There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 154 comments are related to the topic:
President Trump humiliating Starmer
President Trump humiliating Starmer
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 154
|
By:
Starmer is playing absolute blinder in this context
pray tell exactly what tangible difference Starmer is making? all he has is words, albeit incoherent and feeble. however, perhaps you can furnish us with what he has actually achieved (in the positive sense)? |
|
By:
oh yes, we have given China the massive embassy with spying capabilities, right next to the city. tried to give chagos over to China's influence as well. I wouldn't want to be doing him a disservice in those sparkling achievements
 |
|
By:
I’ve said how it is, his character of judgment is in question, not only from the Mandy appointment, but after his many U turns, I question his approval of the mega Chinese Embassy.
He motives are snide, his action, well that’s up for debate, though he certainly wasn’t pro active in sending defensive support to our troops out there! |
|
By:
I thought Trump was humiliating America myself but each to their own.
Starmer done a fair few gaffes, but he's handled this situation well. |
|
By:
Are you all aware that we’ve sent 200 Marines to Norway? Ships to the artic? Why?
There’s been no news of this publicly, also there was a Russian ship a mile and half off of Minehead near to the Bristol estuary very recently, tracking back and forth for hours before anyone was sent to chase it off. What was it doing? It was tracing the communication cables to our allies! This also escaped being reported on mainstream media. Think this guy can defend our coast, us? |
|
By:
people like fullset are gaslit into thinking irritating Trump a bit is some kind of triumph. actual things/actions don't count. as long as it makes you feel good lol. as opposed to taking out ruthless leaders that fund and organise terrorist action around the globe, and openly boast about desiring a genocide whilst accumulating nuclear capabilities. f u c k that though when we have an opportunity to make Trump grumpy. lol
|
|
By:
Starmer done a fair few gaffes, but he's handled this situation well.
perhaps you can outline exactly what he has done? |
|
By:
The report of the Russian ship said it was there for around 6 to 7 hours!
But we send Marines from nearby Taunton to Norway! You gotta know your rse from your elbow, Mr U tun bend over take one for team Appeaser doesn’t!  |
|
By:
in a positive sense (yes, definitely jeoprdised our long term safety and security, for me that's not a positive).
|
|
By:
Agree Cider and thanks for mentioning the Embassy too, that’s not a good idea. Who approves a building plan with redactions in it?!?
 Anyone? Let us know what they might like to hide down there! He went against intelligence reports over Mandy just as he has done so with this Embassy. God help anyone who sees any good to him or what he and his party do. |
|
By:
we lived through it during lockdowns didn't we, subverted reality.
some people actually believe it's better to take the side of ruthless terrorists intent on wiping out a country, then western civilisation, over our actual allies. The allies we now 100% rely on for our own safety. As obviously, orange man bad innit. |
|
By:
same as they thought it was worth ruining the lives of millions of people to keep a few crusties going a bit longer. they actually thought you could hide from a virus.
covid, of course, is traced right back to. you guessed it. China. |
|
By:
I don’t agree with getting involved, don’t like the reasoning, of which multiple excuses have been given. But and it’s a big BUT I can see why on paper it’s been done!
The US rushed through 151 million arms supply contract with Israel! The bottom line which we all know. War makes money, costs lives. |
|
By:
nobody here has all the information. but we do have the October 7 pogrom.
Iran obviously massacres tens of thousands of its own people. Whether the west can or should do anything about that is moot. But they are waging terror on us and our allies. So yes, we must take action. Usually a country massacring its own people would be enough get liberalists on their hind legs. But there's something different about this one, can anyone think what it is? |
|
By:
I'm still waiting for the Starmer tangible positive actions btw. Can fullset, cb, or any Starmer proponent come up with the goods?
|
|
By:
Given that Trump is regarded as a transactional President, I still can't see what he is hoping to gain from starting this Iran business.
