How deliciously ironic that the popular folktale The Emperor’s New Clothes was written by a Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen. How apposite is that tale today? A slow-witted narcissist is easily duped and, because he is believed to be a powerful emperor, no one is willing to challenge him and point out what a fool he is being. Trump is undoubtedly a fool, but he is constantly emboldened by the dithering appeasement of most world leaders, while the functioning malevolent minds of Putin and Xi quietly look on with delight.
Whether it’s from fawning, fear or flippancy the world can no longer pander to this great blustering bully and his dangerous nonsense. For some time now I have been wanting for a small child to step from the crowd as Trump goes by and shout out, “But that man’s talking bollocks!”
Far from being a small child, today, we may have found a fearless voice willing to speak out on the world stage. Mark Carney, speaking in Davos, has clearly set out what a Liberal approach could look like. It is beholden on those of us who agree that a safe and peaceful world, can only be secured by fairness, respect and the rule of international law to boldly stand with Carney and join our voices in a resounding cry of “enough!”
His was no dewy-eyed nostalgia, hankering after a golden age that never was. If Trump has achieved anything, it is that that old ship has sailed, and sunk! Liberals, and indeed all people who believe in reason and dialogue, must move forward to a better future while there is still any future to hope for.
Carney accurately summed things up by saying, “The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls – or whether we can do something more ambitious. If you are not at the table, you are on the menu”
America has not always been a reliable ally, it reluctantly turned up late for two world wars, but for most of the past 80 years, half of its post-civil-war existence, it has been the dominant player in a flawed, but mostly collaborative, rules-based world order. We must not, cannot, allow Trump’s unhinged rantings to dismantle what Carney called, “the architecture of collective problem solving”.
Much of America, with or without Trump, now believes that might is right and that it has a monopoly of both commodities. As long as it gets the lion’s share of everything, the Trump White House would be quite happy to see the world carved up between the Billionaires Boys Club and the Big Bully Dictators. The rest of us must then do as we are told – ‘the weak suffer what they must’. The UN, the WHO, NATO, COP and all the collaborative forces for good and stability forged by the modern world would be swept aside as irrelevant and inconvenient fripperies for the plutocrats and autocrats who demand the right to do whatever they want, whenever and wherever they choose – or else!
Time has run out for 20th Century-style diplomacy that is neither heard nor respected by Trump’s chaotic doctrine. Sadly, neither can satire or ridicule dent his vanity – we know he is not the messiah, and he is far more than a very naughty boy! Unfortunately his colossal ego has no concept of hubris and therefore the usual rules really do not apply, but neither will this perpetual pussyfooting around and appeasement.
Mark Carney has shown the way, I know Ed and the Liberal Democrats stand ready to support that lead. Let’s strain every sinew to ensure success in this global battle – as Susan B Antony would say, “Failure is Impossible!”
* Roger Hayes has been an active Liberal for 45 years. He was candidate for Kingston in 1983 and 87 and a past Leader of Kingston Council.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
16 Comments
“Much of America, with or without Trump, now believes that might is right”
Not Just America. These forces are active here, in the rest of Europe and across the world. And the hard left needs to be reminded it was Mao who said political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
The UN, the WHO, NATO, COP and all the collaborative forces for good and stability forged by the modern world would be swept aside as irrelevant and inconvenient fripperies for the plutocrats and autocrats”
It’s worth recalling that Carey was a central banker – money is his thing – as well as (now) a liberal politician, and liberals are capitalists. And or course our task as liberals is to ensure the power capitalists accumulate is controlled and regulated. The rule of law (especially humans rights law and international law ) and representative democracy are essential tools.
The way the world is going, Europe may become one of the last bastions of liberalism in an illiberal world. Britain needs to be in that club for its own protection but also to strengthen Europe against the autocrats. “We can hang together or hang separately.”
Carney has pointed out that the rules based order has, in reality, been a comfortable fiction that the powerful have been ignoring for years.
“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.”
Our allies have been happily committing human rights abuses, waging war on other countries and so forth. They were allowed to get away with it because they were our allies. Just look at who has and who hasn’t been prosecuted ed in the ICC. The joke has been going around in diplomatic circles for years now that the ICC is for Serbs and Africans. It’s worth bearing that in mind.
What we are seeing now from the US is nothing new, it’s just out in the open.
