Wednesday, 15th July 2026 Cardiff 28° · Clear sky
NationCymru A news service by the people of Wales, for the people of Wales.

Opinion

Will no one stand up to Trump?

By Mark Mansfield
US President Donald Trump. Photo Niall Carson/PA Wire

Martin Shipton

It’s quite extraordinary that when asked about the gangster-like kidnapping of a foreign head of state and his wife on the orders of Donald Trump, Keir Starmer’s response was to say that he needed to find out the facts, and that more information would hopefully come to light at Trump’s press conference later.

These comments alone reveal both the moral vacuum at the heart of Starmer’s approach to politics and the humiliating lack of influence he has over an ally with which the UK supposedly has a “special relationship”.

Contrast what Starmer said with the words of his predecessor as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a man written off by many as not of Prime Ministerial calibre: “The US has launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Venezuela. This is a brazen attempt to secure control over Venezuelan natural resources.

“It is an act of war that puts the lives of millions of people at risk — and should be condemned by anyone who believes in sovereignty and international law.”

It’s also worth recalling the words of Margaret Thatcher, when US troops invaded the small Caribbean country of Grenada in 1983, at a time when her friend Ronald Reagan was President: "We in the Western democracies use our force to defend our way of life. We do not use it to walk into other people’s countries, independent sovereign territories … If you are pronouncing a new law that wherever Communism reigns against the will of the people … there the United States shall enter, then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world."

Trump has been back in the White House for less than a year, and he is behaving without restraint. Having said there would be no more foreign wars if he was elected, he has authorised military action against a growing number of countries, mainly in the Middle East, but now in Africa and South America too.

In a typically rambling speech delivered at his Florida resort and de facto southern White House Mar–a-Lago, Trump didn’t even bother to deny that one of his aims in deposing Nicolas Maduro and “running the country”, as he indelicately put it, is to seize Venezuela’s oilfields and infrastructure. His justification in doing so is based on the fact that in 1976 the country’s then government decided to nationalise the oil industry - something it had a perfect right to do.

The other justification for overthrowing Maduro was that he is supposedly the head of a massive drugs cartel - according to Trump, the very biggest - which is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. How strange, therefore, that a report produced by a US agency as recently as March 2025 failed to identify Venezuela as a major producer of narcotics.

Trump has certainly inaugurated a new era, and we’re all the worse for it.

The United States has long been known to intervene in the politics of other countries, and to have engaged in regime change. The CIA was involved in the violent overthrow of Chile’s Socialist President Salvador Allende in 1973, for example. He was replaced by the brutal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. But things were done more discreetly in those days, and it took time for proof to emerge. The US did not openly boast about such transgressions.

Monroe Doctrine

Trump operates on a different level. In his Mar-a-Lago speech on Saturday afternoon, he proudly proclaimed the return of the Monroe Doctrine - a foreign policy approach initiated by President James Monroe in 1823 that asserted the United States’ right to control the political development of South America. In fact, Trump went so far as to half-jokingly refer to it as the “Don-roe” Doctrine, renamed after himself.

In that context it’s no surprise that he should be talking about “running” Venezuela until it’s possible to transition to democracy - an empty promise made by many a dictator in the past.

Trump has single-handedly demolished the post-war consensus that - as Churchill put it - “jaw-jaw is better than war-war”.

In his triumphant speech to journalists at Mar-a-Lago, he showed no restraint in asserting his right to do exactly as he pleases from a military point of view. In this he has taken lessons from Benjamin Netanyahu, the war criminal Prime Minister of Israel who also has a licence to behave with impunity.

Starmer’s response was pathetic and shameful. As a human rights lawyer, he’s fully aware that Trump’s behaviour in seizing Maduro and his wife is entirely contrary to international law. Yet he’s not prepared to call it out and acts like a lapdog to Trump. If one were able to have a discreet, private conversation with him, he would probably say that he was acting in the UK’s best interests by holding back and failing to condemn Trump’s behaviour. But if political leaders don’t stand up for what is right, the danger is that international diplomacy will be reduced to the supremacy of the bully. Which will negate the purpose of the international bodies set up as part of that post-war consensus.

Sanctioned

We already have a situation where officials of the International Criminal Court have been sanctioned for daring to uphold the values that underpin the organisation. Trump’s disgraceful and immoral support for Israel has led him to characterise those august bodies who seek to hold the rogue state to account as themselves illegitimate.

Black is now white and white is now black.

Trump’s action in Venezuela undoubtedly compromises the support that Ukraine deserves against Russia. What argument could be deployed against Putin if, perish the thought, he mounted a successful operation to seize President Zelenskyy - as he initially intended? And how could one argue against China invading Taiwan?

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, there were concerns that the balance of power that had largely ensured peace during the Cold War years would be disrupted. It’s taken a few decades for that disruption to come into effect, thanks to the Americans’ decision to elect a madman as their President.

The future of international relations is on a knife-edge - and Europe’s failure to stand together on the moral high ground is making disintegration more and more likely.

Will no one stand up to Trump?

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

162 comments

Amir

The only thing that will bring down Trump literally will be his obsession with a high dose of daily aspirin and the need for thin blood that cannot clot.

Reply
Smae

Tbf, it looks like Trump is going the same way as Biden... too old to do the job. Mid terms look set to give Trump a trouncing. What matters is how the different Republican factions view this latest move and whether enough of them will be shocked enough to consider voting more towards Democrat lines.

Reply
Amir

He still has 2 years to continue his reign of evil and give the green light to China. Well, he already gave the green light to Russia and zion in his first term.

Reply

In reply to Amir

John Brooks

Three years - unfortunately.

Reply

In reply to John Brooks

Amir

Sorry, yes 3 years. There was so much in the news regarding mid term elections in the US, I got confused.

Reply

In reply to Amir

Andy w

Amir - look at history. 1999 American Airlines bought Canadian Airlines International with support from governments of Ontario and Alberta then tried to buy Quebecs Air Canada. There was a plan to repaint all planes as American Airlines / possibly of Canada becoming part of USA. 1 February 1999 American Airlines launched One World Alliance with a focus on members from the Commonwealth. That day Air France flew its’ entire management team to International Air Transport Association HQ in Communist Cuba. 2 February 1999 a meeting was held of airline staff from around the world and no individuals from England, Australia or USA were invited - the meeting created an economics club. December 1999 American Airlines hostile takeover of Air Canada was deemed illegal under Quebec Law (independent of Canadian law and based on 17th Century French Law) under foreign ownership rules and the ruling identified Toronto as being in a foreign country. Lots of countries network by email / phone and do not share their game-plans. Spain has commented on Trump https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/04/spain-and-5-latin-american-countries-reject-us-attack-on-venezuela-in-joint-communique Will any South American players go to the FIFA World Cup in USA if Trumps behaviour spreads to the whole of The Americas?

Reply
Adrian Savill

Correct+ True -well done Martin for calling it out....

