And here I thought the German election would be the headline article.
On Friday, Zelenskyy followed Macron and Starmer in meeting Trump at the White House. It did not go well. Just over three years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin scored his greatest victory so far, in the Oval Office.
Trump and Vance lectured and patronised Zelenskyy throughout. Trump, the diplomat, repeatedly told Zelenskyy he was in bad position and that his people are dying, and that he just wasn't ready for peace. Just go to Putin like I've done and you'll get a ceasefire. Having got nowhere, and antagonised, Zelenskyy rebutted one of Vance on Putin's sincerity, detaling Putin’s disregard for a ceasefire agreement signed with Macron and Merkel near the beginning of his presidency. He meant to convince him that Putin is not to be trusted at the negotiating table, and that security guarantees were necessary. No signature will stop Putin tearing up any agreement and taking Ukraine at their weakest, unsuspecting. Ukraine needs security guarantees, and the US is a necessary part of these. Now of course, it looks like Europe will have to fight much harder for them, because America has long since past the point where their government or voting population can be reasoned with. Vance was not pleased and nor was Trump. Vance quickly scolded him, accusing him of disrespecting the convicted felon, and asked him why had not even thanked Trump, quickly adding that he meant in this meeting. Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked both the American governments and the American people.
It should have been an utter embarrassment for Vance. He called Zelenksyy’s hosting of other world leaders in Ukraine “propaganda tours” and when asked if he had ever been to Ukraine, he said he had seen videos. Two days later, he went to Vermont on a skiing holiday with his family, and is currently hidden at some unknown location, away from protesters gathered both near the resort. You would think it would be difficult to ski without a spine. Did Vance have orders to instigate the argument? He certainly didn’t hold back from baselessly absconding the Ukrainian president in what could have been a poor move (destroying the transatlantic alliance as we know it) had Trump not responded to it with similar fervour. But surely someone could have got to Trump and asked him not too. And besides, Trump does neither diplomacy nor long-term strategy. He does volatility and unpredictability much better, and can't stand the thought of being disrespected or belittled. Vance certainly knew what to say to get Trump riled with Zelenskyy. Maybe he thinks he can spin this as his victory for American strength – no doubt he will already be looking at the 2028 Republican presidential primary. If he thinks he has a good chance, he is delusional. Marco Rubio, the spineless but competent Secretary of State sat slouched and weary-looking, probably wondering why he had given up a cushy and guaranteed job as Floridian senator. He surely knew what a ridiculous gambit this was. Reagan wouldn't recognise this Republican presidency for its capitulation to Moscow.
Trump repeatedly parroted Kremlin talking points. He told Zelenksyy, “You’ve allowed yourself into a very bad position,” and that he was “gambling with World War Three.” He also told Zelenskyy, “You’re not winning – you’re not winning this.” Ukraine have withheld three years of war with a far greater power and have even shown they are capable of taking Russian land in their incursion on Kursk. They may not yet have won, but they are not losing; but Russia would love you to think they are. That a Russian victory is inevitable, and that Zelenskyy is merely postponing a sure defeat at the expense of Ukrainian lives. That it is all Zelenskyy’s fault. Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian puppet President and close Putin ally wrote, “Trump told the … clown the truth to his face: the Kyiv regime is playing with the third world war … this is useful. But it’s not enough – we need to stop military support.” Putin is yet to say anything but is tipped to call Trump and push for the removal of Zelenskyy on account of being unable to reason with him. I would not be surprised if Trump pushes for a Moscow-friendly replacement. Putin has manipulated Trump into the most valuable Russian asset in the world. “They respect me,” Trump says
Ukraine's loss would be a disaster for the Trump presidency – though Trump can convince his most loyal devotees of anything, Ukraine is and will remain America's ally, and Russia her enemy. Perhaps Zelenskyy will again thank the US for its support without apologising, Trump will claim victory and that respect is restored, and move forward with the favourable mineral deal he seemed to care so much about. Starmer has since called both Trump and Zelenskyy and along with many other European leaders at the defence summit held in London on Sunday, called for renewed and restored relations between Kyiv and Washington.
