King Charles will of course develop his own relationship with the President in private as Head of State. He will doubtless in public express sympathy and concern about the attempts on the President’s life, stress the long standing friendship and deep collaboration between the two countries and welcome the success of the USA as she celebrates 250 years of independence. The government’s support for his State visit is wise, as the UK must be well represented at the 250th celebration and the UK/US relationship needs some diplomatic stimulus after some bad disagreements between the Prime Minister and the President. The King can transcend  or avoid the politics.

In  practice the King will be given detailed briefing and draft speeches as he is there as the nation’s representative. In our democracy that means he must be loyal to the government’s line. This will pose substantial problems, as the PM has allowed large divides to grow between the US and the UK on a wide range of issues.

1. Chagos   The President thinks it wrong to give them away to an ally of China and to  a country which has signed a Treaty banning nuclear involvement. The UK needs US agreement to amend the founding Treaty for the joint base on Diego Garcia, which the US is understandably unwilling to grant.
2. Use of US bases on UK territory. The PM’s temporary banning of use of bases like Diego Garcia and Lakenhall did huge damage, as the US pays for these bases on UK soil for joint defence and protection and could easily pull out of them if they cannot use them as they wish.
3. The Falklands. The President wrongly seeks to help Argentina.  He does not seem to understand the Falklands are UK territory with a self governing population that vote 99% to remain British.
4. Energy policy The President thinks the UK undermines its national security and economy by refusing to use its own oil and gas and turning to imports.
5. Defence   The UK has not set out how it will get to the new more stretching targets for defence spending by NATO members which have been reasonably requested by the US. The UK will need to explain the current incompetence where the world’s 6th largest defence budget which does provide 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 7 frigates is unable to put a single ship into the Gulf to help, and struggled to get one to Cyprus where our base was under attack.
6. Trade  The UK agreed one of the best trade deals with President Trump but then threw away the good will with its digital tax on US companies, its threatened cbam carbon tariff on US goods, and its extra regulations on US digital success stories.
7. Iran  The UK has not given military  support to the need to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon or to impede Iran financing and training terrorist groups in Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza.
8. Ukraine  The US thinks the UK and EU have got in the way of  negotiating a peace and have helped prolong the war whilst not themselves providing enough support and military aid to Ukraine to win.

So what should the government tell the King to say? The King should help them get over the truth about Falkland islands democratic wishes and explain that the Falklands government is allowing exploitation of the oil and gas offshore where the President should approve. It would be good if the government chose this moment to announce it was abandoning the bad idea of giving Chagos away, so the King can reassure the President this important base will remain open for use. The King could start the repair job over normal use of US bases on UK territory before the US decides to pull out of some  in due course. It would be wise to keep off energy and environment policy as the two sides are so far apart. On defence the King needs good briefing on when and how the UK’s force of naval vessels and planes will be properly available to contribute to NATO and wider alliance tasks. The aircraft carriers are not ” toys”, but they need to be more in use and better supported by UK vessels and planes. The UK needs to consider when and how to offer concessions over its future cbam tariffs, its digital tax and other impediments to US trade to get back tariff free trade more generally.

The UK needs to explain on Iran what its so called coalition of the willing could and would do to help create as well as to police a peace. On both Ukraine and Iran the UK has to see that to make a reality of its wish to have negotiated peace  requires talking to and compromising with Iran and the Iran backed terrorists, and with Putin. Grandstanding in a critical way without spelling out how and why compromises will be made to bring success is far from helpful.

My main message to the government is do not send the King there empty handed. He needs some give in these UK positions  to help mend the relationship.

The UK has often fawned too much to keep something called “the special relationship”.  In practice what we have experienced with the US over the last century is a close relationship based on a mutually important trade with fair balance between imports and exports, a close military alliance formalised through NATO but also developed by close working on defence and intelligence matters on a global basis, and a common view of many of the world’s great political divides. The UK and the US are usually combined as champions of the democracies, and defenders of small states under threat from thuggish autocratic regimes. The US came late to both European wars as they morphed into world wars and was not as helpful as they could have been over the Falklands. The UK sat out Viet Nam, seeing the difficulties in achieving victory. The UK has assisted the US in its other major Middle Eastern wars.

The Prime Minister thought this relationship was crucial and put a lot of effort in the early days into playing down the unpleasant things leading Labour figures has said about  Mr Trump before he was re elected. The outgoing Ambassador did a great job to smooth the UK and then the US transition of governments. No sooner was this done, and an early win was pocketed by getting the UK a better deal on US tariffs than the EU. The  PM decided to put Mandelson in as Ambassador. This was as some of us warned a bad idea. He placed a man known to be close to Epstein into the Oval Office when the last thing the President wanted was such associations  at his meetings. The PM stupidly plunged on with trying to give away the crucial joint US/UK naval base at Diego Garcia, threatening to break the US/UK Treaty about the base and annoying US defence opinion to give the freehold to an ally of China.

