Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. London must be free to tax and spend (Financial Times)

Other capital cities have a wider tax base and more freedom to set rates, writes Tony Travers.

2. Big business mustn’t crush little guys in cars (Times)

If oil executives have fixed prices there should be a windfall tax and jail sentences, says Robert Halfon.

3. European Union: if the 'outs' get their way, we'll end up like Ukraine (Guardian)

There will come a point when Britain's relationship with the EU will change: to rush to the exit now would be a leap in the dark, says Vince Cable. 

4. France should face up to its fears (Financial Times)

The realisation of what is needed explains the people’s profound anxiety, writes Maurice Lévy.

5. Old Tory scepticism has won, yet Europe still ravages the party (Independent)

Eurosceptic anxiety under Blair was partly justified, says Steve Richards. They were right to be on their guard.

6. Have MPs learnt a thing since 2009? Their greed suggests not (Daily Telegraph)

The expenses scandal hasn't gone away, with politicians of all shades still milking the system, writes Peter Oborne.

7. Work on into your 70s. It will be good for you (Times)

Putting off retirement is good for the economy, writes Mark Littlewood. And people will be happier, healthier and wealthier too.

8. We have to decide to listen to sexually abused children (Guardian)

The cost of ignoring the girls involved in the Oxford case is too high, writes Zoe Williams. Why weren't they given this basic human respect

9. Who’s the odd one out in Europe? Not us (Independent)

France has left Germany's side and the public mood is heading south, writes Andreas Whittam Smith.

10. Mauling for Maude over his plans for change (Daily Telegraph)

Bernard Jenkin's select committee are putting the boot in over civil service reform, says Sue Cameron.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era