Mr Vance we're no ‘random country', we just haven't won many wars lately
Who does JD Vance think he is, except the second-most powerful man in the world?
Speaking to Fox News, the VP appeared to mock Britain as a 'random country that hasn't fought a war for 30 or 40 years.' What rot! Had he said 'hasn't won a war' he'd be closer to the truth, for we tend to join fights the Americans start but, God bless 'em, decline to finish.
Donald Trump, for example, cut funding for Ukraine, triggering denunciations of a man who seems determined to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of peace.
Tory MP Graham Stuart tweeted that he might even be a Russian asset, causing my Russian masseur, Ivan, to laugh. 'Putin would be more subtle.'
Ivan asks me a lot of questions about Westminster – he has fascination for the private lives of defence ministers – and I assure him that with America withdrawing from the world, Britain is jumping back in. As well as organising a Coalition of the Willing with France, dependent on hours and benefits, the Commons discussed in one afternoon Gaza, Hong Kong and Iran.
'What is our government doing about this?' asked Labour MP Rupa Huq in the Gaza debate. That could be the parliamentary motto.
Labour thinks the army should visit foreign countries more often and, in the wake of the inevitable destruction, more foreigners should come here – and yet our domestic security seems to be crumbling. In the Iran debate, Dan Jarvis lashed out at Tehran influencers; earlier we heard that China has put a bounty on the heads of UK-based dissidents.
Iain Duncan Smith, at his angry best, demanded arrests: 'How much longer are we going to say all these wonderful words in this House about what we stand for, [but] when it comes to those who need our protection, nothing seems to happen?'
Hear hear. A sad result of the landslide is that Conservatives with long records on security affairs have been replaced by Labour MPs who prefer hugs and cuddles. Once the foreign affairs committee was chaired by Tom Tugendhat; today it is foreign aid-obsessed Emily Thornberry, who would mark the opening of an envelope by enclosing a cheque.
The Tories have troubles of their own. Kemi had to gently wrap Alicia Kearns's knuckles with a cricket bat for suggesting we cancel Trump's state visit. Remember: right-wingers greeted the Orange Man's election as proof the world was turning their way. At Kemi's first PMQs, she asked if David Lammy owed Trump an apology for calling him a neo-Nazi.
But now we've discovered Trump isn't a classical liberal and isn't playing 3-D chess upside down in a bath of piranhas, but a nationalist with zero clucks given for the feelings of European randos. Tories and Reform are scrambling to put distance between them and him without jeopardising a future invite to the Oval Office. If they're looking for a compromise position on the state visit, I'd suggest Trump can come to Buckingham Palace, but only talk to Prince Andrew.
Happily, Vance offered a clarification: he hadn't meant Britain, so at least Keir won't have to go to war with America, too. Ivan manipulated my solar plexus and asked, 'Is what they say about the Prime Minister true?'
'Oh, every word,' I sighed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully
The Sun
35 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fury over Angela Rayner's push for new workers' rights law as firms warn ‘final nail in the coffin' for small businesses
LABOUR'S push to expand union rights will be the "nail in the coffin" for small businesses, entrepreneurs warned today. Firms slammed Deputy PM Angela Rayner's proposed workers' rights law as 'one of the most damaging proposals ever aimed" at the sector. Under 'pernicious' new rules, union chiefs would be given a legal right to enter any workplace, such as a bakery or hair salon, to recruit and organise. Access to small and medium businesses would be enforceable even against an employer's will, and bosses could be threatened with fines. Meanwhile, the 40 per cent vote threshold for union recognition could be slashed to just 2 per cent of staff. Furious entrepreneurs blasted the workers' rights proposals as completely stacking power against the modest employer. They demanded an exemption for small and medium sized firms, who employ 61 per cent of the private sector workforce. John Longworth, Chair of the Independent Business Network, said: 'The automatic right of access for unions to invade SMEs is one of the most pernicious aspects of the Employment Rights Bill. 'This is all about union power and union income. 'It's likely to lead to business closures and higher unemployment.' Roger Walters, Founder of Supercity Aparthotels, said: 'This Bill is just another pop at capitalism. 'If it's not defeated, Great Britain will become another Russia or North Korea.' John Elliott, Founder of EBAC Dehumidifiers, added: 'This is bad . 'We all agree employees should have rights, but we need to explain to the public that employers have rights too. 'It should be an equal relationship.'
Sky News
35 minutes ago
- Sky News
Dozens of MPs back campaign to revive playgrounds
More than 70 MPs are backing a campaign to revive England's playgrounds as pressure grows on the government to do more to tackle community decline to fight Reform UK. Labour MP Tom Hayes has tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure playgrounds lost to development are replaced. Mr Hayes told Sky News it is a personal subject as he grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents, and without his local playground "they wouldn't have been able to afford any sort of leisure activity for me". "Talking to parents these days, with the cost of living crisis going on, they just don't have play areas on their doorstep like they used to. What they have instead is rusting swings or boarded-up playgrounds." The Bournemouth East MP said this speaks to a "wider hopelessness" that people are feeling about "littering in their streets, graffiti on their walls, potholes in their roads". "It just makes people feel like nobody really cares about their area. That's at a time when people are feeling hopeless about the possibility of change and Reform, obviously, are trying to capitalise on that." Under the last Labour government, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham launched England's first and only play strategy, which aimed to create 3,500 new play spaces across every local authority - backed by £235m of funding. It was abandoned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition two years later and facilities have been in sharp decline since then, according to Play England which has developed the amendment Mr Hayes is tabling. The amendment would require councils in England to assess play provision and integrate "play sufficiency" into local plans and planning decisions - similar to a law that already exists in Scotland and Wales. It would also require developers to deliver and fund adequate play infrastructure, with a focus on inclusive play equipment for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Mr Hayes said this would not cost the Treasury anything and "is such a simple thing" the government can do quickly for children and young people "who have been shafted for so long". It is backed by 71 MPs from across Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Greens, with many supporters hopeful it could also reduce screen time amid mounting concerns about online safety. Pressure on government over left-behind areas Amendments by backbench MPs are not usually agreed to but can be used to put pressure on the government, with the issue to be debated in the House of Commons this week as the planning bills enter the report stage. Mr Hayes said his playground campaign was just the start as he backed the resurrection of Sure Start centres, following calls from Rother Valley MP Jake Richards last week. There is growing momentum among Labour backbenchers who want to see the government give more of a priority to social infrastructure to deliver tangible change to communities and fend off the threat of Reform UK. MPs and policy insiders have told Sky News they are concerned Downing Street's ambition to grow GDP with long-term transport and infrastructure projects will not make a difference in places that look and feel forgotten, even if achieved. As Sky News has previously reported, several Red Wall MPs have backed the work of the Independent Commission On Neighbourhoods (ICON), which has identified 613 "mission-critical" neighbourhoods in need of a cash boost to ensure people in left-behind areas can benefit from growth. 3:04 The commission, chaired by Labour peer Hilary Armstrong, highlights the need to regenerate neighbourhoods with facilities like libraries, parks and community centres for voters to feel a difference. Any money for such a project will be set out in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review on Wednesday, when she will allocate funds for each department over the coming years. One of ICON's supporters is Blackpool South MP Chris Webb, who has also signed Mr Hayes's amendment. He told Sky News playgrounds "will make a real difference to families in Blackpool, which has the most mission-critical neighbourhoods in the country". "I'm committed to fighting for policies that benefit our community, and I'm thrilled to be working with Tom Hayes MP, the play sector and Play England to make this vision a reality."
