This is an audio transcript of the Political Fix podcast episode: ‘Will Starmer sink or swim in Trump’s world?’
George Parker
Hello and welcome to Political Fix from the Financial Times with me, George Parker, in the hot seat while Lucy’s away in Japan, hopefully dining in some of Tokyo’s finest eateries with foreign secretary David Lammy.
On the menu today, politics that is even rawer than sushi, to misquote 80s icon Neneh Cherry. Yes, we’ll be devoting this week’s episode to the high-stakes debate taking place around the war in Ukraine and specifically looking at the role of Sir Keir Starmer in trying to navigate a path through Trump world as the old postwar order crumbles.
Joining me in the studio today are two Political Fix regulars. Miranda Green. Hello, Miranda.
Miranda Green
Hello, George.
George Parker
And Robert Shrimsley.
Robert Shrimsley
Hi, George.
George Parker
And also, joining us from Washington D.C. is the FT’s US foreign affairs and defence correspondent, Felicia Schwartz. Hello, Felicia.
Felicia Schwartz
Hi, George. Thanks for having me.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
George Parker
Now, before we start, Felicia, the last time I saw you was about a week ago in Washington at a reception to mark the arrival of Peter Mandelson, Britain’s new ambassador to the US. How is he getting on?
Felicia Schwartz
It’s been a very . . . He’s gone a little Trumpy, I think. On the Sunday shows he seemed to kind of come out ahead where the British government is on its Ukraine policy. I believe he called for an immediate ceasefire. You would know the finer points of the British policy better than me, but seems like he’s drinking the kool aid of Trump’s Washington. So depending on where you sit, maybe he’s getting along well or not so well.
George Parker
And can you just give us a sense of what it’s like covering the Trump administration? Do you ever get a day off?
Felicia Schwartz
I don’t know what a day off is. I covered the last Trump administration and this feels very different. Last time around, there were more people in Trump’s orbit who were serving as a bit of a check on his power. And this time around, he has a lot of people around him who are empowering him to follow his instincts, and the pace as a result is quite fast.
George Parker
Incredible. And I think White House correspondents say they’ve had more questions to Donald Trump in the first week than they did with Joe Biden in four years. Is that right?
Felicia Schwartz
Oh, yeah. I mean, it’s probably maybe twice as much already. He’s taking questions sometimes for an hour a day. I think it’s fascinating. You know, when you were here last week, Keir Starmer is one of three leaders. I’m sure we’ll get to the worst meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. But he subjects all of his visitors to this free-flowing, hour-long impromptu press conference in the Oval Office, which doesn’t seem to work out too well for most of them, though Starmer did OK.
George Parker
OK, so there’s been an awful lot to unpack this week, and knowing Donald Trump, things will have moved on again by the time we finished recording this show. But we’ve had the US cutting off intelligence to Ukraine, Vice-President JD Vance mocking random European countries that might take part in a peacekeeping force and President Zelenskyy bending the knee, praising Trump’s leadership and agreeing to sign a new minerals deal with the US.
But closer to home, the common consensus seems to be at Westminster that Keir Starmer’s playing a bit of a blinder in difficult circumstances. Miranda, how do you think he’s handling this?
Miranda Green
Well, I think it’s causing everyone to see him in a completely different light because domestically, this comes at a point where he was under a lot of criticism for slightly aimless government and not a lot of clear leadership from Number 10 Downing Street whereas, you know, Trump comes in, the Ukraine crisis hits in terms of whether the continued support from other western nations will be forthcoming against Russia. And Starmer seems to have risen to the moment.
I mean, Robert, you wrote a column saying, you know, this is a kind of historic moment in the history of the western alliance and is Starmer the right person and will he be able to pull it off? And so far he is doing really well. And there’s a sense that his kind of sobriety, the way he comes across, which has been seen as a bit sort of leaden and deadening on the domestic stage as a contrast to the craziness coming out of the Trump administration, is a nice contrast.