Whilst solidifying the historic bond with Israel, he is at risk of pushing away other historic allies. |
|
By:
Iran are obviously the root of a lot of global terrorism. They pose a genuine nuclear threat. And yes, the US are supporting Israel, as should we.
|
|
By:
cb denies that he supported lockdown, I'll take his word on that. However, generally I'd bet a lot of money on a strong correlation with lockdown fascists and defenders of Iran. In a year's time they'll probably try to forget they supported Iran against the only power capable of keeping the west together. In essence they are very mailable and only want to be on the side that seems safe at the time.
|
|
By:
fullset • March 17, 2026 10:00 AM GMT
It seems delashay has decided that motives are more important than actions . And that he's an expert on the PM's motives In a court you’re given longer for a pre meditated murder, they tend agree with me too! |
|
By:
You know you've won the argument when your opponents switch from the matter at hand to rehash old beefs .
|
|
By:
No problem here, Don ‘t like Americanisms such as, “Beef”, you can reply to any of my criticisms of the PM as you like which you didn’t.
Motive is in fact a big reason, you mugged yourself whilst trying to mock me! |
|
By:
Carry on supporting someone without a back bone or idea!
|
|
By:
As a matter of fact I agree with much of the criticism of Starmer , but I thought we were discussing the question whether we should take instructions from Trump in regard to the war against Iran .
And in that regard I believe it will be seen that Starmer has taken the correct course. |
|
By:
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if some could forget the past instead of calling for the likes Of Mo’s Army on the streets of London to go and slaughter those that they despise?
Because to use your phrase that’s a “Beef” out there that the world can do without ! |
|
By:
And no I wouldn’t play follow the leader with Pump, I’m not a fan Fullset, years back now I heard a report on radio 2 about an American economist who had advised that full sanctions be placed on Russia to stop their invasion of the Ukraine.
The guy was living in hiding here, Sputin had asked Pump to hand him over, he agreed to do so, he’s done many things that I disagree with, but that morning I realised something else, that was his closeness to Sputin. He had written a book, I wish I could recall his name, but what we have is a massive land grab going on all over the world right now. I’ve asked why Russia aren’t using an airforce? Surely it’s to prolong a war that everyone gets tired of, despite the huge losses, never after the First World War did we think that we’d see trench war fare ever again but it’s playing out out there. The West is tired of sending money the Russian plan is working to a degree. What has it started? A massive free for all which isn’t good and I worry about this appetite for war. The President of Peace has called for us all to build up our arms, FIFA gave him a peace prize and we have not long ago placed more sanctions on Russia! It’s all so carefully orchestrated. I’d like to see real true action for good. |
|
By:
My friend an ex neighbour from London has a second house in the West Country, she tells me you hear big military planes high up and that it’s building up. As well as about the Russian ship off of the coast of Minehead.
That we sent 200 Marines to Norway but no one knows why is interesting, shouldn’t we be looking out for us here? We can’t even protect our own border (the Russian ship a mile and half off of our coastline) but are sending troops abroad so I do laugh negatively when he talks of protecting us all. Have a good day all. |
|
By:
As a matter of fact I agree with much of the criticism of Starmer , but I thought we were discussing the question whether we should take instructions from Trump in regard to the war against Iran .
And in that regard I believe it will be seen that Starmer has taken the correct course. Can you be a bit specific, exactly what course has Starmer taken? |
|
By:
Starmer always looks a worried individual,not a good look for a leader.
Ruled by certain origins. |
|
By:
"[i]The term “special relationship” – used to describe relations between the US and UK – was first used by Winston Churchill in 1946 to highlight just how intertwined the countries had become after the Second World War. Ever since, the US and UK have been in varying degrees of lockstep, with presidents and prime ministers honouring that alliance in times of peace and conflict.