Reply
Mab Meirion

Clark of the Cinque Ports once again fails as a National Leader, a man who reached the top in the law and justice business yet is a fraud, unable to demonstrate any notion of right and wrong himself...as evidenced repeatedly in all aspects of successful governance over the last eighteen months or HR skills in who he listens to...

Reply
Mab Meirion

Belly up like a lap dog, devoid of basic humanistic principals, betrayed by his own simplicity, lawyers in parliament=morticians working in A&E

Reply
TheWoodForTheTrees

The lack of condemnation of Trump's actions in Venezuela is shocking. The US needs to be sanctioned for its bully boy tactics, not deferred to. The rest of the world needs to stop bending over backwards to trade with the US and turn against them. Otherwise we are all going to be shafted by that abhorrent administration. We can say goodbye to the world as we know it. It's truly terrifying.

Reply
Steve D.

There is realistically only three organisations that can stand up to Trump. The UN but it needs reforming - starting with scrapping the Security Council. The EU, which finally needs to get it's act together and work together - it's strong enough as a unit. And, the American Senate. For the Senate to counteract Trump - the American people need to vote for a democrat majority in this year's midterm elections. The UK, on its own is a lame duck, it needs to rejoin the EU. One thing is for sure, if something is not done, the world is heading for complete chaos.

Reply
Smae

Security Council doesn't need scrapping, just needs the veto diluting. The EU cannot stand up to trump, the best you've got is... Russia... China and Germany. The UN certainly can't stand up to the US, that's where most of its funding comes from!

Reply
Iain

Is this any different to Iraq? The bad guys even have the same moustache.

Reply
Smae

It is different yes, Maduro is a) still alive, b) probably actually did sign off on the drug shipments. Iraq, Saddam Hussein was quickly unalived and b) we all knew he didn't actually have WMDs... toilets sure, but no WMDs. I remember the US televising their raid on the factory... only for them to come out having found out it was manufacturing toilets. Now in my house using the toilet risks breaching the geneva conventions, but I'm not sure it's a WMD.

Reply
Iain

Both had contrived justifications. Both were really about oil. Both reveal the US as a rogue state with no respect for international law. Trump was just a bit less subtle than Dubya.

Reply
Andy w

There have been examples in Africa / Middle East that conflicts draw fighters to the conflict region. So a long conflict that spreads and involves other countries is possible. Trumps policies show the irrelevancy of global institutions such as the United Nations. If the cluster of organisations based in New York will not influence Trump, then only USA citizens will. USA citizens will only influence Trump if they see Apple selling less phones, fewer business people / tourists visiting USA, Facebook / LinkedIn / Uber / Coca Colas Costa Coffee etc boycotted.

Reply
John P

Kier Starmer is a spineless coward who has not got the guts to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu. All credit to Zac Polanski and Jeremy Corbyn for condemning this act of aggression and theft of Venezuala's oil.They have also always been on the side of the people of Gaza. I do hope the Zac Polanski's party do well in the future because they have principles and compassion which is rare in the nasty greedy world of 2026 politics. We badly need a good left wing party!

Reply
Smae

In fairness to Kier Starmer, he was asked whether it was lawful or not. Kier Starmer is NOT by any stretch a 'natural politician', he's a lawyer at heart... about as close to politics as you'll get him is 'Civil Servant'. That's not to say he can't do the job, it just doesn't come naturally to him like it did to say Blair, Cameron or dare I say Bevan. Politically, he should have made the call there and then, but the lawyer in him is extremely wary of judgement calls like that having had a career in Justice and knowing how easily such judgement calls bite one in the rear. For Starmer, Starmer needs to know the full facts before he can make this call, it's not about sucking up to America is about following the rule of law, checking the boxes and making sure he has all his ducks in a row. It won't win any soundbites to be sure and it'll do no favors for his poll ratings... but it's the right call. Find out the facts of the case first, it's not as if the UK hasn't done it's own fair share of regime changes... see Iran 1970s revenge for when Iran nationalized what became to be know as BP and it deposed the Shah after bribing Roosevelt. Lets bare in mind the basic facts as we know them. Maduro was NOT elected under a fair ballot and evidence suggests he didn't even win said ballot. Venezuela is a well know drug hub, has been for decades. That drugs are being exported from Venezuela is apparently only news to those at the highest levels of power. The question and justification is what evidence did Trump have that Maduro had direct oversight of such things in an attempt to undermine say the US. If Maduro did have direct oversight or approved sending narcotics that are illegal in the US to the US... then the US has absolutely the right to go in and put an end to it. Of course, the US wouldn't have bothered if oil wasn't involved, but that doesn't mean the justification isn't there. So on this rare occasion, I'm backing Starmer, because he's not jumping to conclusions or hopping on bandwagons or seizing populist view points... (whatever you say about Starmer, he's clearly neither Farage nor Polanski)... he's trying to find out the truth of the matter. Which must be hard since the UK has zero political weight here, it's not like Starmer can make any demands and any arbitrary call would simply see the UK voided of it's trade and possibly military deals with the US. Which is not a great situation see Russia.

Reply
Iain

The only reason he's not doing a Blair or a Cameron is Trump isn't asking their poodle to legitimise their rampaging this time.

Reply
coldcomfort

Stop insulting my dog

Reply
Rob

Under international law, the threshold is much clearer. Kidnapping or forcibly removing a foreign head of state without UN authorisation is unlawful regardless of how unsavoury that leader may be. This is the classic humanitarian intervention versus state sovereignty dilemma. As uncomfortable as it sounds, sovereignty has to prevail. Once powerful states claim the right to impose regime change on moral or security grounds, they set a precedent of becoming the 'world's policeman' in which that others particularly their enemy will immediately copy. Putin justified his invasion of Ukraine on alleged humanitarian grounds too citing neo-Nazi militias. That’s exactly why the UN Charter exists. If the US believes drug trafficking is being facilitated abroad, the lawful responses are sanctions, extradition requests, international courts, or strengthening its own borders. Not unilateral force. Mexico suffers enormous gun violence fuelled by weapons trafficked from the USA. Does that give Mexico the right to seize or depose an American president? Starmer may be cautious, but leadership sometimes requires stating obvious legal truths clearly. Waiting for “all the facts” when the act itself breaches international law risks normalising behaviour that ultimately makes the world less safe, especially for smaller states.

Reply
Chris Wood

As pointed out elsewhere: 'There's the rub' - a United States President will not be tied up in knots by the whims of the UN Security Council (where Russia and China has seats).  US Presidents have taken like action; look at former United States President Bush who sent in the US military to invade Panama, without UN Security Council authorization, and take into custody the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking against the interests of the US.

Reply
Jones

2 things here mate. Venezuela was not a rusk to USA security and the USA have broken international law. Period.

Reply
David J.

Let's bear in mind the need to bare our souls occasionally.

