Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Sure but American VPs don't normally comment on individual murders in Britain either.

Plus as I say I suspect Starmer/Number 10 are very happy with a series of headlines about pushing back on those comments (especially in the context of a leadership challenge).

Edit: I would add I think that is still further entrenching the American dominance of our discourse - even if you're defining yourself against DC it's still ultimately reactive and reinforcing their centrality.

Cool, there are lots of unprecedented things about the Trump administration.

A great way to get them to keep commenting is to give them attention.

[Jacob]

If you cover it, the coverage should be: "look what a tool Vance is, commenting on something like this. What did he say? Doesn't really matter, but the implications for US UK relations are not good. Who the fuck does he think he is?" 

[Sheilbh]

Also I sort of think we're not Americans. It's not a matter of whether or not the British media are "normalising" Trump. The British media don't matter. It's not our political system, they're not our government and how the BBC leads means nothing in American politics (I regularly think of the 2004 election when the Guardian did a letter-writing campaign to a swing county in Ohio - which swung even harder towards Bush ). I get there's a little bit of a difference now with British media companies going big in the US (the Guardian US edition sits between the WSJ and Washington Post in pageviews - and generates millions from US supporters) but I think it's pretty marginal.

I think the main reason it's a big story is becaue Starmer chose to respond in a quite splashy way. The way this story disappears with barely a trace is if the British government doesn't respond or just plays it down, which isn't what happened. And I think that is a story. The implications for US-UK relations are because of the way the UK government has responded more than what Vance has said.

I've no doubt Starmer believes what he's said. But also I think it is politically helpful for him. It moves the debate and focus from issues around Nowak's murder and the police onto a foreign leader politicising it. An American politician meddling in British politics is never popular (on either side), by a particularly unpopular American politician - plus being anti-Trump is very popular (even Reform voters preferred Harris). Particularly in the Labour Party, particularly when he's facing a challenge to his leadership.

[crazy canuck]

American VPs are typically not well covered in part because they don't have much power. JD Vance is known for spewing shit. Him spewing off about a dead kid is hardly a top story for Britain. We have much more significant things to deal with at home.

Exactly...our VPs are even less relevant than the King (unless/until the boss dies).

Part of me thinks it would be amusing if after the mid-terms the Democrats got to a functionally (I use that term because...Fetterman) 50-50 Senate split...as that could lead to Vance having to park his ass in the Senate chamber most of the time instead of being out and about causing trouble.  The other edge to that sword is that it would likely put him in the limelight much more (which could be good...or bad).

Perhaps in theory, but Dick Cheney was de facto the President