They didn't wait until their summit to support Ukraine though. European leaders from over twenty countries came out almost immediately in full support of Ukraine, including those in the UK, Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Portugal, the Netherland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechia, Croatia, Slovenia, Moldova, the European Parliament, the European Council, and the European Commission, in a remarkable display of unity.
Trump also continues to show his age in his ramblings. He claimed, “You want me to be tough – I can be tougher than any human being you’ve ever seen – I’d be so tough,” and that “That wasn’t with me, that wasn’t with me. That was with a guy named Biden, who was not a smart person. That was with Obama. That was with Obama who gave you sheets. I gave you Javelins – I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is: Obama gave sheets, Trump gave javelins.” He refers to the non-lethal equipment given to Ukraine by Obama which included blankets, night-vision goggles, body armour, and vehicles.
When asked by a reporter what he would do if Putin were to break a ceasefire, he responded, “What if they – what if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now? Okay – what have they broken? I don’t know. They broke it with Biden because Biden they didn’t respect him – they didn’t respect Obama,” before defending Putin against well documented “vast and complex [quote not from Trump]” interference in US elections, blaming Hunter Biden.
I think his statements towards the end of the meeting best give insight into Trump’s mind:
“All I can say is this: he might have broken deals with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden – he did –maybe – maybe he didn’t – I don’t know what happened.”
“This is going to be great television, I will say that.”
He doesn’t have a clue, but that’s okay! It’ll make good entertainment. How sad for America.

On Sunday, swathes of voters headed to the German polls in the highest turnout since reunification and the results were clear – Germany is divided. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) won with 28.5 per cent of the vote, its second-worst ever result (after 2021); the far-right extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD) came in second with 20.8%, double its previous best vote share.
Having ruled out a coalition with the AfD, the CDU will need to form a coalition with the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SDP), their conventional opposition, from which they take the chancellorship. The so-called ‘grand coalition’ looked like it might not be enough to claim a majority early in the night, but the failure of the far-left populist BSW to reach the 5% vote threshold to gain seats in parliament means that the 44.9% combined vote share of the CDU and SDP turns into 328 seats, a majority of 26.
In the German electoral system (which since the 2023 electoral reforms is party-list proportional representation disguised as mixed-member proportional representation), Germans get two votes. Seats in the Bundestag, their lower house, are allocated to each eligible party proportionally based on the proportion of second votes nationwide. A party is eligible if it gains at least 5% of the national second vote, wins at least three constituencies in the first-past-the-post system used for first votes, or represents an ethnic minority. Each party has submitted a list and the appropriate number of members of the party are elected in the order they appear on the list. Constituency winners by the first vote are merely given priority; they are inserted to the top of the party list.
It will come as a blow to Sahra Wagenknecht then that her new party, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), narrowly failed to gain representation, after splitting from The Left party over the course of the most recent parliament. The polls suggested The Left would also fail to reach the threshold, but saw a late surge in The Left support from young voters due to an effective TikTok campaign and protest over the CDU's reliance on the AfD for the passage of a non-binding resolution to reduce immigration, the first vote brought by any party to pass with only the support of the party that brought it and the far-right party, since 1945.
But a larger blow is that to Christian Lindner, who resigned as leader of the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), after they also failed to reach the threshold. Only the second time in post-war Germany, the FDP falls from parliament, and this time in an election they caused when they triggered a breakdown in their coalition with the SPD and the Greens.
The Greens largely avoided the electoral disaster that often faces minor coalition partners, though they will be disappointed at the lack of BSW in the Bundestag, without which, they will not be needed for a majority coalition.
And despite their likely place in the next government, the same must be said of the SPD. Plagued by economic issues at home and the growing anti-migrant rhetoric typical of recent European elections (which was seized upon by the AfD and latterly the CDU), the SPD recorded their worst result since 1887; Scholz will remain chancellor until a new chancellor is elected but will not remain in frontbench politics thereafter.
