JD Vance chooses Cotswolds for family summer holiday
They are expected to visit in August, not long after Donald Trump completes a five-day stay in Scotland, illustrating what a US official said were the deep bonds between Sir Keir Starmer's Government and the Trump administration.
Mr Vance has at times angered the British public, making apparently dismissive comments about America's allies and fierce attacks on what he claims are restrictions on free speech in the UK.
The vice-president, his wife Usha and their three young children are expected to join millions of American tourists in crossing the Atlantic to see the sights of London in mid-August.
They are then expected to rent a cottage in the Cotswolds before leaving to spend time in Scotland. Mrs Vance has taken the lead in finding a cottage in the Cotswolds where they can unwind with Ewan, eight, five-year-old Vivek, and Mirabel, three.
The children have been a feature of Mr Vance's public life since he became vice-president, skipping ahead of their parents and boarding Air Force Two in their pyjamas ready for long-haul flights to Europe and beyond.
Three sources described the Vance family plans to The Telegraph, although one stressed that the itinerary had not been finalised.
It is understood the vice-president had also been keen to visit David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, at Chevening, his grace-and-favour estate in Kent, but their calendars did not align.
Mr Lammy and his wife visited the Vances at their official Washington residence earlier this year, and people who know both men say they have bonded over their humble backgrounds and shared faith.
The visits by the president and his potential successor in 2028 are seen as something of a summer coup by British officials, who are delighted at how they have been able to woo an administration that uses the slogan 'America First'.
'The ties run deep,' said a Whitehall source. 'Whatever any policy differences, the history, heritage and appeal of the United Kingdom are a huge draw to the current administration … unlike with their predecessors.'
Mr Trump has spoken of his deep admiration for Elizabeth II and how he watched the late Queen's coronation at his royalist mother's side in 1953.
The US president is due to fly to Scotland on Friday, where he will check up on his business interests and meet the Prime Minister in Aberdeen. He will visit his Trump Turnberry golf club in Ayrshire on the west coast before opening the new second course on his Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire, on the north-east coast.
Aides, who shy away from using the term 'vacation' for a president who they say never stops working, are billing the trip as a low-key affair. He will return to the UK in September for a state visit.
British officials have made no secret of their use of the UK's history and heritage in seeking concessions from the Trump administration.
When Sir Keir met the president in the Oval Office in February, he came with a letter from the King inviting Mr Trump for an unprecedented second state visit.
Barely seven weeks later, the UK became the first nation to do a trade deal with Washington, which lifted planned swingeing tariffs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
10 minutes ago
- BBC News
Real ale festival bosses apologises amid political barrel 'oversight'
A real ale festival is being investigated by a charity watchdog after several political parties were allowed to sponsor a the July event, barrels of alcohol were sponsored by Reform, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservative Party, with proceeds going to the festival's organisers, the Weston-super-Mare Lions at the Charity Commission are now looking into the incident as a potential breach of charity, which raises money for community services, has apologised for the "oversight" and said "maintaining political impartiality is crucial". The Real Ale and Cider Festival organised by the charity took place in Weston between 25-27 president Paul Middleton said taking sponsorship from the political parties was "very naïve" and promised it would not happen again."The Weston-super-Mare Lions would like to apologise unreservedly for any offence taken with the barrel (not event) sponsorship from the Reform, Liberal Democrats and Conservative parties," he said."It was never our intention to align with or promote any political agenda. "The sponsorship was accepted without fully considering the broader implications. we now recognise that maintaining political impartiality is crucial."We take full responsibility for this oversight and the impact it may have had."The charity has since refunded all money taken from the political sponsorships "Thank you to those who voiced their concerns, your feedback is important, and we remain committed to learning from this and doing better," Mr Middleton added.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police chief voices hope of agreement on dealing with legacy of NI's Troubles
Northern Ireland's chief constable has expressed hope for a new agreement on how to deal with the legacy of the region's troubled past. Jon Boutcher was speaking following a commemoration to remember three musicians from the Miami Showband who were killed in a loyalist ambush close to Newry 50 years ago. Mr Boutcher was among a crowd who visited a memorial on the Buskhill Road on Thursday afternoon to remember Fran O'Toole, Tony Geraghty and Brian McCoy. Those gathered included Michael Gallagher, whose son Aiden was killed in the 1998 Omagh bomb, and Eugene Reavey, whose brothers Anthony, John Martin and Brian were shot dead in an attack at their family home in Co Armagh in January 1976. Mr Boutcher told media: 'There are still so many uncertainties for so many people, and that's not right. 'Everybody knows my position on legacy, I think transparency and openness are critical. The report that I did on Operation Kenova reflects that, and I am very alive to and aware of national security issues. I have been involved with those all of my professional career, I know them better than anybody in policing, so you can do both. 'I think we may be close to coming to a position, and certainly I hope we are, where there will be a new agreement around what the future of legacy looks like, and I'm keen to hear the fruits of the recent talks between the two governments.' He added: 'We have now got to get legacy right. 'At the time that a lot of these cases occurred, half the community didn't trust police or security forces, which I understand. 'The volume of things that were happening, the murders, the attacks, meant that the security forces couldn't deal with them. There was then without doubt failures within a number of those investigations. We have now got to put that right.' Mr Boutcher said he had been invited to attend the commemoration by Miami Showband survivors Des Lee and Stephen Travers. 'I'd consider them to be people who have inspired me, helped me understand legacy here,' he said. 'I've spent a significant amount of time with both men and they have taught me a lot, and asked me if I would be here, and they are the example of what humility, courage and actually what this word reconciliation is all about. 'I'm here because it is the very least I could do, to be here.' Mr Lee paid tribute to Mr Boutcher as he spoke during the event as a special person he would like to thank. 'He is a gentleman who has helped me quite a lot in the past, he's now the leader of the PSNI and he is here with us today to commemorate the 50th anniversary,' he said.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and re-drafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense. Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree. So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs. Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages? When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'. So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel. I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night. What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him. That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned. By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months. Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years. Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.' Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs. There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her. But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this. Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want. They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally. Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
