David Lammy went on the BBC’s Newscast podcast for a ten minute chat post-Trump election. Naturally some of his views were brought up…
Lammy declined to say he had changed his mind about Trump being “deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic” and “no friend of Britain.” He said instead it was “old news.” Five years ago…
The Foreign Secretary then chose a new defence, “in that period, particularly where people on Twitter, lots of things were said about Donald Trump.” That’s fine then – who hasn’t called him a Nazi?
Clearly Lammy was saving the best defence for last: “I’ve had a meal with Donald Trump… He did offer me a second portion of chicken.” He refused twice to say his comments were naïve and claimed: “Who in real life only has friendships with people that they entirely agree with? That’s just not real.” To which Chris Mason pointed out – who in real life goes around calling people Nazi-sympathising sociopaths who are women hating and a tyrant in a toupée? He’s got him there…
When asked about a potential state visit for Trump next year Lammy said that was “a bit of a tall order.” Is that because he promised to “chain myself to the door of No 10” the last time it was proposed?
Labour’s strict all-positive line on Trump is breaking down. Ministers are briefing papers, which can be read by Americans, that they will work together “through gritted teeth.” Andy Burnham has set himself apart from Starmer by saying he has “concerns” about Trump. All while arch-Starmerite Pat McFadden declines to deny Trump is a Nazi…
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”