Reply
John Ellis

'Will no one stand up to Trump?' Since the UK, and for that matter western Europe in general, has for 80 years opted to rely on the USA as 'the leader of the free world', all of us in Europe - and the UK no less than any of the rest of the European nations - are in no easy and immediate position to cock a snook to the United States of America, given that US voters have elected an administration which has shown itself clearly to be at best indifferent to, and arguably actually hostile to, most of their erstwhile European 'allies'. Right now, Europe - and the UK too - needs to accept that under the Trump administratioh the USA is pretty much as hostile to Europe as is Putin's Russia, and we all need together to revise our policy positions in the light of that sombre reality.

Reply
Rhobat Bryn

The people who can stand up to Trump in the first instance are Congress. According to the US constitution, war can only be declared if a vote is taken there as happened with Bush and Iraq. Do we have to wait for the midterms before Representatives and Senators discover a backbone?

Reply
Chris Wood

FYI: the United States War Powers Resolution of 1973 (War Powers Act) allows a U.S. President to deploy troops for short-term military action, but requires notification to Congress within 48 hours and limits the deployment to 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) without a formal declaration of war.  

Reply
Macsen

Trump really does act like a gangster. I think the chance of Trump annexing Greenland at the end of his second term has increased significantly. Venezuela doesn't really effect European leaders so wouldn't expect them to take a public stance of disapproval or risk tariffs or worse. Greenland being annexed would mean Denmark leaves Nato, others would likely follow it could be the start of the end of the post second World War II era into whatever comes next. However Europe is so reliant on the U.S. currently perhaps countries would find a way to look the other way again, thinking Trump won't live forever, the next President won't damage European interests like Trump did & Pax Americana will continue. Interesting times we live in...

Reply
Rob

Europe and the UK are learning, far too late, what dependency really costs. Militarily, European states have become heavily reliant on US capabilities and US defence supply chains, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a brutal stress test of that dependence. Recent tracking suggests Europe has struggled to fully compensate when US support falters, which should concentrate the minds of all European leaders.  That’s why Trump’s behaviour matters beyond Venezuela. If a US president can undermine sovereignty to impose regime change and “run” another country, then the so-called rules based order becomes selective and brittle. Furthermore, it’s hard to impose sanctions, boycott, or decouple from the US in the way Europe did with Russia after Ukraine, because American platforms, brands, culture, and supply chains are a part of everyday life. We can live without Russian vodka, and Russian oil (albeit making things bit more costly), but can we as a nation live without Starbucks, McDonalds, KFC, Subway, Amazon, US films and tv shows, a Netflix subscription to catch the final season of Stranger Things, Wrestling, NFL, the Superbowl etc etc? Would you seriously consider boycotting the World Cup if Wales qualify? Europe needs to get its act together. This does not mean to becoming a “superstate” as Brexiteers would have us think, but it does need to act like a superpower, capable of defending its interests, enforcing international law consistently, and reducing strategic dependency. That includes taking seriously the new reality that the US can no longer be assumed to be a predictable ally. It could compete with other superpowers including the US in influencing its liberal democratic values. Trump has repeatedly floated taking Greenland and recently reasserted the US “needs” it territory linked to Denmark a NATO member, something that should be setting off alarm bells across Europe. Moreover that makes them a potential adversary in the eyes of European leaders, and when leading figures like Elon Musk publicly call for the EU to be abolished, it underlines how casually some powerful voices in the US ecosystem talk about dismantling European institutions. For the UK, clinging to the “special relationship” while staying outside the EU risks leaving us isolated and politically captive to Washington’s mood swings. At minimum, it invites the perception that the UK is a US-aligned outlier rather than a dependable European partner. It is painfully obvious now that Brexit was a strategic mistake, and rebuilding serious alignment with Europe both economically and politically should be treated as an urgent national interest, not something vetoed by whatever Reform UK chooses to shout this week. On security, Europe should be building genuinely independent capacity. Potentially this means a stronger European bracket an alternative to NATO which could also incorporate Canada and Ukraine. Europe must be able to defend itself and its neighbourhood without being hostage to any US president’s impulses. If that offends the 'sphere of influence' mindset in Moscow or Washington well tough. And if the Faragists scream “traitor” whilst spouting pro-Trump or pro-Kremlin propaganda then they are in no position to lecture anyone about patriotism.

Reply
David J.

I would have no problem ignoring the US products on your list, especially since I don't buy them anyway, and I don't feel my life is the poorer, quite the opposite. Give me a european film over hollywood any day. My loathing for sport in general , and football in particular, makes this an easy decision of course, so I will be ignoring the world cup anyway, as I have ignored all the world cups since I was born, regardless of who is playing in it .

Reply
Rob

That's your choice and your right, the problem is not everyone is going to fall in line.

Reply
Charles Coombes

Either Stamer Or the King next?

Reply
Richard Jenkins

Who will stand up to Trump? Not Starmer obviously! Sickening to be a governed by a cowardly, immoral, complicit piece of animated cardboard.

Reply
Tony Burgess

Trump has given China a green light to invade Taiwan…

Reply
Rob

Greenland is Danish territory, which is in Europe.

Reply
Jeff

Trump wants the Epstein files gone. The ones he has been heavily redacted from. Why would he be redacted from this? So lets invade a nation to steal the oil.

Reply
Jeff

Greenland says hi. Trump is hostile to anyone who stands up to him. He becomes obsessive in destroying that place or person, there are numerous examples. He is a thug that is rich.

Reply
hdavies15

Confirmation that we have well and truly entered the age of the international hooligan politician. Willing to go to undeclared war against weaker nations, just like his buddy Putin attacking Ukraine. This could become US's repeat of the Vietnam misadventure and this time the US is not too far away from other Latin American nations who would/could discreetly funnel all sorts of criminal and subversive elements to wreak havoc north of the Rio Grande. China, Russia and others will sit back and enjoy Trump's discomfort.

Reply
coldcomfort

Having a moral conscience does not imply having the capacity to perform the role of Prime Minister. Be good to see someone with both

Reply
Lyn E

Hands Off Latin America protest, 6pm Monday 5th, Canal Quarter Cardiff.

Reply
Lyn E

Correction: the rally will start at Nye Bevan’s statue, Queen Street.

Reply
Iain

When Cuba falls don't forget to remind folks that this is all Corbyn's fault. His lukewarm support for Remain as Labour leader was responsible for Brexit and the resulting collapse in the international rules based order.

Reply
Uhh

Are you trolling?

Reply

In reply to Uhh

Iain

It's a serious point that the left-left are responsible for all of this just because Jezza wanted the 70s back.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

Are the left left in the room with you now? Corbyn was center left at most.

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

The Overton window has lurched right since your era.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

That still makes Corbyn center left.

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

Not when Thatcher's now a centre right wet.

Reply
Lyn E

The 'rules based order' has been under strain since the financial crash. The US ruling class sees the world slipping from its grasp as China rises so wants to reassert its dominance over the resources of Latin America. Trump is quite explicit about wanting Venezuela's oil. As we have seen over Israel's genocide and now on Trump's kidnapping of a head of state, Starmer has no wish to defend international law. Corbyn campaigned for Remain, as did I, knocking doors night after night and distributing hundreds of leaflets. Did you do the same?