And then you’ve got sort of Macron’s extreme charm as a sort of wingman. I don’t know which of them is the wing man. I think Macron probably is, but it’s working quite well so far. Of course, none of this is to say that he will be able to secure the substance of what is necessary to secure a lasting, proper peace in Ukraine and a security settlement that works for the rest of the democratic west.
But he’s doing a pretty good job. That awful metaphor that they kept rolling out, that the UK can be a bridge between the EU and America — a bridge looks like quite a vulnerable structure when the Atlantic’s sort of getting wider and wider and wider, you know, but he’s certainly finding some sort of role that’s working so far.
George Parker
Robert.
Robert Shrimsley
I’m gonna be a little bit more sceptical. I mean, I agree with Miranda in that I think Keir Starmer has done all the things that he can do and has been serious and strategic in his approach to Trump, letting himself be goaded by the noises off or even the noises on. He’s sticking to his core strategy of trying to Trump whisper, almost. And he’s been serious and studious, and he undoubtedly did have a good session in the White House.
But I also think we’re living in a sort of unreal world, this half-world where it’s both good, but we haven’t really internalised the full scale of the change. And the truth is, while you can measure performatively, Starmer has done really well in all of his performance and getting all these plaudits in the Commons, even from Conservatives.
You know, James Cleverly saying he hasn’t put a foot wrong. Ed Davey, (inaudible) saying it’s great to see Britain back leading on the world stage. My feeling is you can’t really judge how well this is going until we see the end result. And the truth is, I don’t think Donald Trump is that susceptible to all the flattery and blandishments. I think it all helps a little bit, but in the end, he’s going to do what he wants to do. And I’m not sure how much further Keir Starmer can go in pushing this.
My one concern is I do feel British politics has not yet caught up with how much things have changed. And I felt, for example, Keir Starmer got credit for announcing an increase in defence expenditure from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent of GDP, and then a vague pledge to give up 3 per cent sometime in the next parliament — in other words, not before 2029. And I just found something he . . . you guys haven’t yet risen to this, to the full enormity of where we are. The Treasury is still looking at this. I’m thinking we can stick to no more than the spending envelope we’ve got. And I just feel the one area where Keir Starmer hasn’t yet quite nailed this is in talking to the country and his own party and saying things are really going to change.
The memory that came to me was those few days at the very early stages of the pandemic, where we knew it was about to descend upon us. It hadn’t quite yet. Rishi Sunak had his ordinary budget, as it were, and everybody sat there knowing that the world was about to change. But they were still proceeding as normal. And that’s the one question I have about where we are.
George Parker
I think that’s true. And you hear him using very big rhetoric about the world changing and how it’s gonna have to be a whole-society effort. Well, the whole-society effort has got to be surely a bit more than lopping some money off the overseas aid budget. So I think I agree with Robert.
Felicia, can I come to you on this? How is Keir Starmer being seen in Washington? Trump called him a special man in the Oval Office, but does his administration have any time for countries that aren’t America, China or Russia?
Felicia Schwartz
He called him a special man. He complimented his accent, which I think Trump does favour people that he believes kind of fit into the central casting version of whatever role he’s dealing with. But I think just to pick up a bit on Robert’s point, I think that the peril of dealing with Trump is that these meetings go well. There’s a lot of, you know, good vibes between . . . Like, clearly they’ve gotten along well.
And I heard from the US end as well. It was a good meeting and they felt that it went well. But having a good relationship with Trump doesn’t, you know, generally translate to the kinds of results that I think Starmer and others are looking for. I think it’s going to be very hard to convince Trump to deliver the kind of security guarantee that the UK and France and others are looking for.
I think, you know, you saw kind of a fiery truth tweet from Trump after the huddle in London last weekend. He said, you know, Europe’s agreed that they need us. Like, that’s not where we are. I mean, I’m saying that a lot more diplomatically than whatever truth he fired off. So I think, one, people don’t think about him too much. Not to be too dismissive, but he clearly has a good personal relationship with Trump.