[/i] Yet Donald Trump has been increasingly critical of Keir Starmer for not supporting his war on Iran. So what is the future of the special relationship? Ian Dunt, Zoë Grünewald and Jon Sopel offer their perspectives. It was towards the end of Barack Obama’s second term in 2016 when I had breakfast with the president’s supersmart press secretary, Josh Earnest. The conversation went on to the “special relationship”. I felt a slight, amused eye roll from him. Over croissants and coffee I was schooled in American diplomatic statecraft. “When the Brits are around, we know we HAVE to talk about the ‘special’ relationship. When it’s the Canadians or Mexicans, we talk about the ‘closest’ relationship. Obviously because of the closeness of their revolution and ours, when the French are here, we talk about the ‘oldest’ relationship. Oh and when [former Chancellor of Germany Angela] Merkel comes to DC, we talk about the ‘dearest’ relationship.” Of course, of course. When you’re the world’s pre-eminent superpower, everyone wants to be made to feel special. He knew he was being wry, but there was a truth about what he was saying. The fact of the matter is that on this side of the pond, we talk about the special relationship far more than the Americans do. And as for it being a relationship of equals – forget it. Now I think we, the journalistic community, have our share of blame for this state of affairs. If we think our Prime Minister has gotten (to use an American word) too close, then he is the president’s poodle. For that, think Tony Blair over Iraq in 2003, when he was accused of doing George W. Bush’s bidding. Or look at the fun we had when Gordon Brown was so desperate for a bilateral with Barack Obama before the 2010 election that Brown abased himself by chasing Obama through the kitchens at a United Nations summit, desperate to be able to show his closeness to the charismatic US president. But we are invariably the supplicants, hoping that our much more powerful cousins will be kind to us. We want to be in America’s good graces much more than they want to be in ours. They love our royal family, but aren’t interested in much else. Which brings us to Sir Keir Starmer and what has unfolded over the past couple of weeks. Let’s be honest – the first year of Starmer’s premiership had been marked by a wearying if understandable obsequiousness. But he navigated the relationship with an unpredictable, impulsive president with some aplomb. Then he decided to part company with the 47th president over Iran. And so, when Donald Trump, after the first few days of the war, told reporters “This is not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with,” it was hard to imagine a more crushing, headline-grabbing broadside by an American president. It was an oxygen denying blow straight to the solar plexus. Certain sections of the media lapped it up. We’d been snubbed and humiliated. Britain was diminished and irrelevant. Starmer was a bungling buffoon. But perhaps, (to borrow from Churchill) this was his finest hour. A lot of commentators went to the history books seeking parallels and came up with Hugh Grant in Love Actually. There are better comparisons: Thatcher over the US invasion of a British Commonwealth country, Grenada, when she gave Ronald Reagan a right old bollocking. Or Harold Wilson refusing to send troops to fight in Vietnam. The “special relationship” isn’t all sweetness and light – and it doesn’t always have to be a one-way street. Trump may be disappointed with Britain right now, but Starmer looks as though he has (for once) read public opinion pretty astutely, has (for once) stood his ground – and actually earned some respect. Who knows, he may have even won grudging respect from Trump. Think for one moment of the counter-factual. What would have been the reaction if Starmer had just said “yes” to everything from Trump? This is a war with far less justification than the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then there was lengthy public debate, a UN resolution. This time round there’s been none of that. If a British PM had just written a blank cheque to Trump to start a war that has had no explanation, what would we have all thought? Sure, there is some bad blood right now. But things will stabilise. There are areas where this association is deeper and more profound than some imagine: over intelligence sharing, national security, military integration. Britain has a relationship with the US unlike any other country on the planet. And anyway, Trump wants the king to come to America next month. The term “special relationship” was first coined by Churchill in a speech in 1946 in Fulton, Missouri; the asymmetry of it would be seen a decade later when America threatened to bankrupt Britain if it continued its post-imperial adventure with the French and the Israelis over Suez. That was the defining moment. America was the superpower; Britain no longer ruled the waves. But adjusting to being a “middle” power that doesn’t “punch above its weight”, as a Thatcher-era foreign secretary would have it, is an ongoing, painful adjustment. And going back to the counter-factual, if Starmer had signed that blank cheque, would it have made any difference? What additional military capability would the US have gained? The special relationship does not have mythical qualities, it is mostly symbolic, with a few real practical bits. It’s possible that Starmer has helped us see that a little more clearly." |
|
By:
I can’t see anything wrong with Karmer discussing it with his cabinet.