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Uh, I wasn't Leader of The Opposition. "Corbyn office 'sabotaged' EU Remain campaign" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36633238

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

So you did nothing, just moan, whine and find someone to blame. Pathetic.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

The Leader of the Opposition is an absolutely legitimate person to blame. His failure to properly back Remain was easily worth the 4% Leave won by. Which was enough to nudge Trump to victory in 2016. But this is what the left-left do. They keep things bad so they have something to campaign against. It's the reason we rarely have a left leaning government in Westminster. There is no better bogeyman to moan, whine and blame than the Tories on a protest. And what is life without protest? Next stop for the left-left: get real fascism in power. That's campaigning nirvana, until the disappearing starts of course. But better to go out fighting for a good cause, eh?

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

If you'd bothered to get out of your bubble in 2016 and talk to people fed up with their lives under austerity, you would have quickly learnt how hard it was to persuade people to vote to remain as they were. Corbyn was right to recognise that simply trumpeting the merits of the EU would never have convinced them. The politics of the so-called 'centre-left' have failed. Blair and Brown encouraged the growth of the financial sector that crashed so badly in 2008 that we are still picking up the pieces. It was only the vagaries of FPTP that allowed Starmer to win in 2024 with 3 million fewer votes that Corbyn won in 2017, and it's been downhill ever since. Pandering to the racism of the far right has just encouraged it. The all-but-certain debacle that awaits Welsh Labour in May will be the direct result. There will be no way you can blame the 'left-left' for that.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

That was Corbyn's failure, to allow the debate to rest on the so-called merits of the EU when he should've talked about the benefits of it stopping the Tories do their very worst. He couldn't do this because he wanted the Tories to be freed to do their very worst, just as they could in the 70s when the protesting life was a dream.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You are so full of ignorant prejudice. Stopping the Tories doing their worst is what most of Corbyn's political life has been about. The 'centre-left' has just adopted slightly softened Tory policies. Do you really think we have nothing better to do this evening than stand in the cold (as people are doing around the world) to protest this act of blatant aggression. Grow up.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

The awkward thing about democracy is the need to get people to vote for you. If you proudly state that you'll never compromise your principles then you are committing to staying out of power and letting the right in, time and again. Imagining that the masses will one day realise their stupidity and agree with you is a dark and twisted fairy tale that hints at a hatred of humanity. The only way to stop the right-right running riot is by building alliances with enough folks that represent people you don't completely agree with, but can find common ground. And that's something the left-left can't do which is why we always have right leaning governments and left-left permaprotests.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You are blinded by prejudice and hate. We will be seeking to build as wide an alliance as possible against Trump's threat to the people of Latin America and to the peace of the world. Join us.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

If you had to choose between backing a Starmer-led coalition of the willing, or standing back and allowing a Ref-Con alliance to take control in 2029, which would you pick?

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Reform should be stopped from entering government. I doubt Starmer will still be around by 2029.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Maybe not but he may be replaced by another centrist candidate and the question remains. Because the bitter pill to swallow about politics and democracy is that progress can only be made in partnership with folks you may not like. Those who aren't prepared to compromise their beliefs simply shouldn't be in politics. It's always better to deliver half of a ten point plan in power than none of it in opposition. The dominance of the Conservatives over the last two hundred years isn't because they agree with each other. They are at least two totally different factions who fight like rats in a sack at any opportunity but they are united by one things - a fear of socialism. Treating them as one big Tory enemy has been the best gift the left could ever give them.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

Starmer isnt a centerist. He's further right than Blair and he was Thatchers greatest achievement.

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

The right-right today can't see a difference between Thatcher and Corbyn.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

And one more thing. Labour was elected under Starmer's 2024 centralist manifesto. Anyone replacing him should broadly honour that platform. Those hoping for a left-left candidate to take control of government and rip that platform up is hoping for an antidemocratic coup à la Liz Truss.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

It's not May that's the concern. It's 2029 when the left-left will help fascism win. Even the leader of the Greens said he'd rather have Reform than Starmer. The fundamental problem is that neoliberalism hasn't worked because it was never going to work. But communism isn't the answer, that's the same extremism flipped on its head. All state no profit is just as bad as all profit no state. The answer is a balance between state and private sector. The Singapore hybrid model that balances free market principles with strong targeted state intervention. The left-left aren't ready for that conversation because they're stuck in the 70s, which is why they'll clear the way for fascism.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You may not be worried about Reform in May. I am. If Farage wins in 2029, Starmer and Reeves will be to blame. How can you blame the 'left-left' when it is the current Labour government(s) that are making all the decisions that are encouraging the growth of Reform? Did you read Labour's 2017 and 2019 manifestoes? They were certainly not proposing communism. By the standards of 1945 or indeed most Labour manifestos until the 1990s, they were quite moderate in their proposals for balancing the private and state sectors. They look extreme only in comparison with the neoliberalism that permeates New Labour and Starmer's thinking.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

And Thatcher's manifesto didn't propose neoliberalism. People vote on instinct not words in a document. Corbyn was the problem, his was a reputation built over decades. And I would point out one more thing. 2019 was never going to happen but 2017 might have been different under a different voting system. Unfortunately it was the Labour left that killed that off in 2011. This inate desire to keep the right in power isn't new.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Corbyn was much more popular even in 2019, after a concerted campaign of vilification, than Starmer is today. You seem to have no respect for facts. The campaign against AV in 2011 was led by the Labour centre-right. Margaret Beckett was President of NOtoAV; its supporters included David Blunkett.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

That's distorting facts, twice. 2019 was a two horse race between the anyone but Boris folks and the anyone but Corbyn types. 2024 was a four horse race. Using these results from very different races to make a relative popularity assessment is dishonest. What should make a real democrat pay attention is that 37m registered voters didn't want Corbyn. And Labour's official position under Red Ed was neutral. That's a strange way to support change. If the Labour left had united this would've been enough to swing the party officially behind abolishing FPTP.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You seem to be quite paranoid. Ed Miliband was not a supporter of Corbyn. Do you see reds under every bed? Even more registered voters rejected Starmer in 2024 and far more would now. But no doubt you were happy to see Johnson rather than Corbyn become PM.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

What I wanted was to be rid of FPTP in 2011 so this damaging and dangerous choice wasn't even on the agenda, having been replaced by a new collaborative form of politics that meant Brexit, Boris and Trump never even happened. But the left-left made sure that didn't happen.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You have an obsessive belief that the ‘left-left’ should be blamed for everything you dislike, even when there is negligible or no evidence for it. In 2011, the ‘left-left’ was a marginal force in British politics. Even if it had campaigned against AV, it would have made no difference to its rejection by 2/3 of voters. In reality, there has always been a diversity of views on the left over the voting system. Most would now reject FPTP but there is little agreement on what should replace it. Corbyn voted in the HOC in favour of holding the referendum in 2011 but like the rest of the ‘left-left’ has always seen the voting question within a wider context of democratic reform.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

