Trump WON'T get honour of addressing Parliament during State Visit, Lord Mandelson suggests as he heaps praise on 'phenomenal' president
The UK ambassador to the US appeared to confirm speculation that the president's trip will happen in September when Westminster is not sitting.
That would reduce the potential for protests, but also deprive Mr Trump of an honour that was granted to Emmanuel Macron last week.
Keir Starmer dramatically extended the official invitation from the King as he wooed Mr Trump at the White House in February.
It will be the first time a US President has been granted the honour of a second state visit. Mr Trump's first was in 2019.
However, there has been a backlash from some left-wing MPs who launched a campaign to block him from addressing Parliament.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Lord Mandelson lavished praise on Mr Trump.
The peer said Mr Trump was a 'phenomenon' who 'dominated' Washington and would be 'one of the most consequential presidents in American history'.
Lord Mandelson said of the State Visit: 'He should expect a warm reception because he really does love Britain. He hugely admires it.
'He trusts Keir Starmer. It's not a question of expressing our gratitude. My lodestar here is to demonstrate respect, not sycophancy. I don't think the administration has any problem with that.'
Reminded that Labour left-wingers have started a petition against Mr Trump addressing both Houses of Parliament, the peer said: 'Well there's a surprise... But I had assumed that at the time of the visit Parliament won't be sitting.'
The Commons is due to sit at the beginning of September, but then break again from the 16th while party conferences are held.
Mr Trump is expected to visit Scotland before then to tour golf courses, with rumours he will meet up with Sir Keir.
Lord Mandelson said Mr Trump is a 'more nuanced figure than people appreciate'.
'Look, he's not only a unique politician - he's also going to be one of the most consequential presidents in American history,' the ambassador said.
'He has this sense of history, this grasp of power which I think perhaps recent inhabitants of the White House haven't quite seen. He is not a man for endless seminars and thinking.
'He's not a victim of analysis paralysis. He has a very quick, easy way of grasping the core points about an issue. And let's be honest: more often than not, there's a kernel of truth in everything he says.'
Lord Mandelson joked that the MAGA crowd in Washington 'regard me as a slightly exotic target of their fascination'.
He said a turning point in his job was when Mr Trump described him as 'handsome' during Sir Keir's visit to the White House.
'I've never been in a town or a political system that is so dominated by one individual,' he said.
'Usually, you're entering an ecosystem rather than the world of one personality. But he is a phenomenon. A unique politician.'
Lord Mandelson suggested he does not believe Nigel Farage will become PM as he recounted a recent conversation with US vice president JD Vance.
'I explained to the vice-president that, yes, highly effective populists and political actors like Farage can take advantage,' the New Labour architect said.
'At the end of the day, at the election people will be choosing their future government - not having a fling, expressing a protest or demonstrating their impatience.
'And in that sense, I said, perhaps Nigel is peaking too soon.'
Lord Mandelson compared the political situations in the UK and US as he tried to explain why the Labour government has been struggling to make headway.
He said: 'The mandates that both President Trump and Keir Starmer won at their elections last year came from the same sense of anger that many voters have.
'That they've been overlooked: the system was not delivering for them, that they were being taken for granted.
'But what's different about Britain is that we seem to have been travelling through a long, dark tunnel for ten years, with no signs of light or hope.
'It has seemed one thing after another. And I feel people are emerging from that tunnel, almost blinking into the daylight.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Donald Trump touches down at MetLife Stadium for Club World Cup final... exactly a year on from Butler assassination attempt
President Donald Trump has arrived at the Club World Cup final between Chelsea and PSG at MetLife Stadium. Roughly 35 minutes before kickoff, Trump's Marine One helicopter was seen landing near the stadium for the game. Trump and first lady Melania Trump traveled from their golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, to East Rutherford, New Jersey to watch the inaugural championship match of the newly-expanded, 32-team global tournament. The outing falls on the first anniversary of the assassination attempt he survived in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, and significant security measures were put in place for his arrival. As detailed in The Athletic, secret service officials worked with organizers to put together a travel route to the venue, and it was believed he would be behind a pane of bulletproof glass at the game. Trump is expected to watch the game with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, PSG and Chelsea officials, as well as Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the emir of Qatar and previous owner of the Boeing 747-8 jet Trump controversially accepted as a gift. Additionally, Trump is expected to be part of the trophy presentation after the game, which further complicates the required security around the American Commander-in-Chief. 'When you do the threat and risk assessment, you cover anything that could go wrong: if they were at a mass gathering, what if the stage collapsed?' Nigel Thomas, a former British Special Air Service (SAS) soldier and founder of security training firm, Blue Mountain Group, told The Athletic. 'We will have a standard operating procedure for that, for example. You need to be prepared for it, and that takes communication with stadium security and emergency services.' The World Cup Final next summer will also be hosted at MetLife Stadium. The president has enjoyed a friendly relationship with Infantino, and FIFA actually opened up a new office in Manhattan's Trump Tower this week. Since he took office for a second time this year, Trump has visited several sporting events - including the Super Bowl in New Orleans. He's also attended the Daytona 500 in Florida, UFC fights in Miami and Newark, New Jersey, and the NCAA wrestling championships in Philadelphia. While Trump has yet to attend a Club World Cup match ahead of the final, Vice President J.D. Vance was on hand when Borussia Dortmund took on Ulsan HD in Cincinnati. And the strict security measures were certainly felt in that case. 'We were checked by strict security,' Dortmund head coach Niko Kovac told assembled reporters. ' When we left the hotel, we were given a sniff test by a dog. When we got into the stadium, someone came onto the bus with another dog. That's completely normal. It's a World Cup. They are high-level people, so I think it's normal, but it was relatively tight.' Sunday's final will see reigning Champions League winners PSG face English giants Chelsea, who were last crowned winners of Europe in 2021. PSG have gotten past a gauntlet of opponents this summer to reach the championship match, beating the likes of Atletico Madrid, Bayern Munich and Real Madrid along the way. Their win over Los Blancos was particularly emphatic, as they beat the Spanish giants 4-0 on Wednesday in front of a packed MetLife crowd. Chelsea, meanwhile, have beaten the likes of Benfica, Palmeiras and Fluminense in the knockout stages to reach the final.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Scandal of indefinite jail terms has left prisoners damaged by ‘state's failure', ex-justice secretary warns
