Awkward moment Trump blasts ‘nasty' Sadiq Khan for ‘terrible job'… before Starmer interrupts: ‘He's a friend of mine!'
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
DONALD Trump today savaged Sadiq Khan as a "nasty person" who has "done a terrible job".
At a joint press conference with the US President, Sir Keir Starmer was forced to awkwardly intervene, defending the London Mayor as "my friend".
Sign up for the Politics newsletter
Sign up
2
Donald Trump and Sir Keir Starmer speak with the media during a meeting at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Scotland
Credit: AP
2
The US President blasted Sir Sadiq Khan as a "nasty person"
Credit: PA
Mr Trump, confirming he will travel to London during his state visit in September, blasted: "I'm not a fan of your Mayor.
"I think he's done a terrible job, the Mayor of London.
"He's a nasty person."
As embarrassed laughter filled the room, the PM attempted to defuse the situation.
But the US President pressed on: 'I think he's done a terrible job.
"But I would certainly visit London.'
In a wide-ranging press conference:
The President vowed to reduce the 50-day deadline he had given Putin for a Ukraine peace deal to 10 days
On Gaza, Mr Trump declared: 'Nobody has done anything great over there. The whole place is a mess. They have to get food and safety right now'
The President called London Mayor Sadiq Khan a "nasty person" who has done a "terrible job"
He also took aim at the "nasty" windmills in Scotland and urged Sir Keir to stick with oil power
Mr Trump celebrated the UK-US trade deal, claiming: 'They've been trying to make that deal for 12 years and Sir Keir got it done. Our relationship is unparalleled'
The feud between the President and Sir Sadiq is far from new.
It gained momentum in 2015, when the Mayor slammed Mr Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban as "ignorant," prompting the President to challenge him to an IQ test.
Their clashes intensified following the 2017 London Bridge terror attack, with Mr Trump blaming the Mayor for rising migration and stating: "look at all the crime brought in".
During Mr Trump's UK visits in 2018 and 2019, Sir Sadiq allowed anti-Trump protests, including the infamous baby blimp, which inflamed tensions further.
Mr Trump fired back, labelling the Mayor a "stone cold loser" and a "national disgrace," while condemning his record on violent crime in the capital.
Responding to Mr Trump's dig, a spokesperson for Sir Sadiq said: 'Sadiq is delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world.
"He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer.
'Perhaps these are the reasons why a record number of Americans have applied for British citizenship under his Presidency.'
The President welcomed the PM and his wife Victoria to his Scottish golf course at Turnberry this afternoon for wide-ranging talks.
Taking questions in the ballroom, Mr Trump was asked about his relationship with both the Labour and Reform leaders.
Mr Farage - a friend of the President - is currently leading the polls and is the bookies' favourite to win the next election.
Mr Trump said that he liked "both men" before giving his advice for electoral success.
He said: "Low taxes, keep us safe, keep us out of wars, stop the crime, and in your case there's a big immigration component."
Earlier on the steps of his clubhouse, Mr Trump responded to media questions on his advice for the PM in tackling the small boats crisis.
Channel crossings are up 50 per cent this year - while in America illegal border breaches have plummeted.
While not familiar with the small boats crisis, Mr Trump said that he "loves this country" and controlling migration was crucial.
He said: 'I love this country, as you know my mother was born in Scotland. It's an incredible place, a beautiful place…
"Europe is a much different place than it was just five years ago, 10 years ago, and they've got to get their act together. If you don't you're not going to have Europe any more as you know and you can't do that.
'This is a magnificent part of the world, and you cannot ruin it, you cannot let people come here illegally."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
New poll shows astonishing outcome in fantasy 2028 match-up between Obama and Trump
A new poll reveals who would win in a fantasy match-up between President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama for president if they both ran for a third term. A new exclusive Daily Mail/J.L. Partners poll shows that Obama would win in a theoretical matchup. Of the respondents, 52 percent chose the former Democratic president and 41 percent chose Trump. Obama's 11-point majority over Trump stems from an enthusiastic Hispanic base, of which 73 percent selected Obama, and also 68 percent of black voters. Independent voters also preferred Obama over Trump in the hypothetical match, 50 percent for the former Democrat to just 39 percent for Trump. Past American presidents sometimes benefit from nostalgia over a president currently serving in office. Obama currently enjoys a 59 percent favorability rating while just 35 percent viewed him unfavorably. That's compared to Trump's 44 percent favorability mark. According to the exclusive poll, Trump has a 49 percent overall approval rating for his job performance as president, while 51 percent have an unfavorable view. The poll also shows that Trump would still beat Hillary Clinton if she ran for president again with 44 percent support over Clinton's 43 percent. Trump would also beat former President Joe Biden with 44 percent versus just 40 percent support for Biden. American presidents are prevented from running for a third term, after the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified in 1951. Trump has teased the idea in interviews, although he has conceded he is not yet planning on running for a third term. 'I'm not joking,' Trump told NBC in March, when asked to clarify his comments on the idea. 'But I'm not — it is far too early to think about it.' When asked about how he would do so, Trump said cryptically, 'There are methods which you could do it.' He also said he would 'love' to run against Obama. 'I'd love that …. That would be a good one,' he said to Fox News reporter Peter Doocy in March. 