But I agree. I think that there’s gonna have to be some sort of policy shift on the European end or some better effort to kind of win these guys over, but just kind of drumming the point as Zelenskyy saw it doesn’t seem to be delivering much.
George Parker
Felicia, I think you make a really good point there about how personal relationships only count for so much with someone like President Trump. But on a purely trivial note, how would you compare the relationship the president has with Keir Starmer, with the relationship he has with Emmanuel Macron?
Felicia Schwartz
I was actually just thinking that, before you even asked. I think with Macron, you know, there’s a lot of history there. There have been peaks and valleys in that relationship. As you said, Macron is a charmer. He knows how to kind of work with Trump, flatter him. But again, I think it hasn’t necessarily delivered that much.
And I think Starmer’s relationship with Trump is probably a bit more businesslike. You know, they’ve had 3 or 4 meetings at this point. Both of them have spoken highly of the time they’ve spent together. I don’t think Starmer, to me, from my side of the pond, doesn’t seem like he’s much of a showman. But there’s respect there.
And I don’t know which approach is necessarily better, because Macron sometimes goes out a little far over his skis, and Starmer’s — again, you guys should correct me — but he seems a bit more measured and maybe that will ultimately be more effective with Trump in the end. But I think they’re still kind of writing the story of how they’re gonna deal with each other, whereas with Macron, that is a bit more well-trodden territory.
Robert Shrimsley
I’ve just . . . I mean, I think the fundamental point here in all this is that Britain and Europe and the US have fundamentally different strategic goals at the moment. Britain and the European Union want to protect Ukraine, push back Russia, support Zelenskyy and see Russian aggression curbed and contained. And Trump just wants to stop the war and doesn’t really care how it’s stopped. And so in the end, that’s a fundamental clash. And no amount of goodwill and pleasantries gets you around that.
Miranda Green
Just to sort of desperately try and claw back some sort of optimistic interpretation from any of this — I don’t disagree with anything you said, Robert, by the way — but, George, I wonder what you think of this new Starmer we’re seeing on the world stage, particularly because of your sort of background covering Brussels, etc.
Because in a sense, you know, to see a post-Brexit British prime minister having at least some convening power, which a lot of people in the diplomatic world complained about post-Brexit, right? They were like, well, OK, you guys have just walked away from your international role, that’s it, you’ll be irrelevant forever. Is this any sort of recovery of that? Because it looks like it in the pictures. But again, maybe it will evaporate to nothing.
George Parker
Well, I mean, it’s a really good question and I’d be a lot interested to hear what you think about this. I interviewed Peter Mandelson, just before he became the ambassador, for the FT magazine. And as you know, Peter Mandelson deplored Brexit as sort of the worst act of self-harm committed by Britain in its lifetime and so forth. But he said, in the era of Trump, you could start to see some opportunities opening up from Brexit of being the not-Europe country in the course of Trump possibly being able to escape some of his tariffs that he’s aiming at the European Union.
But also, as you say, that because Britain and France, the two military powers in Western Europe par none, it does give Macron and of course, Starmer, a convening power that they didn’t have before. And Starmer’s grabbed that opportunity I think with both hands. And I just want to . . . Miranda, do you agree with Peter Mandelson that there does appear to be some sort of Brexit opportunity opening up here?
Miranda Green
I think there’s a definite opportunity for the Labour party to kind of move to a next step in its history. And if you think of the fact that actually the formation of Nato and the postwar European order was when Labour were in power, you know, after the crises of the second world war, I think when you talk to Labour people, they’re kind of quite cognisant of the fact that this is a historic opportunity in that sense, you know, Labour as leading the UK at a moment where it can redefine itself on the world stage.