More recently the dreadful handling of the sacking of Mandelson has annoyed US opinion. The refusal of permission to the US to use their own bases on our territories was a big mistake. We did not have to say we would join them in bombing action, but it was wrong to temporarily deny them use of their own facilities and then for the PM to change his mind late in the day.  The decision to withdraw our last minesweeper from the Gulf just before the outbreak of hostilities was a bad one, as the UK had been important in offering mine clearing services in the region. It was also pathetic that the UK had just decommissioned its one frigate in Bahrain and could not find a single naval ship to go the Gulf, and only one that was late and in need of repair to assist Cyprus.

No wonder President Trump is now angry with the UK, giving the King a very difficult job when he goes on a state visit. The PM  has to respond to or ignore  bad comments from the President which make things more difficult. He  at times decides to play to the left wing gallery at home who would welcome a more decisive break with Trump’s America. The truth is we need a better relationship in trade, defence and investment which has been made more difficult by bad decisions of the PM and now by the very public criticisms of the PM  by the  President. The government has to counter  the Falklands threat from Washington  and Argentina. The government should show it has the air and naval power and resolve to defend the islands.

Unemployment fell last month. Good news says the Chancellor. Yet the figures show there were fewer people in employment than a month ago, down 6000, or a year ago down 74000. Vacancies were down too. What has happened is more people have decided not to look for a job and more have been put on benefits for life. Bad news.

Growth improved last month. It still left it crawling along like the EU at under  half the US rate at 0.8% for the last  year. Why does the UK establishment always settle for European third best? No surprises there, as most of the measures Reeves and Starmer have introduced have slowed growth and damaged business. There’s  been the jobs tax, the oil and gas bans, the high energy prices, the business rates, the farms tax, the subsidies to stop growing food, the sky high Council taxes, the give aways to foreign governments, the crippling influence of the EU.

The complacency oozes out from the government. No published plans to deal with looming shortages of jet fuel, other oil products, and chemicals. No plan to sort out HS 2 or the Post Office, nationalised industries. No plan to save the steel industry, now on high subsidy life support from taxpayers. No plan to boost housebuilding in line with their ambitious targets. No plan to speed up grid construction to keep the lights on.

The dithering also goes on. I was told the other day by the Lords rail Minister that 20 months on the government still does not have a new budget or new timetable to deliver Birmingham to London HS2. It took a Conservative Lords amendment to force the pace on controlling smart phones in schools, as the government was lost in consultations and options. 20 months  on and the defence plan still awaits the money to pay for it.  We await a social care new policy whilst local government is put through an expensive and unpopular reorganisation.

Markets are very sanguine about the US/Israel/Iran/Hezbollah wars. They seem to assume that both the US and Iran need to come to a deal, that Israel will accept US pressure to do so, and Hezbollah/Houthi forces will come to heel. This is despite Iran an the US remaining a long way apart on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme and enhanced uranium, on the policing and charges for passage through the Straits, the extent of Iran’s drone and missile capacity, and the US bases and military action in the region.

Both sides stress their strengths and their ability to carry on with a resumed war. The US can bomb  more things in Iran, can blockade Iranian ports and could threaten to use specialist forces for raids or for seizing small areas of land. Iran can get re supplied with drones and missiles to threaten the US and her allies, and can use her mobile small forces to stop shipping in the Straits. Iran has proved her point that despite the US destroying much of Iran’s conventional force and killing her old leaders, the country can still continue and can remain a threat with her asymmetric warfare whilst the US has shown her capacity to dominate conventional warfare.

So will Pakistan be able to keep them talking to broker a peace? What is the acceptable answer for the US on re opening the Straits, reining in Iran’s terrorist allies and curtailing Iran’s nuclear ambitions? What does Iran intend to get over the relaxation of sanctions, the imposition of tolls on the Straits and guarantees of no further US military intervention?

A resumption of hostilities and or a failure to re open the Straits to western ships means big issues over shortages of oil, gas, and various important chemicals. That way lies more inflation , less activity and some rationing.

I and the group of Conservative MPs who wanted a proper Brexit did not approve of Mrs May letting Sir Olly Robbins have so much influence  over Brexit, negotiating a hopelessly one sided deal that suited the EU. We did not however personally attack this senior official or demand his sacking from the civil service. We argued strongly with the PM and then sought to  remove her , holding  the PM responsible for the feeble deal.

So I now find myself needing to make the case against Starmer sacking Robbins. Today the Committee needs to clarify whether he has been properly sacked. All we know is the PM says he sacked him but we have not seen the dismissal letter. The Committee needs to ask

1. Was he sacked in a short phone call?

2, What were the stated grounds of dismissal? Was it simply the PM had lost confidence in him, or was it an allegation of misconduct for failing to report details of the vetting of Mandelson?

3. Was Sir Olly given the chance to present his case against the sacking? Does he now have the option of an enquiry into conduct and the right to present his case? Misconduct is presumably  the alleged grounds of dismissal as the post is not being discontinued to allow redundancy. The boss not liking you is not a legitimate ground for dismissal.

4. As the PM decided on a political appointment can we now  see the letter or memo instructing the FCDO to change US Ambassadors and to announce the appointment of Mandelson? The PM has the power to make a political appointment but when he does so he needs to issue an instruction to pre empt the normal official process and competition.