'I'd like that. And no, people are asking me to run, and there's a whole story about running for a third term. I don't know, I never looked into it. They do say there's a way you can do it, but I don't know about that.' Trump supporters have mused on a possible loophole in the law, if Vice President JD Vance won a presidential race in 2028 with Trump as his running mate. Theoretically, a President Vance could swear in as president and then resign, allowing a vice president Trump to ascend back into power. Obama also joked about the idea of a third term as his second term was coming to a close. 'I actually think I'm a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win,' Obama joked during a 2015 speech in Ethiopia. 'There's a lot that I'd like to do to keep America moving. But the law is the law, and no person is above the law, not even the president.' In 2020, Obama also joked that he would be fine with a 'stand-in' president where 'they had an earpiece' and he could control them. "You know what? If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony, I'd be fine with that,' he joked in an interview with Stephen Colbert. The poll was conducted July 9 - July 10 among 1,013 registered voters. It has a 3.1 percent margin of error.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Poll reveals the one major reason Britons aren't having children
Nearly half of British adults are putting off or deciding against having children, with money worries a top factor, a stark new poll reveals. A survey of 18 to 50-year-olds from pollsters Ipsos, shared exclusively with The Independent , shows that 44 per cent of adults plan to delay having children, or are deciding against it altogether – with the cost of raising children, including food, clothing and education, cited as the most common reason (39 per cent). And a third of prospective parents said they were put off by the cost of childcare in the UK – despite the government's rollout of extended free nursery hours. While a third of respondents said they weren't having children because they simply didn't want to, others said they were put off by fears over climate change, with worries over how global warming will affect their child's future, and how having children may harm the environment. The poll comes as birth rates in England and Wales are at their lowest rate on record, and as deaths are expected to consistently outnumber births in the UK from 2030. Lord Michael Farmer, a vocal supporter of family stability, criticised the systemic issues underlying low birth rates and argued that parents needed more financial support. 'The UK's tax system discourages childbearing; it is one of the least family-friendly in the OECD. No allowances are made for dependants, so our tax system also disadvantages single parents. The current level of marriage allowance gives scant recognition of low-earning or non-earning second parents,' he said in a House of Lords debate in November. In 2023, more people died than were born in the UK. This gap is only expected to widen between 2030 and 2050, according to projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This means that the majority of population growth is driven by immigration rather than births. Education secretary Bridget Phillipson told The Independent in June that the steep decline in birth rates is 'a big challenge' for the UK, which needs to be addressed. She added: 'I've heard from lots of people that the choices that they wanted to make have been constrained, in terms of when to start a family and how many children they have, by factors like the cost of childcare, housing costs, instability at work.' Fertility rates are shrinking faster than in any other G7 nation, falling by 25 per cent in the UK since 2010. However, women are still having slightly more children on average than those in Japan, Italy and Canada. Despite advancements in flexible working and parental leave, some parents polled said they believed that it is harder to raise children now than in previous generations, with the cost of living and the price of housing increasing beyond pay. The majority of adults (56 per cent) believe it is harder to be a parent in the UK today than 20 years ago, with 61 per cent of women saying it was harder to raise a child now compared to men (52 per cent). And even older generations agreed, with those aged 55 to 75-year-olds the most likely to believe (59 per cent) that parenthood is trickier now than two decades ago. The decline in birth rates has generated much discussion among politicians. Recently, Nigel Farage pledged he would abolish the two-child benefit cap if Reform came into power, as part of a '180-degree shift' to reverse low birth rates. But his stance has not yet fully won over the public, who still trust Labour more than any other party to support parents and families, according to Ipsos' poll. This is in spite of Sir Keir Starmer's refusal to remove the two-child benefit cap, after pledging to reduce child poverty, which sparked public rebellion among Labour MPs. Meanwhile, the Tories are less trusted to support families than both Reform and Labour. The party's current leader, Kemi Badenoch, has previously said she believes maternity pay is 'excessive', and that 'families on benefits should make the same responsible decisions about having children as everyone else'. But more than 1 in 5 people said that they don't trust any major party to support families with their policies. Tackling affordable housing is the most popular policy change, which would lead to people having more children, according to 42 per cent of Ipsos respondents. The cost of renting in Britain has now reached new record highs, according to Rightmove , with average asking rent at £1,365 per month. Meanwhile, fewer young people are buying homes, as housing prices are far outpacing wage growth. Over 1 in 3 adults also believe that making childcare more affordable for parents with preschool children would incentivise more people to have children. The government has rolled out 15 hours of free childcare to children aged nine months to two years old, which from September will be extended to 30 hours of childcare a week. However, recent calculations from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, revealed by The Independent, show that uptake is likely to be 25 per cent higher than expected, and since the number of childcare places has barely increased in recent years, it will be a struggle for many to secure places. Improving access to free nursery hours will no doubt be a welcome move, since full-time childcare on average costs between 37 to 43 per cent of the average income in the UK.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has it been so difficult for Britain to recognise the state of Palestine?