This isn't about holding a grudge for past decisions. This is about calling out a pattern of behaviour on the left that will continue to be responsible for avoidable negative consequences. If the UK ends up heading down a dark road in 2029 it will be because of these forces sabotaging attempts to unite against such a move. The fake progressives who use perfect as the enemy of the good to ensure the bad continues. The best outcome is that Zack hoovers up the genuine progressives from the left-left to become a serious but pragmatic force for change in politics, leaving the toxic leftist closet conservative regressives exposed for all to see and avoid.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

The most divisive force within the labour movement has been the Starmer clique who lied their way to the party leadership with a set of pledges, none of which have been kept, then proceeded to suspend and expel dissidents on fraudulent charges. Corbyn never sought to purge his opponents. Don't rewrite history by now calling for unity. Starmer has encouraged the growth of Reform by pandering to Farage like he grovels before Trump. From Gaza to Venezuela, international law has been ignored. Reeves has been a disastrous Chancellor. Wales has been treated with contempt. The 'left left' is not responsible for any of this.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

What kind of progressive defends FPTP.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Very few on the left now would. It's served its time. Starmer still supports it but he's no progressive.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Did you vote to abolish FPTP in 2011? If not do you now acknowledge and regret your small role in enabling Brexit, Boris and Trump which wouldn't have happened under AV? If you did, do you acknowledge the damage many of the old guard socialists caused with their Tory enabling over many decades? And does Zack offer a bright future for a left-left purged of these regressive dinosaurs? Or is factionalism on the far left inevitable, gifting power to the right for ever more?

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

The 2011 referendum was not for or against FPTP but specifically on AV which Cameron had insisted on against Clegg’s preference for PR. I voted against what felt like a stitch-up. Only 14% of the electorate voted Yes. The big issue in 2011 was not Brexit but austerity. AV was never a credible option at the time. A footnote to history. Interestingly, some research has suggested that under AV Labour would have won more seats than the Conservatives in 2017. The next three elections following the AV referendum were (outside Scotland) fairly traditional two party contests but the world has now changed. In a multiparty election FPTP lacks credibility. I’m not the greatest fan of closed list PR but it should stop Reform becoming the largest party in Senedd. If Starmer had any political gumption he would open a debate on the electoral system, not just FPTP but the Lords, how devolution is working, etc. But he won’t.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

And there it is. Champions of perfect as the enemy of the much better than now giving us bad time and again. That's why the left-left will never stop backing the right.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

The 'left-left' has never backed the right. We resist in whatever way we can. Electoral reform was never a serious proposition in 2011, just a token gesture from Cameron to keep Clegg on board. There was no public demand for it. The Labour right was much more engaged in defeating AV than was the left, more interested in fighting the austerity that was ruining so many lives. Today, electoral reform is a real and achievable need, which could gain wide public support. The 'left-left' will not defend the FPTP status quo, although agreement on its replacement might be harder to achieve. It is again Starmer and the Labour right who are the obstacle to change, as they usually are. Look beyond your prejudices to see the facts.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Refusing to do whatever it takes to defeat the right enables the right. That shouldn't need explaining.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

The 'left-left' will do whatever it takes to defeat the right. It is the right of the Labour Party who are endorsing Farage's racism and encouraging the rise of right wing populism by economic policies that prioritise the needs of the wealthy. Do you have any respect for facts?

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Yet in 2011 you found yourself on the same side as the Daily Mail supporting a voting system that kept the right in power.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

It is your rabid hostility to left politics that belongs in the Daily Mail. In 2016, Remain campaigners found ourselves on the same side as Cameron and Osborne. It happens. There was no clear left-right split in 2011 on AV (which the Electoral Reform Society sees as just watered down FPTP). Right-wing Labour MPs led the campaign against it. In 2011, AV could have consolidated the right-wing Tory-LibDem coalition that was destroying essential services. Brexit was a remote prospect. Many serious political analysts thought FPTP might be a bulwark against far right populism, which had used non-FPTP systems to gain a foothold in several European legislatures. The facts have now changed so, like Keynes, I have changed my mind. Dogmatists find evidence-based decision-making hard to understand. Today, Starmer is the biggest obstacle to electoral reform.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

You misunderstand. It's not left-left politics I'm opposed to, it's the regressive permaprotesting virtue signalling Tory enablers pretending to be progressives that have no desire to get into power and actually change things. I'm hopeful that Zack can hoover up the real progressives and become a genuinely influential left-left force in politics that leads to real meaningful change. Change that is only possible through coalition. Because the point about AV isn't that it was a perfect system, it was a better system (the ERS give it two more stars than FPTP) that would have led to permanent coalitions which would've allowed more left-left parties to participate in government and delivered more of their agenda than is ever possible in permanent opposition. And that could've included replacing AV with something better having successfully introduced the country to the idea of doing things differently. But the reason the Labour left didn't want this is they knew it would be the end of their broad church big tent family that could, along with the Tory broad church big tent family, not exist in a system that rewarded smaller parties. They put party before country. At least acknowledge that it was a mistake to support the Mail and with hindsight you'd have preferred to try a route that wouldn't give us extremes like Boris, Brexit and Trump, and wouldn't have made the lives of ordinary working people that the left-left are supposed to care about far worse.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Iain

And the reason this matters isn't about picking over the bones of the past. It's about understanding the future. Until the left-left grasp how they are responsible for where we are, they will blindly repeat the same mistakes to gift power to a Ref-Con alliance in 2029.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

The responsibility for where we are now rests with the right-wing Labour MPs who voted with the Tory right to stop the softening of Brexit proposed by Corbyn, and with today's UK Government for grovelling to Farage and Trump, and putting the interests of big banks and corporations above those of ordinary people.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You have some truly bizarre ideas about the left. Fantasies divorced from evidence. You claim that the left has 'no desire to get into power and actually change things'. Yet we campaigned hard for Labour victories in 2017 and 2019 that would have made Jeremy Corbyn PM. Would that not have constituted getting into power? Did you campaign for a Labour victory then, or did you prefer to see Theresa May and Boris Johnson in Downing Street? You seem quite obsessed with the 2011 AV referendum which the public has almost entirely forgotten. You insist on blaming the left for AV being rejected when the left had negligible impact on the result and tended to see the whole exercise as a distraction from fighting austerity. This indifference was shared by the electorate, fewer than half of whom bothered to vote. It was the Labour right that were the most dogged opponents of AV. Why are you not directing your ire at them? And will you condemn Starmer for blocking constitutional reform that is now badly needed?

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

I agree that Starmer drinks the kool aid as far as the constitution is concerned and should be busy remaking it as a modern democracy. But what reforms are you demanding? The problem with the 2017 and 2019 elections is left failed to understand that the majority of the 47m voters are small c conservative. The focus was on trying to hoodwink enough of these voters rather than comforting them with a centrist offer. In the chaos of Brexit they came close to doing exactly this in 2017 but the right organised (united again by the fear of socialism) to destroy Team Corbyn in 2019. But imagine if 2017 had been under AV. It's very likely that a Lab-Lib coalition could have prevailed, with Corbyn as PM and the Dems insisting on remaining in the single market and customs union. Wouldn't that have been an improvement on what followed?