Robert Shrimsley
I think this Brexit opportunity stuff is cobblers, actually. I’ve been listening to people saying this, from Nigel Farage to Peter Mandelson, as if somehow Emmanuel Macron is managing to do all the things that Keir Starmer is doing, whilst France remains in the European Union.
And the issue about the Brexit freedom or the bridge stuff is that in the end Britain is gonna have to make some choices. Keir Starmer keeps saying I don’t want to have to choose, we’re gonna steer a path between. But in the end, when a part of Trump’s philosophy is to weaken the European Union, which I think he said in one of his statements, is that was created to screw us. He wants the European Union kept weak. And the argument for giving Britain some kind of benefit is that you keep it detached from the European Union.
But what is actually happening at the moment is that Britain is being forced closer and closer to the European Union because of the security issues. And if you believe that we’re gonna have to create a new European security architecture, which I do, then in the end Britain’s not going to end up being seen as separate from the EU, even if it is technically outside of it. So whatever we think this opportunity is, I’m struggling to identify what it’s going to be in the end.
George Parker
Well, it has to take on an Ft podcast to explore the possibility that Brexit might have actually brought some benefits. I take your point there, Robert, but if you look at the argument that Peter Mandelson was advancing on things like tariffs or indeed . . .
Miranda Green
AI and technology.
George Parker
The economic partnership that Britain wants to forge with the US in areas like AI where we have a different regulatory model to the EU and the EU has, even by its own admission, overregulated parts of the economy. It potentially does open up an opportunity, doesn’t it?
Robert Shrimsley
I mean, on AI, let’s see. I mean, I don’t think Trump is interested in economic partnerships. He’s interested in economic subservience. He’s not interested in Britain being a partner to the US on AI. And tariffs — I just think, in the end, yes, he may go after the EU first, but if he decides to go after the UK, he’ll go off the UK anyway. You know we’re in the firing line on VAT, possibly on steel. I don’t think it might put us further behind in the queue of reprisals and retaliations, but we’ll still end up there if he’s decided we’re going to be.
George Parker
Excellent.
George Parker
OK, now, listen. Miranda, let’s talk about how this might impact on Keir Starmer domestically. I mean, it’s not the most important thing, of course, in this whole thing. But given the fact that Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have been falling off a cliff ever since he walked into Number 10 last July, we’ve seen one poll showing his approval ratings moved up to a six-month high from a very low base. Is this helping him domestically?
Miranda Green
Well, his sort of leadership role in trying to come to a solution of this international crisis is one thing that might help him, should it have a good outcome. But if what happens down the line is that people realise the new reality that Robert warned about actually means Labour being unable to do what it promised at the election and change Britain — their one-word manifesto, ‘change’ — for the better, particularly in terms of repairing the public realm and improving standard of living, avoiding swingeing cuts to the welfare state and the NHS, all the rest of it, then he’s gonna have a lot of other domestic problems quite soon, actually.
And if you think that we’re now into March and we’ve got Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement on the 26th of March, we’ll have the OBR forecasts on what the growth prospects for the economy might be, the central mission of this government is now no longer really what it was advertised as growth and various domestic priorities. It’s the defence of Western Europe, and that has massive spending implications.
So I think in terms of how Starmer’s government popularity survives, it’s gonna depend on how well they get this message across. I think Robert’s absolutely right about that. Can you actually sell to the electorate the idea that the world has changed, our priorities have had to change, and some of these ambitions are now not meetable? Or do you find cleverer ways to try and meet a few key objectives, and that the country will wear it? It’s really, really difficult, so much tighter fiscal situation that we even anticipated, which is already very bad.
George Parker
Robert, Miranda’s just very eloquently set out all the many domestic problems that are going to arise from this conflict, in this new security situation. But just in terms of the way that Starmer is regarded as a politician, does this whole episode — going into the White House, appearing to be a statesman, convening people at Lancaster House for summit — does it potentially change the way the public perceive him from someone who was framed, or has been framed by some in the media as a bit of a loser, with a bit of a whiny voice to being someone who looks a bit more like a statesman on the world stage?