Admittedly I know next to nothing about politics and that’s already more than I want to know. Trump is a clown of the highest order imo but he’s made politics quite amusing to the untrained eye. I doubt we’d be in such indecision if it were a former president asking. One who held a bit of respect the world over. Trump is one of the most powerful men in the world. I don’t think I’d trust him to even look after my dog! |
|
By:
The US navy doesn't have a ship within 700kms of the straight of Hormuz,
Trump knows it will be a duck shoot for the Irainians so now he wants other countries navies to go there, haha yet we have clowns on here wanting Starmer to send our boys to certain death |
|
By:
It's the difference between being a leader and a middle manager, kenbo. On important matters, a good leader should be able to persuade his team. Leaders set the strategy, they aren't spokesmen for the team.
|
|
By:
Extreme example but if Churchill had succumbed to cabinet pressure, things might have turned out quite a lot worse for us.
As everyone knows, even his biggest fanboys, Starmer isn't a leader. He has no instinct, no foresight, can't inspire, can't provide hope, he is in the wrong job. |
|
By:
Off topic but I liked this response too..
I'm less and less sure about Reform winning enough seats at the next election and forming the next government. In a recent YG poll, whilst they polled 20%, (which was higher than any other party) as the best option, 40% of respondents (which was far higher than any other party) thought they would be the worst option. With those figures it doesn't feel like they have much scope to become more popular, and I think momentum and public opinion is starting to falter, even though this current government will not meet public expectations. How the seats all pan out in such a fractured vote is anyone's guess It reminded me of a story that my dad told me when he went on a project management course. He said at the start of the course the loudest individuals started to take control, but as the course progressed, they realised that the loudmouths didn't have good ideas, and quieter more knowledgeable people took over. Difference being that was a management meeting with smarter than average people who could recognise the loudmouths' lack of knowledge. "The past decade has shown that what was once assumed permanent about the special relationship may be far more fragile. The relationship bends to the temperament of the people running it. Presidents and prime ministers can strain it in ways institutions struggle to contain. So what is its future? Let’s imagine the current polls come to fruition and Reform win the most seats at the next general election. The cracks in the special relationship will become impossible to ignore. Nigel Farage has long styled himself as an Atlanticist; more at home with the swaggering, brash conservatism of the United States than the stuffy corridors of Brussels. His admiration for America is inseparable of course from his disdain for Europe: the EU’s bureaucracy and meddling only reinforced his fascination with a country that prizes risk and celebrates self-made success. But Farage’s Atlanticism is highly selective. His affection for the US is less mutual admiration than transactional self-interest: a country where individualism thrives, and he is validated for being exactly himself. It is a mirror for his own ideology. Farage admires the US because it vindicates him, and does not seem at all interested in reciprocity These instincts are echoed in his party. Reform UK’s ambivalence toward NATO, hostility toward Europe and a preference for national sovereignty over international obligations define its foreign policy. Under a possible Reform government, this “special relationship” becomes increasingly performative: all style, little substance, just a thin case for Britain drifting further away from its allies under the guise of sovereignty. What this looks like in practice depends on who occupies the White House in 2029. Take a populist Republican such as JD Vance, the natural successor to Trump. On paper, a Vance-Farage pairing looks aligned: both sceptical of global institutions, prioritising domestic voters, ambivalent about extended foreign commitments. Harmonious realignment, commentators would say. Cheerleaders on both sides of the Atlantic would lap it up. But while Britain might mirror America in temperament, it would find its capabilities lacking. Farage would revel in creating distance from the EU: scaling back commitments, shrugging at support for Ukraine and neglecting European defence. Downing Street could speak smugly of its ideological bedfellows in Washington, but Britain’s value to the US has never rested on sentiment alone. It has long come from two assets: close ties with Europe and the global