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

The worst recent example of championing perfection at the cost of better comes not from the ‘left-left’ but from the right-wing Labour MPs who refused to accept Corbyn’s January 2019 Brexit proposals, including membership of the customs union and alignment with the single market. Their fool’s quest to reverse the people’s vote of 2016 defeated several Parliamentary votes that could have eased our exit. They were directly responsible for Boris Johnson and a hard Brexit.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Which is irrelevant because Brexit wouldn't have happened under AV.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Your attempts to blame the entire course of global politics rest on the failure of more than 14% of the electorate to vote for AV in 2011 are becoming ever more desperate. I trust you've written to Margaret Beckett, who was chair of NOtoAV, to tell her how much responsibility she has for the mess we are in.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

It's a sliding doors moment that altered global history even if you prefer to erase that history. And it's a perfect example of how the left's inability to come together to keep the right out lets the right in time and again. Of course the Labour left and the Labour right were both responsible but neither side can blame the other when both were complicit. Prove to me that lessons have been learnt by confirming that, if circumstances came to it, you'd back Starmer to the hilt to keep Reform out in 2029. A simple and unqualified "of course" will do.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You haven’t answered my question. Did you back Corbyn or Johnson in 2019? I will do what is necessary to stop Reform. I doubt Starmer will still be PM by 2029.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

I backed my Labour MP in 2019 to stop Johnson and the Dems in 2017 to stay in the customs union and single market. Both would've happened too had Labour not thrown away the opportunity for reform in 2011.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

I knocked many doors in 2017. Very few people talked about Brexit. Labour's promise to respect the referendum result and seek a new partnership was widely acknowledged to be necessary. I certainly never met anyone who wanted to talk about AV. The challenge on doorsteps was to convince people that there was a viable alternative to austerity. But you seem to be indifferent to the destruction of public services and increased poverty.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Let's say Labour got behind AV in 2011 and won the argument on the basis of it being the only way to keep the Tory extremists at bay. What would've happened in 2015? Three possible outcomes. Either another 5 years of the ConDems, aka restrained Toryism, or a LabLib coalition, or a surprise Labour victory. What wouldn't have happened is an outright Conservative victory ushering in an era of unconstrained Toryism. So don't pretend AV isn't relevant to "the destruction of public services and increased poverty". All of the scenarios under AV were less worse than what happened. Which begs the question, were the left-left opponents quite mad or are they really plotting a descent into fascism and/or WW3 all along in the hope of rebuilding a socialist nirvana out of the smoking ruins, as did briefly happen after WW2.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Iain

Correction: not a suprise Labour victory but a surprise Lab-Green coalition if Greens benefited from the small party boost.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Your view of the left is verging on the delirious. A few days ago, someone recommended you lie down. It would be a good idea. Then you can dream your nightmares. When you get up, try reading some history and learn some facts.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Seriously, where do you get this utterly bizarre notion that the left wants a descent into fascism or war. It's a crazy fantasy. Nobody has done more than the left to oppose racism and illegal wars. Not just directly but also by seeking to defend the social fabric by opposing closures and cuts to everything from libraries to bus services. Without austerity there would have been no Brexit. Your beloved Tory-LibDem coalition was responsible. If you want someone to blame for Brexit, start with Nick Clegg.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Imagine your shed catches fire. You rush out with pots of water. Your neighbours pop round with placards and start chanting "down with fire" conveniently leaving their high power hosepipe behind. Are they just not very bright or are they wanting to be seen as being opposed to the destruction while allowing it to continue in the hope it'll spread to their house which can get redecorated for free on your insurance.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

instead of talking in riddles, why not try evidence and analysis?

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Let me help. In that "riddle" the fire is rampant Toryism, the hose is AV and those saying "of course we did everything to oppose Toryism" are those standing around chanting "down with fire" and the neighbour's planned reburb is remaking a socialist nirvana out of a disaster. I would point out one fly in the ointment for anyone hoping to go down this road. The world is totally different to when past socialist eras emerged from fascism and war in Spain, Germany and the UK. When London is a glowing smouldering wreck and all democratic institutions and bank balances have been erased, there is no rebuilding a better version of what came before. Socialism needs taxes which need a functioning economy. What will happen instead is wealthy families with their assets safely overseas and global mega corporations enabled by the post- Trump dynasty will take over. The result will be a no government privately run right-right nirvana.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

In 2011, we already had rampant Toryism enabled by the LibDems who were the main advocates and likely beneficiaries of AV. No wonder there was little public enthusiasm. The left was not as hostile to AV as the Labour right, but it’s not surprising that they did not want to see the austerity coalition prolonged. The AV hose in 2011 pumped petrol not water. You have a feverish obsession that the left wants to see disaster. Why? All our efforts are devoted to preventing the destruction of our communities and the wider world. The left has been at the forefront of resisting cuts to public services, stagnant wages, rising inequality, racism, illegal wars, genocide, global warming, and much more. Surely this is about stopping the disasters that we face not encouraging them.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Go Zack. Let's hope he can finally consign the Red Tories, the left-left Tory enablers, to history.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You’ve also evaded my questions about how right-wing Labour MPs collaborated with the Tories in 2019 to ensure a Johnson government and a hard Brexit. You need to live in the real world, not a fantasy alternative history.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Um, it was the left-left under Corbyn that gave us Johnson and his rock hard Brexit. Let me explain why. Assume the electorate can be pigeonholed equally into five camps. The left-left, the centre-left, the centre, the centre-right and the right-right. To be legitimate any government needs a majority which means three of these five groups need to form a coalition. Under FPTP this rarely means parties formally working together, it means people holding their nose to vote outside their preference. So there are three types of government possible to get a majority: Left-left + centre-left + centre Centre-left + centre + centre-right Centre + centre-right + right-right The left-left thought they only needed to work with the centre-left and that was the extent of the comprise they were prepared to do. But the right-right have always been prepared to work with the centre and centre-right to keep a hand on power. That's why a left-left government backed by a begrudging centre-left was never going to happen legitimately. Look around the world and throughout history. They only happen by accident or coup. Of course, under FPTP there are undemocratic circumstances where the extremes can reach power with minority support. And this is is why many on the left clung to FPTP believing after so many governments dominated by the right-right their turn must one day come, as it nearly did in 2017. But alas their self-interest gave us Johnson and will give us Reform.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