The scandal of ' totalitarian' indefinite jail terms has left prisoners profoundly damaged by the 'state's failure' to rehabilitate them, a former Tory justice secretary has warned. Alex Chalk KC said Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms are 'overbearing' and 'unfair' as he urged his successor Shabana Mahmood to look carefully at fresh proposals to end the historic wrong. In a candid interview after leaving government a year ago, he described the abolished jail terms as a 'state overreach' which have left thousands languishing in prison for up to 22 times longer than their original tariff. He told The Independent and the podcast Trapped: The IPP Scandal: 'If you take the time to explain to people how the state has got things wrong and that this is a state overreach, and that ultimately it has acted in a way which is overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian, then I think that offends against most British people's sense of justice.' More than 2,500 inmates are still trapped under the outlawed jail terms, which have been described by the UN as 'psychological torture'. They were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include: Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for robbing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. Mr Chalk, 48, a barrister who first encountered the sentence when he was prosecuting cases in the criminal courts, said he tried to address the 'toxic legacy' of the jail terms when he ushered in changes by reducing the IPP licence period from 10 years to three. Almost 1,800 people have had their licence terminated in the community following his reforms, passed under the Victims and Prisoners Act before last year's general election. He said that although many had committed serious offences, whether you consider yourself a 'bleeding heart' or 'tough on crime', the jail term 'offends against people's sense of fairness in Britain'. 'There is not a single vote in taking that 10-year minimum period for an IPP down to three years,' he said. 'A, because most people don't understand it and B, insofar as they do understand it there is no sympathy for those individuals. 'But I did it because I thought it was right. I did it because I thought it was right and I'm absolutely sure it was the right thing to do.' However, while in Rishi Sunak's government, Mr Chalk stopped short of accepting recommendations from the justice committee that all IPP prisoners should be resentenced. The decision was branded 'not good enough' by campaigners after 94 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives as they lose hope of ever being released. He warned that Ms Mahmood has a tough problem to solve as she considers fresh proposals from the Howard League for Penal Reform and former top judge Lord John Thomas to end the injustice by giving prisoners a release date at their next review by the Parole Board within a two-year window. He admitted some prisoners who are automatically freed from regular, determinate jail terms would not pass the Parole Board's release test, but this is still demanded of all IPP prisoners. In some cases, he believes their long-term incarceration is what has made them too dangerous to pass this test. He said: 'So the injustice can be framed as follows: that you have people who were considered dangerous, but for whom there was hope for rehabilitation some 10, 15, 20 years ago, and yet the experience of being in custody, of having languished under these unfair orders, has for some turned them into extremely volatile and dangerous people. 'And so the exam question is, how do you right this historic wrong without leading innocent members of the public to pay the price for the state's failure?' He continued: 'The wickedness of it is, as I say, the state is very much part of why they are too dangerous. So what do you do? Well, I think that the proposal that the Howard League and Lord Thomas have come up with is certainly worthy of careful consideration.' Although he would be 'twitchy' about agreeing to a release date for remaining IPP prisoners within a two-year window, Mr Chalk 'wouldn't rule it out' if it came with additional safeguards such as tagging and enhanced monitoring. This would ensure prisoners were 'guided, as it were, not to a cliff edge from custody to freedom but much more of a glide path towards a rehabilitated future', he said. However he backed the Howard League's calls for fewer IPP prisoners to be recalled for minor breaches of licence conditions, agreeing that the threshold is currently 'too low'. 'Our duty as the state is to throw all the resources we can at making this person better to try to get them to stand on their own two feet to lead a law-abiding life, and that is our obligation,' he added. The Howard League's proposals were put together by a panel of Britain's top justice experts led by Lord Thomas, who served as lord chief justice from 2013 to 2017. The ex-judge, who is a member of the House of Lords, believes the 'practical solutions' could be the last chance to help those on the jail term, warning that without action some IPP prisoners will languish in jail until they die. Urging the state to take responsibility for its own mistakes, he insisted 'enough is enough', noting that if these prisoners had committed their crime a day after the sentence was abolished, they would have long been freed. 'It is time to address this problem in the way we have set out, which produces justice and minimises risk as much as possible,' added the judge, who last year backed The Independent 's campaign to review IPP sentences. The government has said ministers will 'carefully consider' the Howard League's recommendations. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. IPP prisoners are considered for release by the independent Parole Board every two years and those who are deemed safe will be released. 'The government is supporting IPP prisoners to achieve their release but this must be done in a way that does not put the public at risk."