Robert Shrimsley
Yeah. I mean, I think in the short term, there’s definitely a bump for him because he looks the part. People are nervous. He seems reassuring. He seems steady. You know, when you think back to some of our recent prime ministers (laughter), you think, yeah, I’m quite pleased you’re there today.
So there’s a definite short-term upside for him. In general, foreign policy successes don’t tend to last that long in terms — I mean, with the possible exception of the Falklands, which is a particularly unique case — doing well in foreign policy doesn’t tend to be a sustained position, but it does make the country look at you and think, yeah, yeah, you look like a prime minister, that’s all good. I think the worry will be . . . Certainly compared to some of the other contenders to be prime minister, people look at him more favourably.
The worry, I think, is that he is dealing with a world that is not in his control. He is constantly being buffeted by events he can’t control, and therefore over time, that’s a vulnerability rather than an upside. The Falklands conflict, which some people are already saying, oh, this could be his Falklands, Falklands conflict was to most extents within Margaret Thatcher’s control, other than the fact, obviously, if the country had lost, that would have been the end of it. But it was a conflict of her choosing to some extent. This is nothing like that.
And so in the end he is up against a far more powerful force, and all he can do is try and stay afloat. That’s much trickier.
George Parker
I agree, you can’t overdo the Falklands comparison, but it is certainly true that up until 1982, Margaret Thatcher was seen as a hapless, weak prime minister and it suddenly transformed her. And then she played up to the old Iron Lady image thereafter, and that image of her in the public mind stuck.
Robert Shrimsley
But it also spoke to her broader narrative, which was of Britain has been in retreat, we’re taking all the blows, we’re fading. Now all of a sudden we can stand up for ourselves. So Falklands was not only this extraordinary event in itself, but it fed the wider Thatcher narrative. This, I think, is different.
Miranda Green
It was in defiance of the US as well. We shouldn’t forget. The US was not particularly interested in helping Britain. (Overlapping speech) Exactly. You know, and even Ronald Reagan, who was very close to Margaret Thatcher, was not, you know, taking her stand that this was a defence of a sovereign territory, of a democratic nation.
George Parker
Although it should be noted that the French were secretly providing us with missiles. So look, enough of the history of the 40 years ago, Felicia. Let’s look at what happens next.
We would expect, I think, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, possibly Volodomyr Zelenskyy to be back in Washington with a plan in the coming days. How do you think it’s likely to be received?
Felicia Schwartz
Depends, I think, how much they’ve moved on this question of security guarantees and if they’re willing to kind of work within the framework that Trump and his aides have set out, which is that they want to talk.
They’re very interesting. Trump’s main goal is stopping the fighting. He wants to do that as quickly as possible. I think these details about security guarantees, I think there are some in his administration who are, you know, more open to something, but they want to talk about the nuts and bolts of stopping the fighting first. I think if they’re willing to engage in that way and lay off a bit on this question of what the US will do once the fighting has stopped. I think there’s room to co-operate. I think if they can get Zelenskyy back to the table on the minerals deal, as he said he’s willing to do, I think that will really help. I think Trump really cares about this deal and wants to see it signed.
So I think it’s just going to depend if they can . . . I don’t think that the US is really going to move towards Europe. I think they’re going to have to move towards him.
George Parker
Yeah. And I’ve heard British officials saying this may be sort of wishful thinking on a massive scale, that if Zelenskyy signs the minerals deal, that will start to shift thinking in the Republican Party and maybe open the door a little bit to the idea that the Americans might then return to the Ukraine arena, possibly provide the security guarantees and ratchet up pressure on Putin to do a deal.
Felicia Schwartz
Some of that might be wishful thinking. Some of it might be true.
I think Trump, what’s been clear to me from the conversations I’ve had with some of Trump’s aides is Trump thinks that it’s important to speak about Putin publicly and positively. They feel like, you know, they’ve insulted him for three years at this point. It hasn’t amounted to much. You know, he is very sour on Biden and his approach to Ukraine and, and what the US has given him or has given Ukraine for that matter.