influence that flows from them. The UK was not simply a loyal ally, but a country able to shape continental responses and bring others with it. Strip that away and Britain arrives in Washington with far fewer cards to play. Military operations might still happen, but the UK would be consulted less and carry less weight. A nationalist White House would have little reason to reward loyalty for its own sake. Farage’s Britain would be the friend who ditched their old crowd to hang with the cool kids, only to discover they’re not invited to the party. Now imagine a liberal internationalist Democrat like Gavin Newsom in the Oval Office. Whatever relief this hypothetical might offer quickly fades, because while Newsom represents a strand of American politics more traditionally aligned with British interests – committed to NATO, climate leadership, and alliances grounded in liberal democratic norms – a Reform government, sceptical of all those things, would make it its business to drift out of step. And while Newsom may not deploy the scorched-earth tactics of Trump, he is no pushover when it comes to dealing with Trumpian bedfellows. The “special relationship” might survive in name, but Britain’s voice at the table would be reduced to polite nods, occasional press releases, and the awkward handshake. The irony is delicious, and entirely emblematic of the incoherence of Reform’s vision. The promise to restore Britain’s glory days by shaking off bureaucratic elites would leave the country less influential than ever. Nationalist instincts may appeal to some voters, but the strategic incoherence of it all would come back to bite. A political project that prides itself on putting “Brits first” is as naïve as it is theatrical: the world’s biggest threats and greatest solutions are international. No matter how you spin it: under Reform, American relations look bleak. We either sit at dinner tables with those who smile but don’t return our calls, or we dig our own grave by shunning our friends and watch as the world rights its wrongs without us. By the end of the decade, if Britain chooses Reform, it will find itself profoundly alone on the international stage: sidelined in Europe, isolated from the US, and willingly drowning in the Brexiteer fantasy that it can do it all on its own. The “special relationship” would survive in name only, but it’d be meaningless, transactional, and utterly hollow. Britain would matter less than it thinks, and the US would barely notice. If the special relationship is under pressure today, just wait until it meets Nigel Farage in Downing Street." |
|
By:
straits of Hormuz wont be fully up and operating as normal,till IRAN agree it is, TRUMP /America no that like a ROYAL FAMILY ,ab UK ship in SOH will be like a red rag to a bull for IRAN and a number one target they couldn't refuse to bomb, this wont bother TRUMP or USA because they no that like themselves that will drag UK,then Europe 100% committed in to been at war with IRAN, luckily unlike trump,UK and Europe have leaders who can see this elephant trap from outer space , its trumps/Israel's mess let them sort it out
|
|
By:
The other thing is (assuming the YG poll is reasonably accurate) if you have a party which 20% want and 40% don't want, in this day and age tactical voting will mean many of the 40% vote for the most popular alternative in that seat.
|
|
By:
Cabinet collective responsibility, also known as collective ministerial responsibility,[1] is a constitutional convention in parliamentary systems and a cornerstone of the Westminster system of government, that members of the cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them. This support includes voting for the government in the legislature.[2] This convention formed in the 19th century in the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility and @cider I'd bet a lot of money on a strong correlation with lockdown fascists and defenders of Iran. In a year's time they'll probably try to forget they supported Iran Can you give some examples of uk mainstream politicians who are "supporting iran" or even anyone on these forums who are "supporting iran" |
|
By:
Exactly dave. Give too much power to one individual, as we've seen in Iran, USA and Russia, you get dumb decisions. That was what I was alluding to re the OP, and that imo Trump is humiliating the USA. His supporters will lap it up though.
|
|
By:
More importantly , what is going to win the Grand National this year ?
|
|
By:
I was thinking of people involved in the general discourse, not politicians explicitly. Politicians in power are not daft enough to openly 'come out' for Iran, but it's actions that count, not words. Starmer hasn't 'come out' for China for example, but his actions tell us everything.
(fwiw, lol at citing wikipedia for 'evidence' :) ) |