Keir Starmer's determination to recognise the state of Palestine begs a simple question. Not so much 'Why?' – for decades, a two-state solution that would see a Palestinian homeland established in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem has been the policy of successive UK governments, and one that was voted for, overwhelmingly, in the Commons 11 years ago. But, rather, how today's announcement following an emergency meeting of the Cabinet, that the British government – exasperated by the ongoing situation in Gaza and the dwindling prospects of a two-state solution with Israel – will formally recognise Palestine in September, could have been quite so long in the making. Britain has played a pivotal role in the pre-history of the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict, starting with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. The then-British foreign secretary's letter to Lord Rothschild promising support for a 'national home for the Jewish people' set our seal on a future Israeli state. While many Palestinians understandably see the Declaration as the root of all their travails, it was intended as a classic diplomatic fudge. It did not actually specify that it would mean a Jewish state in what was then still a division of the Ottoman Empire, but which would soon be under British control following General Allenby's victory over the Turks in the First World War. Moreover, Balfour promised that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine' – which is a quaint way of describing the existing, and then overwhelmingly Arab, population of Palestine. Nor did it say how this protection would be achieved. But none of this alters the fact that, more than a century later, this proviso is the the Balfour Declaration's great unfinished business. Fast forward to May 1948. The declaration of an independent state of Israel by its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, following the hasty abandonment of territory mandated to British control in 1920 by the League of Nations, and coupled with the Israeli army's successful defence against immediate invasion by five neighbouring Arab states, left the new nation in control of 78 per cent of what had once been British-administered Mandatory Palestine. The Balfour Declaration – along with the United Nations decision to divide the territory into two states, one Arab and one Jewish – would prove pivotal in creating a conflict that still scars the Middle East. But it is subsequent events that explain why formal recognition of an independent, sovereign state of Palestine has still not yet happened. For more than half a century, Western governments – Britain included – have said that there should be a Palestinian state that encompasses Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But in 1967, when the Six Day War broke out with its neighbours, Israel seized the former territory from Egypt and the latter two others from Jordan. The subsequent UN Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw in return for recognition by Arab states – but neither the pullback nor the recognition ever came to pass. At that point in time, Palestinians still hankered after sovereignty over the whole of historic 'Palestine' – including what had already been the state of Israel for almost 20 years, and from which more than 700,000 Palestinians had been forced to flee, in a displacement and dispossession known as the Nakba, meaning 'catastrophe' in Arabic. Israel, far from withdrawing from the territorial gains made during conflicts, has set up settlements, meaning that at least 620,000 Israelis now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Several of the most extreme members of the Netanyahu government are eager to resettle Gaza in the same way. In 1988, there was a dramatic change of thinking within the then-Palestinian leadership – it's so-called 'historic compromise'. Led by Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation would confine its aspiration to sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967. All negotiations that have taken place since then – at Oslo in 1993, at Camp David in 2000, and between Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas as part of a secret realignment plan that was never implemented – have envisaged, to some degree, a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side. Shortly after Arafat's historic compromise, 78 countries recognised the new Palestinian state. Today, the number declaring formal recognition stands at 147. Earlier this month – more than a decade after Sweden became the first EU country to formally acknowledge Palestinian sovereignty, a move followed last year by Ireland, Spain and Norway – the French president Emmanuel Macron became the first leader of a G7 country to promise he will seek to do the same at the UN General Assembly in September. As critics of recognition frequently, and correctly, point out; acknowledging a state of Palestine that includes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is essentially notional, since, in the absence of a successful peace process, there is no state to recognise. Though the Palestinian Authority was granted observer status at the United Nations in 2012, along similar lines to that afforded to the Vatican, it has no voting rights. Moreover, the United States has consistently used its veto to block Palestine's full UN membership. As recently as April, the UK abstained in a Security Council resolution vote on the recommendation regarding the admission of Palestine into the UN. Nevertheless, France's move – which paved the way for today's announcement of a road map by Keir Starmer, which is supported by Macron and the German chancellor Friedrich Merz – is not an empty one. It registered growing outrage at the carnage, and the scale of the famine, perpetrated by Israel in Gaza in retaliation for brutal attacks by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 Israelis and took another 251 hostages. The French president is said to have been especially affected by his conversations with Palestinian survivors when he visited Egypt in April. France joining with Saudi Arabia in sponsoring the UN summit currently underway in New York to revive talks into a two-state solution sends a clear political message to Israel's leadership. It is also a reminder that, since 2002, Riyadh has promised to recognise Israel – as Egypt and Jordan have already done – but only if it agrees to a return to pre-1967 borders. Will Britain's belated recognition of a state of Palestine make any difference? It will certainly lend weight and credence to those hoping to change minds in Washington. It would also go some way as an acknowledgement of the UK's historic role and duty in the region. And we can only hope that it might help solve a conflict in which the destruction, killing and starvation in Gaza is but the latest – and direst – consequence.