In an election where young people strongly banked away from the centre, the AfD and The Left each celebrated as if they had won. And perhaps the AfD did. Locked out of a coalition by the ‘Brandmauer’, or firewall, employed by all other Bundestag parties, the AfD will form no part of the government for now. Will their support grow or dwindle? The combined SPD-CDU vote share was 77% in 2002 and it is now 45%. So it likely depends on how well the Merz government can address a rapidly changing Europe, if they are going to stand any chance of fighting this extremes-ward trend. A fifth of the country and almost two-fifths of rural East Germany felt the far-right was the answer, and the lack of representation the firewall brings, while justified, will only add to feelings of disenfranchisement. But the CDU would do well to avoid steering right-ward. Doing so would anger centrist voters and legitimise the far-right, undermining both ends of their support simultaneously. Like their former leader Merkel, they pride themselves on competent governance. Can they pull it off?
Election results: CDU/CSU: 28.5%, 208 seats; AfD: 20.8%, 152 seats; SPD: 16.4% 120 seats; Green: 11.6%, 85 seats; The Left: 8.8%, 64 seats; SSW: 0.2%, 1 seat; BSW: 4.97%, 0 seats; FDP: 4.3%, 0 seats; Others: 4.4%, 0 seats.

On Thursday, Keir Starmer flew to Washington DC and faced what was almost certainly the biggest challenge of his premiership so far. Labour HQ will be very pleased with the result. Armed with an invitation from the king for an unprecedented second state visit to the UK, Starmer was met with surprisingly forthcoming praise as he entered the Oval Office. Trump described having the prime minister there as a “great honour” and Starmer as a “special man”. This despite co-president Elon Musk’s known animosity to Sir Keir and Trump’s own anger over Labour party members volunteering to support the Harris campaign in October.
With both an indication that Trump will “go along with” the UK in its deal with Mauritius over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands and the lease of the joint UK-US military base there, and a suggestion that the UK might avoid the tariffs that Trump this week announced on EU products, Starmer is likely to feel emboldened going into next week’s PMQs, that’s for sure.
And if the implication that Starmer’s negotiations were effective by the apparent outcomes on some key issues weren't enough, Trump himself confirmed it. The convicted felon told him “you’re a very tough negotiator, however I’m not sure I like that, but that’s okay.” High praise in Trump-world. What can Farage – Trump’s self appointed bff – say to that? He has spent the last week trying to appease both sides of his voter-base – Zelenskyy is not a dictator as Trump claims, “but it's only right and proper that Ukrainians have a timeline for elections.” Farage will know of course that the Ukrainian constitution forbids elections while martial law is enacted, and that a timeline for elections is exactly a timeline for peace. Perhaps he and Trump, so concerned about democracy in Ukraine would find their time better spent ensuring that, at the conclusion of this war, Ukrainians don’t find Putin on their next ballot.
But did Starmer stand up to Trump outside the conference room? He certainly didn’t get a clip like Macron did, gently but assuredly correcting Trump on his claim that all the money Europe has given to Ukraine is in the form of loans which Ukraine will pay back, but he did nevertheless correct Trump on this very point, and responded clearly to Vance, who again criticised the state of free speech in the UK.
All this is just words, however. Trump is not known to be man who does only what he says or one who says only what he’ll do. We will have to wait and see whether we will “rather quickly” get a “great trade agreement”, but if there were ever an indication we might, it was Starmer’s meeting with Trump this week. “I’ll tell you that he earned whatever the hell they pay him over there,” he said. I would say that suggests he did.

On Sunday, Starmer continued his hot-streak of looking very much the competent leader on the world-stage. Hosting a key defence summit in London, made all the more important by the woeful scenes of Friday, Starmer continued to tread the fine-line between European support for Ukraine and alienating Washington. Instead of directly criticising Trump, he has taken it on himself to try and mend the transatlantic relationship, capitalising on some of the success he found in the White House on Thursday. Only time will tell how that plays out. There will be many who hope for a more direct rebuke of Trump, given his appalling treatment of the Ukrainian leader – it is not often all major national newspapers run the same story from the same standpoint as they did on Saturday. However, Starmers warm and genuine hug outside Downing Street in front of pro-Ukraine demonstrators, and his invite to the King's home of Sandringham, would seem to send a clear message in more sensible diplomatic terms.
Also announced yesterday were deals to allow Ukraine to spend in £1.6bn of export finance to buy five thousand missiles to be produced in Belfast, a double whammy for the government of Ukraine support, and jobs creation, and another £2.3bn loaned against frozen Russian assets for Ukraine to buy more weapons.