So I think that it’s possible, but I also think that, you know, we kind of need to exist where Trump is and do things on his playbook.
George Parker
Yeah. Miranda, Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week suggested that he has Britain’s back in the events of a peacekeeping force being deployed, but said we didn’t really need any help. Do you think it really has Britain’s back?
Miranda Green
No. Not particularly. And despite your rebuke about history, George. (Laughter).
George Parker
Well, that’s all like. (Overlapping speech).
Miranda Green
You know, I mean, you know, we have been here before, right? I mean, look at when Reagan decided to march in to the Caribbean island of Grenada, which was, you know, if not, you know, mainland territory, but part of the Commonwealth and all the rest of it. And that led to a massive row between Thatcher and Reagan over that. The bottom line is that America will do what America wants, as Robert and Felicia have said.
I suppose I do wonder, I don’t know if Felicia has a thought on this, is how much now with this White House, everyone — from, you know, Zelenskyy through to other visiting world leaders — does have to sort of go through these weird hazing rituals in the White House and be seen to slightly drink, you know, you said to drink the kool aid in terms of Mandelson, Felicia, you know, is that now what everybody really has to do to kind of, at least publicly, kind of performatively kowtow in order to try and tempt Trump on to some sort of compromise territory?
Felicia Schwartz
I think so. I think he likes to do this kind of show in the Oval Office, take questions, kind of put the other person through the wringer or show that he’s the boss, put them on the spot. Again, I think we saw this in the first term, and I think we’re seeing it now.
Everyone thinks that flattery is the way to his heart. Abe, for example, the late prime minister of Japan, was really good at kind of playing the game with Trump. And I think a lot of people kind of see that as a model. But because he’s pretty unburdened by the people around him, again, I’m just not sure.
I think, you know, fundamentally he sees Ukraine as a European problem. He thinks that the US has been . . . I think he’s a very transactional worldview. He’s concerned with doing good deals. He thinks that, you know, the US has been ripped off. He cites inflated figures about how much the US has contributed to Ukraine and how much Europe hasn’t.
So again, I think that, I don’t know that playing his game will amount to much, but I think it’s a necessary step towards anything.
Robert Shrimsley
I mean, this was the one place where most people agree that Trump is right, is that Europe has free-ridden on America for a very long time in defence terms. And if a consequence of this is that he can in a few weeks’ or months’ time, look at this and say, Europe has really stepped up the amount of money they’re putting into defence. Look how they’re ready to defend their own continent.
That, I think, begins to show this point about paying tribute to the emperor, bending the knee a little bit. So once Europe is showing, it’s playing on his terms, maybe that changes the calculation a little.
George Parker
Concerns about the economics of all this, because obviously the Trump presidency has turned economic security on its head, but also its economics, as we’ve been discovering this week with the new German, incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz talking about totally removing the debt break, going on massive defence spending splurge, reflating his economy.
Do you think Rachel Reeves can resist pressure to do something similar and relax her own fiscal rules?
Robert Shrimsley
It’s the really million-dollar question, I think, in terms of British policy, because she’s so determined not to breach her own fiscal rules. Not least because I think within the Labour party, once she wavers on the fiscal rules, all of her backbenchers are going to be saying that means you can tax more. And that’s what she doesn’t want to do. They’ve looked at the tax burden. They’re frightened of increasing it any more.
I was talking to one Labour strategist the other day who just said, you know, we’re not sure how deep the support will be either for Ukraine or wider European security if we start putting people’s taxes up when they’re looking at how much money we spend on welfare or health bureaucracy. So I think they’re very, very keen not to revisit this, partly because I think it reopens all kind of other debates they’re a bit frightened of.