This kind of crude pigeon-holing wouldn't pass muster as an undergraduate politics essay. The real world is much more complicated. Factors like nationalism cut across a simple left-right divide. Proportions shift over time and as circumstances change. The centre can be hollowed out when it fails to deliver, as is happening today. The number of people who turn out to vote matters. You seem to believe that politics must be all about pandering to the middle ground. Wrong. That was not how Labour won in 1945, not how Corbyn defied expectations in 2017, not how Mamdani won the New York mayoralty. Do you believe we only obtained the NHS through a coup? You keep insisting the 'the left has hung on to FPTP' with remarkably little evidence. I do not know anyone on the Welsh left who has demanded that FPTP should be introduced into Senedd elections. Do you? As I have pointed out several times, it was right-wing Labour MPs who were most vehemently opposed to AV. The left was largely indifferent, like the public. The issue in 2011 was not Brexit but austerity. It is not the left that will give us Reform. We will resist that all the way. It is Starmer, one of the most unpopular prime ministers in history, who is paving the way for Farage.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

It is the left that will allow in Reform, by splitting the anti-Reform vote in a refusal to accept the political spectrum exists and politics is about coalition building not convincing people their political "religion" is better and others must covert.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

It is Starmer who has split the left vote by driving out of Labour socialists who had devoted much time and effort to the party. You can't kick people then complain if they fight back.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Your assumption that ending FPTP would stop right-wing extremism is historically ignorant. Meloni in Italy heads a coalition elected under proportional representation. PR was also used to elect the Reichstag in Weimer Germany. It didn't stop Hitler. Only united working class action could have done so.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Hence the qualification below “unless there’s genuine democratic support for extremes”. Genuine democracy can’t deny populism, it can only raise the bar to needing majority support. The big difference however between a populist government under FPTP and a coalition cobbled together from a number of smaller parties is the first can do whatever it likes for five years without any safety valve, whereas any one member of a coalition can become uncomfortable with the rounding up and disappearing and decide to collapse the government.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Did you really argue in 2011 that AV would stop Brexit and Johnson?

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

Yes, coalitions keep extremes like Johnson and Brexit away, unless there's genuine democratic support for extremes.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Coalitions can also keep right-wing governments in power, as happened with the Tory-LibDem alliance, which in 2011 was conducting a brutal campaign of austerity. This was a key factor in explaining why there was so little enthusiasm for an electoral system that appeared designed to perpetuate that. Very few people were talking about Brexit as a likely outcome at that time.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

You can condemn the ConDem government because you disagree with its politics but you can't deny its democratic legitimacy was far greater than usual. The combined vote share represented 59% of voters. It's the only UK government in living memory that's enjoyed majority support. Any genuine democrat should celebrate that even if they didn't celebrate the governance it produced.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

Just for the factual record (although I know you struggle with that) the Public Whip website (which uses Parliamentary votes as its data source) rates Corbyn's position on the AV referendum as ambiguous leaning slightly towards PR. In contrast, PW rates Margaret Beckett as strongly against AV. Why are you ignoring the role of right leaning Labour MPs in the referendum? You do seem to have difficulty adjusting your world view to the evidence.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

So you are now claiming that in 2011 you predicted Brexit and Boris Johnson as PM if the AV referendum was lost? I don't believe you. Prove it.

Reply

In reply to Lyn E

Iain

More inevitable extremist right-right outcomes of the sort already seen in the form of Thatcherism. Not literally foreseeing the future. What a strange suggestion.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

In 2011, there was already a right-wing coalition carrying out a brutal austerity worthy of Thatcher. The presence of the LibDems did nothing to restrain that, just give it a democratic veneer. You might want to celebrate that but the many millions of people who suffered it will not. The LibDems were justly punished by the electorate in 2015. On many criteria, austerity was far more damaging to the British economy that Brexit has been. And without the damage to people's lives from austerity, the Leave campaign would not have won the referendum.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Lyn E

You have chosen to ignore the evidence of Meloni in Italy. Coalitions do not always keep extremes out of power. Sometimes they enable extremists (such as Geert Wilders in the Netherlands) to obtain government posts. I will repeat a fact you choose to ignore: Hitler came to power despite elections to the Weimar Reichstag being proportional representation. This is not to defend FPTP in all contexts. Just to show that history is much more complex than your schoolboy models.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

I think you need to have lie down.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

Haha the BBC being impartial about Corbyn. Find a more reliable source.

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/corbyn-must-resign-inadequate-leader-betrayal "Corbyn sabotaged Labour’s remain campaign. He must resign" [Guardian]

Reply

In reply to Iain

David J.

That's the best you can do for a "reliable source"? Phil Wilson, the author of that article, started off as a shill for the gambling industry, and was a thorough Blairite; so no, not impartial at all. He got his reward, and is now in the House of Lords. That is the problem with google, it doesn't encourage you to think; just click away.

Reply

In reply to David J.

Iain

Labour's campaign was a disaster. No-one argues with that. Whether it was deliberate or incompetent leadership doesn't really matter because the result was Brexit.

Reply
Tucker

Does Corbyn live rent free in that head of yours?

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

How about showing some humility and contrition about his role in the mess we are in today. He thought he was running a harmless protest club when he was actually the Leader of the Opposition in a unique position to stop the Tories causing domestic and global mayhem. Instead, with your blessing, he helped the Tories make the lives of ordinary working people far worse.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

I'd say the right of Labour sabotaging two general elections and Starmers push for second referendum in 2019 got us the mess we have now. Why arent you blaming Cameron for his lack of backbone on calling for the referendum or his lack of campaigning for the remain vote, whilst Prime Minister? Blaming one politian for the failed remain campaign shows you fail to see the bigger picture.

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

If you can't see that Boris's greatest electoral asset in 2019 was Mr Corbyn then you don't understand the electorate you seek to govern. And that's a trait of the left-left and the right-right, both think they know better than the electorate and will happily subvert democracy if they disagree with the result. Maduro and Trump have that in common.

Reply

In reply to Iain

David J.

The main problem with Corbyn, as with many on the "left-left" (did you think that one up all by yourself?) is that they mistakenly assume that the mass of the population are intelligent enough to be open to reasoned arguments. As you clearly demonstrate, they are not.

Reply
Paul

What are you talking about? How can you blame an old man in London for a super power causing the fall of a Caribbean island?

Reply

In reply to Paul

Iain

Corbyn enabled Brexit which helped nudge Trump 1.0 over the line. The rest is history.

Reply

In reply to Iain

Paul

I find it very hard to believe that an old man in an insignificant place like the uk caused all of that. I think there were quite a few other factors involved

Reply

In reply to Paul

Iain

Which step are you struggling with? That the leader of the official opposition could mastermind a lacklustre campaign that let populism edge a narrow win in 2016? Or that that win could be influential in the US where Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3m? Or that Donald would still be President today doing what only Donald can do if he'd lost in 2016?

Reply

In reply to Iain

Tucker

The prime minister at the time Cameron was the one who was leading the Remain campaign. Corbyn attended nearly every rally in favour of Remain. Unlike Cameron. Whose family incidentally had a great deal to lose of we remained a part of the EU. When regularion came in about off shore banking. Yet you fail to mention Camerons role on ushering in Trymp and every other one of your crazy fantasies.