It has been a long time since Europe was ever so united for a common cause. It is refreshing to see our prime minister represent the UK competently and respectably on the world stage, and to know that Europe agrees with us on this matter. It puts our decision to leave the EU to shame. With widespread support for Ukraine in the UK, and Starmer's success both in Europe and in the US, keep an eye on the polls for a Labour bounce.

On Thursday, independent (formerly Labour) MP for Runcorn, Mike Amesbury, was back in the news, having had his ten-week sentence for assaulting a constituent suspended on appeal. Last October, he drunkenly punched a man and knocked him to the ground and continued to strike the man until a bystander intervened, and on Monday he was sentenced and imprisoned after pleading guilty in January. The magistrates who presided over the appeal did not disagree with the original sentence but agreed that Amesbury and his defence had shown there was sufficient a “prospect of rehabilitation” that (more than three days) jail-time was not necessary.
Because his custodial sentence was shorter than a year, he is not automatically expelled from parliament, instead his suspended custodial sentence will trigger a recall petition. If 10% of his constituents sign the petition, a by-election will be held. All major parties have expressed that he should resign rather than wait out the recall process. He would only delay the inevitable anyway.

Also this week, on Tuesday, the Guardian revealed an investigation by undercover reporters, who allege that Labour peer Lord David Evans of Watford breached Lords rules, by offering access to ministers in exchange for indirect compensation in the form of investment in his son’s business, in which he has a one-third share. Lord Evans denies any knowing wrongdoing, but comments from his son, Richard, including that “it looks dodgy”, suggest that he knew what we was doing was shady. He ensured reporters that a meeting with ministers was only to happen after an agreement to this so-called ‘platinum sponsorship’, which should ring alarm bells regarless of their familiarity with the rules. It certainly doesn't pass the smell-test. At best, Lord Evans should have been far more careful. I would recommend the Guardian’s report for those who want the full picture. They say “there is no suggestion of illegality”.
Evans, 82, will not remain in parliament if Labour’s legislation for Lords reform are implemented, which will see lords retired at 80, which might give the government some incentive to speed up said reform, and see him out of the Lords before he is removed in the lengthy process that accompanies any parliamentary investigation.

Finally, on Friday, on Starmer’s return from Washington, Anneliese Dodds, Minister of State for Development and for Equalities resigned both positions, in response to Starmer’s decision to cut the foreign aid budget from 0.56% to 0.3% of GDP in order to fund an increase in defence spending. Dodds argues that reduced aid from the UK and from the US following Musk’s (illegal) gutting of USAID will increase Moscow’s and Beijing’s global influence, a view shared by crossbencher General Lord Dannatt, former head of the army, and many backbench Labour MPs. Anneliese Dodds, who was Labour party chair and tipped for more senior cabinet positions before the election, has been replaced by a peer, Baroness Charman, as Development Minister, a move also criticised by backbench MPs, but her other brief is vacant as of Sunday.
Internal pressure from the cabinet and from Labour MPs is mounting on Reeves to compromise on her strict set of fiscal rules, to fulfil the party agenda. The longer she can hold out for more growth, the better she will be able to weather criticism from the conservatives when the ruleset is finally subverted, but the less time the government will have to implement its vision. Labour MPs plan to bring this up this week in the House of Commons in response to the cut, worried that there won't be a Labour agenda left to deliver, cut out and watered down by the combination of the poor state of the economy dealt to the Chancellor by the previous government and her fiscal inflexibility. Dodds’ resignation, which was praised by both Labour and Conservative MPs, adds to the pressure she and Starmer faces for now.

Just a month ago, the Liberal party in Canada faced the prospect of electoral annihilation. With popularity both in the government and Trudeau at monumental lows, and elections to be held by the end of the year looming, they were polling as low as 20%, 25pp behind the official opposition, the Conservatives. But then Trudeau resigned, and six weeks later they trail the Conservatives by only 10pp, rapidly closing the gap. And they don’t even have a leader yet.
To quickly put into perspective the disaster an election with those figures would be for the Liberals, a 20% vote share would hand the Conservatives a majority of around 130 (in a chamber of only 343 seats) and would mean a relegation for the Liberals not to official opposition, but to third place party, behind the Bloc Québécois, according to election projector 338 Canada. It would be like the UK Conservative party winning 450 seats (Labour won around 420 in 1997 and in 2024) and the SNP becoming official opposition.