But personally I don’t think the Treasury position is sustainable. I think there is too much spending on defence that’s got to come down the line. And so Labour has either got to, as Miranda was touching on earlier, has either got to start doing cuts, engaging in cuts that it really doesn’t believe in, or it’s gonna to have to revisit this issue because the borrowing level, OK, the fiscal rules prescribe, you know, we’ve got a debt net of 95 per cent. If there’s another crisis down the line, it gets problematic.
So unless she can find off-books borrowing, you know, this ReArm bank idea that’s being put forward or euro bonds that we can coattail on, I think it’s very tricky for her.
George Parker
Now, Miranda, can we have a quick reflection on one of the many strange events this week? JD Vance talking about a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine. In rather disparaging terms.
JD Vance in audio clip
The very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine. That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.
George Parker
Miranda, did he mean Britain? And how did Starmer respond? (Laughter)
Miranda Green
Well, it’s been interesting, this, because even though Vance now says that he wasn’t referring to allies from, you know . . .
George Parker
Well, Britain and France.
Miranda Green
Not just Britain and France, allies, not just from the second world war, but all the other major military events in the Western world ever since and indeed in the Middle East. And, you know, Tony Blair’s willingness to be shoulder to shoulder with George W Bush in Iraq and all the rest of it, that apparently counts for nothing. He insists he wasn’t talking about Britain or France, but some of the other people in Keir Starmer’s so-called coalition of the willing, if that turns out to be the security guarantee for the ceasefire or peace deal.
But of course, domestically in the UK, those words landed incredibly badly, which meant that all of the party leaders had to sort of find a way to try and finesse it and look patriotic with the notable exception of Kemi Badenoch, who decided that the best thing for the Tory party leader to do in this circumstance was to say, well, he probably didn’t mean that; I know him terribly well.
Now, the merits of the case to one side, that seemed like an odd political decision because everyone else was happy to say, and Starmer carefully in the House of Commons didn’t attack Vance but said, you know, I’d just like to say a few words about the extraordinary bravery of armed services and the military personnel . . .
George Parker
Who died alongside Americans serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Miranda Green
Exactly. But it’s very interesting, this, because, you know, we also sort of noticed in some of the detailed polling that’s being done, people do feel quite strongly about this Ukraine issue for now, because we should caveat because we don’t know how that would develop. But it’s caused a bit of a problem for Nigel Farage as well, who when these Vance remarks landed, then rushed also to defend British personnel because he’s got a problem with not being seen to defend western values against Putin over Ukraine.
Robert Shrimsley
As you were saying on these polls, he’s got a problem with the public not liking people who are seen as pro-Trump, that actually being seen as Britain’s Trump is not necessarily a winning ticket at the moment.
Miranda Green
It’s the number one quoted barrier to voting Reform is perceived closeness to Trump at the moment.
George Parker
Now, Felicia, finally to you, JD Vance didn’t specify which random countries he was referring to, but is this indicative of how the administration views Europe rather generally?
Felicia Schwartz
If Trump is transactional, JD Vance kind of wants to destroy the rules-based international order. He thinks that it has ripped off communities like the one that he grew up in. And, you know, just thinking back to the Munich Security Forum he gave, he didn’t really speak about security at all. He spoke about, you know, an assault on free speech and democracy in Europe and in ways that really ricocheted around the room.
So I think it’s definitely fair to say that JD Vance has a dim view of Europe and their contributions to security and free riding and so on. I don’t know that he necessarily has a dim view of the UK, but I think it’s fair to say that he is pretty Eurosceptic.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
George Parker
Now it’s just time for our political stock picks. Miranda, who are you buying or selling this week?
Miranda Green
Well, I’m actually, to sort of return to our, what are Rachel Reeves’ options here, I’m going to buy stock in former governors of the Bank of England, more specifically Mervyn King, who said a few days ago that really Rachel Reeves ought to revisit some of the election pledges, not to touch increasing tax on the three big taxes plus corporation tax.
