Vance has previously described Britain under Labour as the first “truly Islamist” country with a nuclear weapon.
Lammy told BBC Breakfast: “Let me just say on JD Vance that I’ve met him now on several occasions, we share a similar working class background with addiction issues in our family. We’ve written books on that. We’ve talked about that.
“And we’re both Christians so I think I can find common ground with JD Vance.”
[…]
Expanding on his views on Vance on BBC Radio 4, Lammy said he had started to discuss the US view on global defence at the security conference in Munich in February.“Yes, he has had strong things to say about European defences, and he has had a point of view about Ukraine,” Lammy said. “That’s why I’ve been engaged with JD Vance for many, many months.”
The foreign secretary once called Donald Trump a “neo-Nazi sociopath” and “a tyrant in a toupee”, but has distanced himself from those comments as the US presidential election has approached.
More recently Lammy has spoken at conservative events in the US, telling the Hudson Institute in May that he “gets the agenda that drives ‘America first’”.
I think we loosen connections with US and increase them with sane European countries. The US is heading for isolation, and decline because of it. We have friends right next door.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
David Lammy has said he is already engaging with Donald Trump’s controversial running mate, JD Vance, and can identify with him because of their common working class and Christian backgrounds.
The British foreign secretary was speaking just hours after the possible future US vice-president reiterated his “America first” views, pledging to the Republican national convention (RNC) that he would not send US soldiers to war abroad unnecessarily.
Lammy told BBC Breakfast: “Let me just say on JD Vance that I’ve met him now on several occasions, we share a similar working class background with addiction issues in our family.
Starmer is hoping to use the EPC summit to demonstrate Europe’s collective determination to support Ukraine, and to relaunch the UK on the European stage and reset relations with the EU after almost eight years poisoned by Brexit.
The summit will be attended by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy who, along with Starmer, will address the plenary session involving the 44 leaders as well as the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, and the Council of Europe.
He told Harris about his pledge to repeal the controversial Legacy Act, which offered immunity for Troubles-era crimes in Northern Ireland, and committed to an annual Anglo-Irish conference with a specific work-stream aimed at ironing out practical problems which can create drags on the neighbours’ relationship.
The original article contains 720 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I could find common ground with an invading space alien.
Doesn’t mean I’m going to act like that means it’s appropriate for me to work with them or claim they’re not evil.
I keep hearing about this Lammy guy being a right knob.
…Certainly be seems stupid - just because you follow the same organised religion as someone else and come from a similar socioeconomic background, doesn’t mean you’re even remotely anything alike.
It’s a good thing this guy who doesn’t understand how people work (or is lying about it) isn’t in charge of anything important. Right?
Lammy’s not doing anything different from what any home secretary would do in this situation. He’s definitely not stupid in my opinion. Never understood how Lammy manages to attract so much criticism from people on both left and right; it seems disproportionate to me.
I suspect that the color of his skin might have something to do with it.
He is, in my opinion, doing a pretty good job and is infinitely better than any of the previous bags of uselessness we’ve had, and yet somehow he’s attracting criticism. None of this criticism seem to be related to his talents, again given the fact that he’s superior to all his recent predecessors. So I can only assume it’s racism.
I think he’s just saying the things you have to say to appease the situation. Obviously this Vance guy is a complete nut case. But we can’t do anything about that. Be preferable if the US could elect people with more than six brain cells but that seems to be not really an option on the table so we have to deal with the people we get.
I see a lot of criticism in here. What realistically would be the best course of action? There’s a high possibility that Trump, despite being utterly unsuitable to being charge of a light switch, will be elected president of the US again. Realistically the only thing we can do is just try and make the best of it. And if that means trying to find a way to work with utterly the thing we’re going to have to do.
There seems to be a lot of blind hatred for anything that isn’t Corbyn’s Labour on this community.
“Our only option is to give in to fascism” 🙄
(yes, cooperating with it, accepting it as a legitimate partner for negotiation, is giving in. When one side is actively not only calling but acting to oppress multiple groups of people, there should be zero tolerance)
We don’t give into fascism though. The fascism will exist regardless of our opinion of it.
Cutting our own noses off to spite our face does no one any good at all
We don’t give into fascism though. The fascism will exist regardless of our opinion of it.
Cutting our own noses off to spite our face does no one any good at all
Sure, if he’s elected then Vance is someone Lammy will likely have to work with. He didn’t have to announce that he had so much in common with an ethnonationalist before he’s even been elected though.
Jesus wept. This is not the Labour I was hoping for. And I had pretty minimal expectations, to be clear.
He would be absolutely nuts to tell the probable future VP of the states that he is a bigot. This is just good diplomacy.
Echoed the ghost of Neville Chamberlain…
Trump and his ilk are just assholes as opposed to an existential threat. It’s not exactly appeasement to try to establish a relationship with the government of the USA.
The list of specific ways Republicans differ from literal Nazis has been shrinking for more than the last two decades and there’s barely anything left, but sure, it’s fine that this Labourite is toadying a guy who definitely drops a hard R among friends.
I think you’re massively affected by American politics and that’s possibly the wrong lens to talk about this through. A lot of what you’re saying doesn’t really make sense for UK politics.
There really isn’t an appetite in the UK for a government like the Republicans in the US. Even the most hardline Tory is considered middle ground by US standards. So there really is no risk of Labour slipping in some way into accepting or fascism. All that is happening here is maintaining a relationship that predates the potential extremist government and hopefully will continue to exist after they have shown themselves to be utterly incapable. From the UK’s perspective the absolute worst thing that can happen is a breakdown in that relationship.
That is good to hear. Thanks for being understanding, I definitely have some baggage to unload. It’s really intense over there. I would love to stop thinking about it for a while, if I could.
So what do you want to happen to happen? Because all you’re doing here is criticizing and I don’t really see how the situation could be handled any better.
I would like the Labour government, for whom I voted, not to toady an ethnonationalist - but I guess that’s Numberwang.
Right but that’s not ehat I asked. How would you how would you like him to approach this situation? We have a situation where there is a possibility that Trump will be elected, and you are unhappy that we’re trying to maintain positive relations with them as much as that is possible.
So what would you like our relationship with the US to look like, bearing in mind that walking away from the relationship is economically not doable just as walking away from the European Union was economically damaging.
The thing you need to understand about this “neo reactionary” breed of conservatives is that the only way you’re going to get a really good relationship with them is by joining them in rejecting the international rules based order. He’s an actual American monarchist.
Since that would be a terrible outcome for the world, I would prefer to see us striking a balance of openness but not outright warmth.
And you do not feel that he’s not doing that? He’s talking about Christianity, something he knows doesn’t particularly interest the British people, but some Americans will be somewhat impressed by.
I just feel like you’re criticizing him for doing the bare minimum anyone would expect of him without really offering an alternative course. Open but not warm seems to be the best we could hope for.
Amazing what a difference being a backbencher and being a minister makes.
Tell us you have no self respect or morals and are only concerned with furthering your own career without saying you have no self respect or morals and are only concerned with furthering your own career… 🙄
I’d say “what a fucking joke”, but it really isn’t funny…