Reply

In reply to Tucker

Iain

You highlight the problem with putting a protester in charge of the official opposition. Protesting is for the powerless. It achieves nothing but it's all those involved can do. Those with power should be using that power to affect change.

Reply
Clive hopper

Interesting to see UN reaction. Unfortunately no one in Europe will have the balls to stand up against it. Will the senate vote against it? Somehow I doubt it. Its OK for Trump to call other leaders crazy, but forbidden for international leaders to call him although they all know he is a nutcase.

Reply
Uhh

How very "Mission Accomplished" of you

Reply
Lyn E

I know many Latin Americans, some very well, and have spent hours discussing this over the past couple of days. The US has a very long record of intervening covertly and overtly in Latin America and the reaction across the continent has bene very negative. People know all too well what this means. This is the statement from the General Secretary of the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas: “We, the trade union movement of the Americas, condemn the military aggression and kidnapping of President Maduro and his partner Cilia Flores, a violation of the sovereignty and integrity of the Venezuelan people and of all Latin America and the Caribbean, declared a Zone of Peace by Community of Latin American and Caribbean States since 2014. We are activating mechanisms of international solidarity with the people and workers of Venezuela. We defend Venezuela and all of Latin America as a territory of peace. We do not accept invasion and violence against our peoples and territories. The trade union movement, as always, is on the front line of defending sovereignty and self-determination, democracy and human rights.”

Reply
Mike T

So you've seen the happy Venezuelans on BBC but still feel that you know better and should protest on their behalf? Latin American doesn't specifically mean Venezuelan. Oh, and have you protested much in support of the brave Iranians who are trying to overthrow one of the most despicable religious governments the world has ever seen and which is a key funder of terrorist groups such as Hamas, murders girls for not wearing religious clothing, murders people for being gay etc? Is that protest later in the week? I'd say that one is more pressing as protesters are being killed in the street.

Reply
Lyn E

Why do you think I would endorse a reactionary theocracy? I supported the women, life, freedom movement in Iran. There have been large protests against the US illegal actions in Venezuela and across Latin America. Of course, the BBC will not show those. Try speaking to some of the many people who had to flee their homes because of US support for coups and dictatorships.

Reply
Iain

Is it a hands off Latin America protest or a Hands Off Communism protest.

Reply
Tucker

Here Mike goes bringing Hama up again and again. You'd think you wer some sort of Zionist bot or islamaphobic right wing nut. The way you go on and on about them.

Reply
Mike T

Latin Americans does not necessarily mean Venezuelans.

Reply
David

You do know he lost the last election and has stayed in power thanks to the military! The actual working class people of Venezuela have no love for Maduro or the Trade Union of the Americas empty rhetoric!

Reply
Mike T

People are quite naive. They'll be protesting against the removal of the thug Maduro as Trump did it, instead of protesting for the return of Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado, which Trump doesn't want...

Reply

In reply to Mike T

Uhh

Machado winning the prize was an utter sham. She explicitly called for the bombing of Venezuela and cheers when Israel bombs Palestine. She also claimed that Biden conspired with Maduro to steal the 2020 U.S. election from Trump

Reply

In reply to Mike T

David J.

We all know that Machado got the peace prize because the committee didn't want to upset trump too much. Well, all of us except you of course.

Reply
Lyn E

Trump's kidnapping of Maduro and Flores has nothing to do with the interests of the Venezuelan people. US Presidents usually camouflage their interventions with liberal-democratic rhetoric. Trump doesn't bother: do as I say, give us your oil. The emperor has no clothes.

Reply
Jeff

Putins plan for Ukraine was valid then? Got it.

Reply
John Ellis

'Will no one stand up to Trump?' Realistically, probably not - not in western Europe at any rate. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the former 'Warsaw Pact' countries of eastern Europe as fully autonomous nation states which, in reaction to their recent history, quickly applied to join NATO. In consequence the west European members of NATO all to varying degrees eased back on their defence spending because the forty-odd year threat of Russian aggression seemed to be over and done with, and they were confident that the USA, with all its wealth and power, could be relied upon to carry the bulk of the cost and burden of the defence of Europe 'just in case' in the apparently new circumstances. And over the same time-span the sheer economic might of the US came ever more to dominate a huge spectrum of European commerce and industry, so that American business interests thoroughly permeate much of our national economic life - in Britain and elsewhere. We all put pretty much unquestioning trust in the total reliability and commitment of our most powerful and wholly dependable ally, and have now discovered that they've elected an administration which isn't dependable at all as far as we're concerned. But we've leaned on them and trusted them to such a degree that breaking loose, at least in the short term, is inconceivable. So no one will stand up to Trump, because he's thin-skinned and he bears grudges.

Reply
Jeff

Saddam wasn't well regarded either. How did that go? Trump has threatened the Vice Pres with far worse if she doesn't play ball, what can that mean/ I take it to mean trump murders her. Trump, abusive towards women is his mo. This is a gangster state taking over oil. Nothing more.

Reply
Paul

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,“ We appear to have too many leaders who are not strong enough to stand up to a Bully. Are we now heading towards a world where imperialism is making a comeback and countries can take over others ?

Reply
Tucker

You need to find other sources.. a lot of people in Venezuela are definitely not happy about what's happening.

Reply
Iain

The Cubans?

Reply
Jeff

Press reporting Trump doesn't want the opposition leader installed because she accepted the peace prize. Fragile ego eh. Oil barons are happy though. The ones that donated to trump.

Reply
Paul E Dangerously

Focus on the men in the grey suits behind all Presidents. What you see with Trump is all Kayfabe. The last one to stand up to them, got shot in Dallas.

Reply
Jeff

Names of the people Trump murdered here are starting to come out.

Reply
Julian Norman

Corbyn and many others can say what they like because there is no comeback. For Starmer to renounce Trump is completely different. In the absence of any force to enforce 'International Law' its up to others and in this case the US to do what the UN (without teeth) couldnt do I.e remove Maduro.

Reply
Tucker

But you support Farage one of Trumps biggest bootlickers

Reply
Ajay

The rest of the world seems to be quiet as well. Is everyone else as scared and spineless as Keir Starmer? Is everyone so scared of bruising the ego of this overgrown schoolyard bully? The UN behaves like a neutered labradoodle. All that is needed are last rites from them. But trump is about to fracture NATO and no other world leaders can offer anything apart from a few choice words here and there? Pathetic and shameful that we have such ineffectual world leaders that nobody can stand up and call out the trump administration for what they are.....the biggest threats to global peace and stability! Hopefully his aspirin obsession will take care of the problem but he can do a lot of damage in the mean time. And him going the way of Biden just makes him a senile dotard in control of nukes and American troops. Simply waiting for him to croak can't be the only option!

Reply

Leave a reply

Replying to Iain Cancel

And one more thing. Labour was elected under Starmer's 2024 centralist manifesto. Anyone replacing him should broadly honour that platform. Those hoping for a left-left candidate to take control of government and rip that platform up is hop...

Comments are reviewed before they appear.