And he was actually suggesting, I think that income tax might have to go up to avoid cuts that are not really possible in public spending. And I think those voices are going to grow, not just amongst Labour MPs.
George Parker
Mervyn King will be delighted you’re buying stocks of him, sort of blast from the past. Ah, Robert.
Miranda Green
I think I did the King last week, so with Mervyn King, there’s a theme.
Robert Shrimsley
I mean, very much continuing on the same premise, I’m actually going to sell Rachel Reeves, not because I think she’s about to be sacked or anything like that, but because I think the problems are mounting up for the Treasury. We’ve got this, what do they call it? They’ve got the new term for the financial statement that she’s coming up with, in much like the nondramatic financial statement, or whatever it is, that’s coming up where she’s got to explain how she’s going to stick within her fiscal rules.
She’s going to have this pressure on defence spending building and building and building. And you know, growth is flat. We haven’t yet had any economic backlash from Trump ourselves, but something will probably come down. And so I think she’s heading into a very, very tough year.
George Parker
Felicia, over to you.
Felicia Schwartz
I think I will buy JD Vance. It seems that his worldview is really winning out as the US is pushing ahead its strategy in Ukraine and Europe. So I think he’s riding high.
Robert Shrimsley
Sorry, can we just . . . we can’t let this go. This JD Vance as the defender of free speech and democracy — the idea, if we can see what is happening to free speech within America, to people who disagree with the regime and how they’re being clobbered by people in the regime and lest we forget the commitment to democracy and the January the sixth riots, this man is vice-president to a man who tried to block a legitimate election.
So he may be saying this, but I don’t think we can let it go without observing that his track record on this is not that great.
Felicia Schwartz
Yeah. Let me just say, I mean, they’re keeping the AP and I think Reuters out of the Oval Office and on the plane. They’ve completely taken over the White House press pool, which is a complete break from precedent.
I mean, when you watch these press conferences with Trump in the Oval Office, I mean, they’re not really press conferences, but impromptu gaggles, if you will. A lot of the questions are super flattering and suck-uppy because they’re coming from Trump-friendly media and so I think . . .
Robert Shrimsley
They’re trying to censure a congressman who heckled him, aren’t they?
Felicia Schwartz
Yeah. That too. It’s yeah (overlapping speech) like extraordinary times.
Miranda Green
And what about you, George? Who are you buying or selling this week?
George Parker
Well, I think I’m gonna do the mirror image of Felicia’s stock pick. I’m going to sell JD Vance’s defender in the UK. You were talking about earlier, Nigel Farage, because the way the public are turning against the Trump administration and the way that they belittled President Zelenskyy makes it quite difficult for Nigel Farage. There’s been a bit of turbulence around the leadership as well this week in Reform UK. So I’m going to be selling Nigel.
Miranda Green
Well, I’m sure he listens very carefully to the FT output.
George Parker
Well I hope he was listening earlier when we were . . .
Miranda Green
Travelling to and from Clacton. Oh sorry.
George Parker
When we were discussing . . . (Laughter)
Miranda Green
Maybe not when he’s travelling to and from Clacton.
George Parker
Oh, yeah, but we were, we were discussing some of the benefits of Brexit earlier in a very wholehearted way. So there we go.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
That’s it for this episode of the FT’s Political Fix. I’ve put links to subjects discussed in this episode in the show notes. Do check them out. They’re articles we’ve made free for Political Fix listeners.
And there’s also a link there to Stephen Bush’s award-winning Inside Politics newsletter. You’ll get 30 days free. And don’t forget to subscribe to the show and do leave a review or a star rating. It helps us to spread the word.
Political Fix was presented by me, George Parker, and produced by Lulu Smyth, our executive producer is Manuela Saragosa, original music and sound engineering by Breen Turner. The broadcast engineers were Andrew Georgiades and Rod Fitzgerald. Cheryl Brumley is the FT’s global head of audio. We’ll meet again here next week.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