So how are they doing it? It might be Trump’s doing. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s widely condemned remarks regarding the annexation of Canada (by economic force) have been received very badly across the border. Booing their national anthem before narrowly beating them at ice-hockey is only the tip of the iceberg. There are growing movements to boycott American products and to cancel American holidays. And Canada, which has a political spectrum far closer to European ones (in fact, they lack a major far-right party), is not a fan of the Trump administration on a good day. This might be the key to the Liberal’s success, both now and come October. Mark Carney, a frontrunner in the race to replace Trudeau has stood out as a patriotic voice on the side of Canadians against the growing threat of trade war with their closest ally. While Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservatives, could well be leaving a Musky taste in the mouths of moderates who had abandoned the current government.
Notably in this regard, Poilievre supports repealing the Online Harms Act, a Liberal bill of this government's, which sets up a Digital Safety Commission to ensure companies work to eliminate hate speech, incitement of violence or extremism, child pornography, revictimization of sexual assault survivors, revenge porn, child bullying, and content encouraging self-harm. Opponents cite the cost of such a new commission and worry that it is overly broad, Poilievre calling it an “attack on freedom of expression” (before actually seeing the legislation). I have listed the restrictions on content imposed by the act in their entirety so that the reader may make up their own mind as to whether the act is overly broad. Poilievre says he would replace the act by modernising existing laws, saying that violators should see jailtime, “not [be] pushed off to bureaucracy”. He did not mention the first two elements of the list in this official statement, however. He also supports the defunding of CBC, Canada’s public broadcaster.
Faced with a rejuvenated opposition, and an antagonising Trump presidency, these sorts of views may no longer resonate as well with the Canadian public. Musk’s endorsement must not feel as good as it did a month ago.

On Thursday, the five Irish opposition parties again united to denounce the government’s plans to use their majority to push through new rules regarding speaking-time, which would allot time fo government-supporting independents to question their own government, and again threatened to bring the Irish parliament to a standstill.
Following the Irish election last November, the two major centre-right parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gael formed a coalition, as they had done before the election. This time, they are supported by the Regional Independent Group, nine conservative independent TDs who, importantly, have committed to supporting the government through thick and thin, and not just for confidence or supply. In exchange, independent TD Verona Murphy, a former Fine Gael candidate who was deselected following comments alleging Irish immigrants were being “infiltrated by ISIS”, has been given the job of Ceann Comhairle, speaker of the Dail, while four others were given ministerial positions, including two at cabinet-level.
And did the other four TDs disappear to the backbenches? No chance. Led by Michael Lowry, known for the corruption tribunal which found evidence of “profoundly corrupt” lobbying and serious sustained tax evasion, the Regional Independent Group recruited two anti-government TDs and tried to claim opposition speaking rights. “Do they take the Irish public for fools?” asks Kathy Sheridan writing for the Irish Times. Though the new Ceann Comhairle refused to recognise the ‘Riggers’ as they have become known after losing control of the house to outraged opposition TDs for over five hours, the government has broken the weeks-long deadlock and by way of their majority on the parliamentary reforms committee has introduced ‘Other Members’ Questions’ – a small amount of time allotted each week to be rotated between “relevant groups and parties” including the RIG. The idea that TDs, independents, who all ran on anti-government platforms, can commit to supporting the government, and then be allowed some of the speaking rights of the opposition is ridiculous, say the opposition parties – you lose that privilege when you gain the privilege of being in government! The government argues it doesn’t take any time away from the opposition parties and will be usable by all backbenchers so isn’t as big of a deal as is being made out.
The opposition has suspended vote pairing and is refusing to form any of the many committees that scrutinise and amend bills. The proposition faces a vote in parliament and opposition parties have expressed their determination in facing off this threat to fair scrutiny as they see it. They have suggested they will heckle any speaking member of the RIG, or walkout in protest. (What can Murphy do to curtail any of this when she allowed the Dail to derail itself for five hours last month?) The Labour leader says they “can make life very difficult for the government.” Knowing Sinn Fein and the rest of the opposition parties, they very well might.