pledged to move toward recognising Palestinian statehood in April. Canada has also backed recognition if conditions are met, including by the Palestinian Authority. The prime minister had previously said he would recognise a state of Palestine as part of a contribution to a peace process. 3:05 In his announcement last Tuesday, he said: "We need to see at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day. But ultimately, the only way to bring this humanitarian crisis to an end is through a long-term settlement. "So we are supporting the US, Egyptian and Qatari efforts to secure a vital ceasefire. That ceasefire must be sustainable and it must lead to a wider peace plan, which we are developing with our international partners. "I've always said we will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process, at the moment of maximum impact for the two-state solution. With that solution now under threat, this is the moment to act." Adam Rose, a lawyer acting for British families of hostages in Gaza, has said: "Why would Hamas agree to a ceasefire if it knew that to do so would make British recognition of Palestine less likely?"