5, As it was a political process with the successful candidate chosen by the PM he became responsible for satisfying himself that the candidate had the right skills and experience and would not damage national security or reputation.  Why did the PM ‘s due diligence on Mandelson not uncover at least  some of the worries the formal vetting  process uncovered?

6. How could the  PM ignore or not know the Epstein, China, Russia, business links of Mandelson and the risks they posed?

7. If he is properly sacked how much compensation will be paid to him?

It is not just the Mandelson disaster which has angered the country and makes the majority hungry for him to go.

It is his whole style and approach to government. He said something true when he said he prefers Davos to Westminster. This is the never home Keir, international law Kier, two tier justice Kier, tax the hard working Kier, clobber UK business Kier, put self defeating  net zero policies before our living standards, our jobs, our incomes Kier.

He burns too much jet fuel and spends too much taxpayer money travelling the world in a vain search for famous friends and photo opportunities. Instead of building UK defences he pretends we can rely on a non existent EU security. Instead of stopping UK de industrialisation brought on by ludicrously dear energy prices and taxes, he seeks to make it worse  by making us submit to higher EU carbon  taxes and tariffs. Instead of helping people into work he slaps on jobs taxes, business taxes and farm taxes.

Labour policies effectively tell people not to strive to do better, not to work hard, do not try to grow a business, do not buy a better home or send your children to a private school. If you do the state will criticise you and send you a bigger tax bill. When so many things go wrong because of bad policies it is time for the Labour party to demand a change.

Why did the PM need to fly to Paris to co host an on line meeting?  Another big bill for UK taxpayers. A  needless use of scarce jet fuel when he should be at home planning how to deal with shortages.

What is this coalition able and willing to do? We are told it is not involved in the Middle East war, despite the threats to our shipping and bases, and the attack on Cyprus. I thought the PM sent extra Airforce jets to Cyprus to help defend UK and allies interests in the region.

The PM says they are working to re open the Straits of Hormuz to shipping. Yet we are also told they are not in  talks with the countries and terrorist groups fighting the war and threatening shipping, so how does that work? We are also told the coalition will not be sending naval forces to the Gulf to seek to impose a peace and freedom of the seas.

We are given a contradiction. The UK and others will consider sending a naval force once there is a peace agreement negotiated by others under the chairmanship of Pakistan. Why would there be a need for a naval protection force once there is a settled ceasefire or peace?

This all looks like play acting whilst others fight and negotiate over the disputed waters. Far from making the PM a more respected international statesman and adding to his popularity at home, voters will ask why is he away from the UK when he needs to make decisions here? Instead of pretending he can magic the international problem away without engaging the combatants, he needs to do something useful like get more of our own oil and gas out of the ground.He needs to deal with the jet fuel shortage, not make it worse by using more himself.

The Prime Minister suffers another self self delusion. He thinks that he is a great international statesman, and wrongly assumes that will make him more popular and help his party in the May elections. Instead it looks as if his over involvement in foreign affairs and the matters of the Foreign Office will do more to bring him down than anything else.

I have recently written about how his alleged great strength as a lawyer determined to govern under the strictures of international law has turned to dust and unpopularity. He was slowly being destroyed by his  failings to understand the limited powers of the ICJ, his wrong view on Chagos, by  the way the ECHR stopped his Smash the gangs policy and the boomerang that was his holier than  thou approach to government in opposition followed by the sleazy realities of some of his now ex Ministers and government deeds.

This has all been surpassed by jetting around the world giving cash and overseas territories away and above all by his gross mishandling of the US relationship. I was one of the few that advised not to sack the talented professional Ambassador he inherited in Washington who did a great job for him in the early months. I thought Lord Mandelson was a risky appointment because he had been forced out twice before from senior government roles over conduct issues. The links with Epstein were well known and the last thing the President wanted was a UK Ambassador that revived memories of that man every time he entered the Oval Office for talks. It has proved to be even more spectacularly stupid than I imagined.

There was the need for Mandelson to back pedal on his past unfortunate comments about Trump. There was the sacking when they discovered he had been closer to Epstein for longer than they thought. There was the need to accuse Mandelson of lying to explain how it was he got through the appointment process. There was the need to fire Starmer’s Chief of Staff, blaming him for recommending the appointment. There was the need to respond to Parliament’s demand to see the papers surrounding the appointment and Mandelson’s work as Ambassador, still not properly complied with. Now there is the latest biggest disaster that it emerges Mandelson failed the original security vetting by the Cabinet Office.

The PM has sacked the top official at the Foreign Office and claims the Foreign Office overrode the security warnings without telling any Minister or any senior staff at No 10. This is difficult to believe as the Foreign Office Head made clear to Parliament the appointment of Mandelson was a personal political appointment made by the PM. The PM failed to tell the Commons of this new news on Wednesday when he could have done so. By Monday afternoon when the PM gets round to making a statement there will be days of adverse press and media speculation. The PM has once again left his MPs and party workers to explain the mess whilst he flies to Paris to pretend to have influence over a war he is trying to  sit out despite the bombs and threats against our shipping and our bases.