Im no fan of Starmer but …

[BettyWhittaker]

I am very anti - Labour government, have never voted Labour in my life and never would and I hope an early GE is called …

BUT - AIBU to think he really couldn’t have handled Trump any better than he had? Christ the man is completely unhinged, his behaviour is getting worse and worse - AIBU to think Starmer really couldn’t have done more to handle this?

I thought his statement yesterday was pretty good. Let’s just hope the mad man gets taken out of office before he kicks off another bloody war

I think Starmer’s doing a terrible job. The polling would indicate I’m hardly alone.

That part of the job that involves dealing with Trump has been a nothingness. I don’t blame Starmer for that, I just think anyone could have ‘achieved’ what he has in his dealings with Trump. Starmer deserves no applause for his handling of the US.

To be fair to Trump, no one is even thinking about the Epstein files anymore…
The orange fart has done a great job of deflecting people’s attention away from them.

To be fair if Starmer improved the economy out of all recognition, negotiated a global peace deal and delivered a gold ingot to every house in the UK you’d still be saying he’s useless.

Keir is an experienced barrister and is bound to have met the personality type before. I far rather Keir deal with Trump than any alternative party leader. You can rely on him to speak responsibly.

No I wouldn’t. I thought Starmer did a good job with the street violence and disorder early on. (Overlooking the fact that the left complained about the Tories’ hardline on rioters and looters in 2011.)

I agree with Starmer about prison reform. And about the need to build houses at speed.

This is a bit rich coming from the MN left who would rather eat slugs than admit anything good done by Tories.

so you want to potentially put 1000's of people out of a job then?

List me something good they did and we’ll see…

Yes, that’s the sort of answer I’d expect.

It’s going to be painful whatever we do. Let’s be clear though: he’s Hitler and Starmer being Chamberlain will be disastrous.

So, let me get this straight. It was the Conservatives’ idea, and it was initiated by Sunak. And the Labour government agreed it was a good idea, and continued the negotiations. And then Trump also agreed that it was a good idea, and the deal was done.
And, since you like to misquote, this transfer was single handedly the work of Keir Starmer? Crikey. He’s an even more talented man than I thought!

Your recent quote from Trump doesn’t do anything but demonstrate how ridiculous Trump is, flip flopping around and changing his mind out of malice. If Starmer had agreed that Greenland was a good idea, he’d be talking about what a great great man and friend Starmer is etc. Trump tries to make ground for his own reputation not by bettering himself but trying to make others look worse.

Starmer was legal advisor to the Board overseeing the very very sensitive change from the RUC to PSNI in the early 2000s post Good Friday Agreement. I remember thinking (before he was elected PM) that if he can handle that cauldron he can handle anything. So I do think this is something of a skill he has (I despair of a lot of his other 'skills'). Maybe the right man in the right place at the right time for this very specific task of handling the toddler in the White House.

This is a bit rich coming from the MN left who would rather eat slugs than admit anything good done by Tories.

You’re not paying attention. Only yesterday I said how impressed I am with the way Badenoch dealt with Jenrick.

If it hurts Trump’s presidency, yes imo

TBF I ve often asked what public services are better now than in in 2010... no pro Tory poster has ever replied... its all Covid/Ukraine but that didn't happen for 10 years into the Cons govt...

However, on things well handled, Boris and his support for Ukraine, the initial furlough program too, though the fraud side should have been handled better but i also can see they were panicked, understandable.

Same sex marriage was very good too, though some posters do claim that the Tories weren't really in power from 2010 to 2015....

So left leaning MN can find some things the Con's did well.

There was also the Covid vaccine rollout. That was literally the best in the world.

I do think Starmer is trying to manage the unmanageable but yes, what's next? What if Trump decides he 'needs' the UK to keep 'bad nasty' Europe in check? KS refuses to make a choice between the EU and the US but I'm afraid he will be forced into a decision rather soon.

He cannot make that choice, the EU don't owe the UK anything, we aren't part of any of their structures, yes they'd welcome it but equally they'd not help us in any economic fallout either.

They'd be no EU Bazooka to threaten the US with if Trump said he needed Scotland.... would just be warm words.

Same with the USA, they'll do whats good for them, we wont figure in their calculations, either with Trump or under any other POTUS.

Never before has Brexit hit home quite so harshly to show our impotence.

There’s some truth in that and there always has been: there will be tension between the interests of the US and EU (or particular European countries) and a PM has to navigate through.

But Europe - under the EU or generally - has a much bigger choice to make. Trump’s called the European bluff on defence spending and the EU will have to make its mind up. Spend an awful lot more on defence against Russia and its friends and cut social spending? Risk incursion, attack and humiliation?

NATO is basically the US. Trump is turning his back on that because Europe has been freeloading. The risk isn’t US demands for European territory; it’s Russian demands. The ‘coalition of the willing’ has shown us just how pathetic European commitment to defence and territorial stability is.

Wait until you see who is on Trump's Board of Peace so far.

Mark Carney’s speech at Davos is interesting.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350

The risk isn’t US demands for European territory

Really? What do you think all the current furore about Greenland’s about?

The US will not be invading Greenland by military force, whatever the strange man in the White House might say.

NATO is basically the US. Trump is turning his back on that because Europe has been freeloading. The risk isn’t US demands for European territory; it’s Russian demands. The ‘coalition of the willing’ has shown us just how pathetic European commitment to defence and territorial stability is

Nope, Europe is more than capable of holding back Russia, the US isn't giving anything to Ukraine atm, we buy it all, that keeps US defence industry profitable, so wont be ending.

also, it was the Tories that slashed UK defence spend over 14 years..
even went into the last GE promising to cut it even further.... Ukraine started in 2022... Yet you blame Labour.
That coalition you trash, is spending 100s of billions on Defence of Ukraine:

From January 2022 to August 2025, Europe collectively spent over $201.7 billion on Ukraine (military, financial, humanitarian), surpassing U.S. contributions during the same period

Russian isn't threatening to annex a NATO country, thats the USA...

You seem quite poorly informed.

Let's hope not. Meanwhile the Greenlanders are pissed off and scared because of the ravings of 🍊, the man who faces down bulldog clips without fear nor favour.

You maybe right but really you are in no position to say that.