Keir Starmer once said “there is no such thing as Starmerism, and there never will be”. It was meant to signal his preference for pragmatic progressivism over ideological purity, but to many, it has come to encompass all that is wrong with the current Labour government.

As it ditches part of yet another policy this week – on plans to make its digital ID scheme mandatory for UK workers – Downing Street faces a “political challenge”, said BBC political editor Chris Mason. The government’s vision for the country is increasingly unclear as “the climbdowns, dilutions, U-turns, about-turns, call them what you will, are mounting up”.

What did the commentators say?
A change of heart can be “strategic”, showing flexibility and “sensitivity to public opinion”, said George Eaton in The New Statesman. But “too many” of Starmer’s U-turns look like “the product of incoherent thinking and inadequate preparation”. The watering-down of the digital ID plans follows about-turns on changes to inheritance tax for farmers, business-rate relief on pubs and the winter fuel allowance, not to mention the reversals on welfare reform and a grooming gangs inquiry. Instead of moving “towards a clear destination”, Labour looks “as if it is merely going round in circles”.

Starmer is turning into the “Grand Old Duke of York”, an unnamed Labour MP told The Telegraph’s Dominic Penna, and that is “building up resentment”. Hull MP Karl Turner said he and his colleagues now have to “think very carefully before defending policy decisions publicly”, as any subsequent U-turns leave them “looking really stupid”.

U-turns are “rarely” the result of “anger in the country”, said The Independent’s political editor David Maddox. They happen when a government doesn’t “have the strength to push through their agenda”, and the “climbdown” on digital IDs looks like the behaviour of a prime minister in “survival mode”.

What next?
Future government reversals could be on anything from private landlord rental income to employment rights, said Matthew Lynn at MoneyWeek. “The one thing we know for certain about this government is that, as soon as it runs into any serious opposition, it quickly changes its mind.”

President Donald Trump is renewing his push to take over Greenland, and tapping into the Danish territory’s natural resources is a key part of the strategy. But even if Trump were to seize control of Greenland despite Denmark’s vehement opposition, experts say the island’s harsh climate and environment are an insurmountable barrier to mining its natural resources on any sizable scale.

What natural resources does Greenland have?
Greenland has significant supplies of rare earth elements, “vital for many everyday technologies” including TVs and smartphones, said the BBC. China currently “controls the world’s supply” of rare earths, Critical Metals CEO Tony Sage told the broadcaster. Greenland represents an opportunity for the US to level the playing field.

Beyond rare earths, discoveries of “graphite and graphite schist are reported from many localities on the island”, said Reuters. Other minerals found there include diamonds, gold, nickel, titanium, tungsten and zinc, according to Greenland’s Mineral Resources Authority. Yet Greenland only has one fully operational mine.

Why is mining them so difficult?
Most of Greenland’s natural resources are “located in remote areas above the Arctic Circle, where there is a mile-thick polar ice sheet and darkness reigns much of the year”, said CNN. Mining in the Arctic “can be five to 10 times more expensive than doing it elsewhere on the planet”.  

Lack of infrastructure also presents a problem. Even in the more populated southern regions, “there are few roads and no railways, so any mining venture would have to create these accessibilities”, Diogo Rosa, a researcher with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, told The Associated Press. There is also the question of power; many of the more remote areas don’t have consistent electricity.  

These logistical challenges mean any “natural resource extraction is unlikely to feature centrally” in a US vision for Greenland,  said University of Sussex researcher Lukas Slothuus on The Conversation. But if foreign powers did find a way to mine there, it would “reverberate in Copenhagen, as Greenland has a mining profit-sharing agreement with Denmark”.

The repatriated remains of 32 Cuban protection officers killed during the US operation to capture Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro are placed on display at Havana’s Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces. The ages of the slain personnel ranged from 26 to 60.

Adalberto Roque / Pool / Getty Images

Director Tom Littler brings a “sparkier” version of Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s 1775 comedy to life at the Orange Tree in London’s Richmond, said Heather Neill on The Arts Desk. With the “ever-elegant” Patricia Hodge in the role of Mrs Malaprop, there is “never a dull moment” in this rendition, which relocates the action to 1927, complete with“attractive gilded art deco friezes and colourful period costumes”.

Littler has “successfully married old and new” in this “craftily edited rejig”, said Dominic Cavendish in The Telegraph. The story follows Jack Absolute (Kit Young), who tries to woo Lydia Languish (Zoe Brough) in the guise of the “lowly sergeant Beverley to indulge her sentimental ideas about poverty”. His false identity paves the way for “spiralling confusions”.

The “slick and colourful” revival is a “more faithful update” than other adaptations, said Dominic Maxwell in The Times. The show is elevated by “savvy comic performances that largely stop short of caricature”. Robert Bathurst presents a “robust, unselfish” Sir Anthony Absolute, while Brough as Lydia and Boadicea Ricketts as Julia Melville deliver performances that are “very now without feeling laboured”.

Sheridan’s work had a “sharp satirical bite” at the time, said Dave Fargnoli on The Stage, but the “social comedy” doesn’t hold as much weight today. Still, Littler makes up for it by “leaning into the farcical plot” and “amping up the silliness” with extra gags. With its “colourful costumes” and “Charleston-style choreography”, “The Rivals” is a “thoroughly entertaining” spectacle that makes for a “lively” evening.

YouTube feels like TV should – no wonder people choose it over the BBC
Sophie Wilkinson in The Independent
YouTube viewing figures have “overtaken” the BBC’s, writes Sophie Wilkinson, and “I’m surprised that anyone is surprised”. Watching “Beeb content” feels “like entering a smart dining room with a sommelier to take you through the wine pairings”, while watching YouTube “is like barging through Camden market’s deep-fried Chinese takeaway food”. The latter’s “endless servings of naughty, low-brow” content “scratch itches at a level that high-powered media executives could only dream of reaching”.

The world of today looks bad, but take hope: we’ve been here before and got through it – and we will again
Martin Kettle in The Guardian
“National morale” is “shot” and “politics commands little faith”, writes Martin Kettle. “Welcome, in short, to the Britain of the mid-1980s.” Things then felt “very much” as they do now. But “those moods did not endure”, because we learned it’s “better to cooperate on things on which you can agree than to focus on the things that divide you”. Once today’s politicians realise that “the arena matters more than the grandstand”, we “can get out of that place” of despair again.

It’s not just the Fed. Politics looms over central banks everywhere
The Economist’s editorial board
“The idea that central banks should enjoy some independence is as old as central banking,” says The Economist, but “try telling that” to Donald Trump. The US president “has spent the past year bullying the Federal Reserve” to slash interest rates. Central-bank independence has been a “triumph of applied economics”, yet it’s also “under threat” from Reform and the Greens in the UK. “Relying on politicians” instead would be “a huge gamble”.