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's anger over Bolsonaro case leaves top adviser fumbling to justify ‘punishing' tariffs on Brazil: ‘So, what is it?'
Donald Trump 's economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, struggled to justify the rationale for 'punishing' new tariffs on imports from Brazil during an appearance on ABC's This Week. Host Jonathan Karl questioned the rationale behind the new 50 percent tax on Brazilian goods, highlighting the $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year, and noting that the U.S. hasn't had a trade deficit with Brazil since 2007. The Trump administration has argued that tariffs are to counter trade deficits with U.S. trading partners, and the topic arose in a broader discussion of the president's newly announced tariffs on America's closest allies, including Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. 'So why, why, why are we putting a punishing 50 percent tariff on Brazil?' asked Karl. Hassett, speaking from the North Lawn of the White House, began: 'Well, bottom line is the president has been very frustrated with negotiations with Brazil and also with the actions of Brazil. In the end, though, you know, we're trying to put America first. I think that a lot of people, when I'm talking to negotiators from other countries, at some point they'll say, 'What did we do wrong?'' 'The message we're all trying to get across is this is about America getting itself ready for the golden age by getting our house in order, by getting our tariff and trade policy and tax policy exactly where it needs to be for a golden age,' he continued. 'And normally, it's not necessarily about a specific country, but with Brazil, it is. Their actions have shocked the president at times, and he's … been clear about that.' Karl pounced, noting that the president has been explicit as to why he is imposing such a high tax on Brazil. Trump expressed his anger in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro for his role in an alleged coup to overturn his 2022 reelection loss was a 'witch hunt' and should 'end immediately.' The president specifically said the 50 percent tariff was coming in part due to 'Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections.' Said Karl: 'I don't understand how you're saying it's about America because the president has made it quite clear that what he's upset about is how the Brazilian Supreme Court has handled the criminal case involving former President Bolsonaro.' Hassett jumped in: 'I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is that … with most countries was that it's really about us getting the tariffs in order. And I think that this tariff for Brazil is a lot higher because of the president's frustration with Bolsonaro.' Karl persisted: 'But can you explain to me, because I find it confusing here … on what authority does the president have to impose tariffs on a country because he doesn't like what that country's judicial system is handling a specific case?' 'If he thinks it's a national defense emergency or if he thinks it's a national security threat, that he has the authority under IEEPA,' countered Hassett, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, at the center of a lawsuit over Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs that is currently before a federal appeals court. 'So, how is it a national security threat that, you know, how Brazil is handling a criminal case against this former president?' pressed Karl. 'Well, that's not the only thing. That's not the only thing. I mean…' a flustered Hassett replied. 'So, what is it? I mean, I've asked what it is,' said Karl. 'I mean, it seems that that's what President Trump's talking about. He's talking about his anger and his frustration. He's been quite candid about it with the Bolsonaro case.' Regrouping, Hassett said: 'Right. Well, the bottom line is that what we're doing absolutely collectively across every country is we're onshoring production in the U.S. to reduce the national emergency that is — that we have a massive trade deficit, that's putting it at risk should we need production in the U.S. because of a national security crisis. And this is part of an overall strategy to do that.' 'But again, as we've just established, we have a trade surplus with Brazil, not a deficit,' said Karl, adding over an interjected 'but' from Hassett, 'And we've had a surplus with Brazil for 18 years.' 'If you look at an overall strategy, if you don't have an overall strategy for this, then there'll be trans shipping and everything else, and you won't achieve your objectives,' Hassett argued. 'Okay. I'm still confused, but let me move on,' said Karl, concluding the discussion none the wiser.