Bang on target Roger. Mark Carney rightly quotes Vaclav Havel who knew a thing or two about resistance and the power of literature. As someone said to me in my 1960s Young Liberal days as we bemoaned the absence of liberals in power around the world: “There’s always Canada…”
“Carney has pointed out that the rules based order has, in reality, been a comfortable fiction that the powerful have been ignoring for years.”
I would say – partial fiction and partial truth. At least the US and we and others were observing the rules based system in part.
See this from (Liberal) statesman Lord Palmerston:
“ it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Britain is no longer a great power course, but the principle still applies. It is in our interest to associate ourselves with liberal powers – Carney’s middle powers.
“Slightly galling to witness the chattering classes slobber over Mark Carney after he made a speech heralding an end to liberal globalisation and recognising the importance of national sovereignty and a domestic industrial base. Some of us have been making that case for years, only to be demonised as ‘nativists’ or ‘reactionaries’ or ‘populists’ by the very people now cheering Carney. ‘Right side of history’, and all that”
Blue Labour….
@ Greg Hyde
Remember that Carney is a liberal – as well as a banker. He leads the Canadian Liberal Party.
I refer you to the Palmerston quotation above. Britain’s (and Canada’s) interests have been served – and on the whole well served – by first helping to build and secondly by supporting the rules based order – partly hypocritical as it undoubtedly was. Liberals (at least when they dig down) have always known trade offs (and thus apparent inconsistency/hypocrisy) are necessary and always first look to avoid force because of the cost in blood and treasure.
So not blue Labour at all. The left has always been far more comfortable with the unconstrained (not to say immoral) use of force – see Stalin, Mao etc and their various admirers.
Carney has just bought it out into the open for once.
The world is standing up to Trump.
But I expect Trump is losing the American public.
The Democrats need to make sure they are the party of the next government.
I would put forward Gavin Newsom. I think he will lead a more considerate, moderate USA that respects other countries.
He would not be perfect, but I would like the USA to back Gavin Newsom. He will get a more moderate USA back in order.
Here’s a helpful follow-up to what Carney said, including some practical proposals for Europe and the UK to stand up to Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/22/europe-must-heed-mark-carney-and-embrace-a-painful-emancipation-from-the-us
“Britain is no longer a great power course, but the principle still applies. It is in our interest to associate ourselves with liberal powers – Carney’s middle powers.”
I wouldn’t disagree with this at all… but I also don’t think we should be throwing our weight about either. The one does not preclude the other.
“I would say – partial fiction and partial truth. At least the US and we and others were observing the rules based system in part.”
Yes, in a very selective manner. And human rights aren’t human rights when they’re applied selectively. Selective application means that they’re just another stick to wield against your enemies; and plenty of countries in the global south have seen this, and are now calling it out for what it is.
“I also don’t think we should be throwing our weight about either.”
How do you enforce universal human rights and/or international law without throwing your weight around?
There’s a judgement to be made. For example, Britain has today assisted France in their boarding of a “russian oil tanker”. Should the UK assist (militarily or otherwise) in removing the current Iranian regime from power? Should we have joined in the First Gulf War (which if I recall correctly was sanctioned by the UN)?
“And human rights aren’t human rights when they’re applied selectively”.
Yes they are – it’s just a question of enforcement. For example speeding limits along roads are perfectly good law even though enforcement is partial at best.
Yes one needs to avoid hyprocracy as much as possible, but equally one should not be too sanctimonious in a self evidently dangerous world.
I don’t believe Trump is a fool. He is a deeply manipulative bully who is out to make as much money and power as he can so he can feel equal (or rather superior) to his idol in the Kremlin. Putin (definitely no fool) meanwhile is loving being able to goad Trump into greater and greater damage of Putin’s enemies.
“Yes they are – it’s just a question of enforcement. For example speeding limits along roads are perfectly good law even though enforcement is partial at best.”
You used an interesting word there… “partial”. You didn’t perchance make a Freudian slip when you chose it did you?
If by partial, you mean in part, because enforcement can be everywhere, then the speed limit is still the rule despite shoddy enforcement.
But “partial” has another meaning; the opposite of impartial. And if speed limits are applied in this way, where the police allow their mates to speed and only hand the tickets out to people they don’t like, then…
@: Adam
You used an interesting word there… “partial”. You didn’t perchance make a Freudian slip when you chose it did you?
I mean the first meaning. The second is for the Trumps and Farages of this world.