Americans likely face a choice this fall between two men they dont want for president. Or they can stay home and get one of the two guys they dont want for president anyway. The reasons for voter disdain are clear enough: Poll respondents say Joe Biden is too old, an impression reinforced by last weeks special-counsel report, and they have always been troubled by Donald Trumps judgment and character (though a majority think hes too old too.)
Voters have genuine questions about both men. But weve seen each occupy the presidency. One thing the two administrations have made clear is that whereas Biden follows an approach to governance that seems to offset some of his weaknesses, Trumps preferred managerial style seems to amplify his.
Many people treat elections as a chance to vote a single individual into office; as a result, they tend to focus disproportionately on the personality, character, and temperament of the people running. But voters are also choosing a platforma set of policies as well as a set of people, chosen by the president, who will shape and implement them. The president is the conductor of an orchestra, not a solo artist. As the past eight years have made very clear, the difference in governance between a Trump administration and a Biden administration is not subtlefor example, on foreign policy, border security, and economicsand voters have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision.
But for the sake of argument, lets consider the potential effects of Bidens failures of memory and Trumps well, its a little tough to say what exactly is going on with Trumps mental state. The former president has always had a penchant for saying strange things and acting impulsively, and its hard to know whether recent lapses are indications of new troubles or the same deficits that have long been present. His always-dark rhetoric has become more apocalyptic and vengeance-focused, and he frequently seems forgetful or confused about basic facts.
To what extent would either of their struggles be material in a future presidential term? One key distinction is that Biden and Trump have fundamentally different conceptions of the presidency as an office. Bidens approach to governance has been more or less in keeping with the traditions of recent decades. Bidens Cabinet and West Wing are (for better or worse) stocked with longtime political and policy hands who have extensive experience in government. Cabinet secretaries largely run their departments through normal channels. Policy proposals are usually formulated by subject-area experts. The presidents job is to sit atop this apparatus and set broad direction.
Read: The presidency is not a math test
Biden doesnt always defer to experts, and he has clashed with and overruled advisers on some topics, including, notably, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such occasional clashes are fairly typicalas long as theyre occasional. As my colleague Graeme Wood wrote this week, The presidency is an endless series of judgment calls, not a four-year math test. In fact, large parts of the executive branch exist, in effect, to do the math problems on the presidents behalf, then present to him all those tough judgment calls with the calculations already factored in.
This doesnt mean that Bidens readily apparent aging doesnt bring risks. The presidency requires a great deal of energy, and crises can happen at all hours and on top of one another, testing the stamina of any person. The oldest president before Biden, Ronald Reagan, struggled with acuity in his second term, an administration that produced a huge, appalling scandal of which he claimed to be unaware.
In contrast to the model of the president as the ultimate decision maker, Trump has approached the presidency less like a Fortune 500 CEO and more like the sole proprietor of a small business. (Though he boasts about his experience running a business empire, the Trump Organization also ran this wayit is a company with a large bottom line but with concentrated and insular management by corporate standards.) As president, Trump had a tendency to micromanage detailsthe launching system for a new aircraft carrier, the paint scheme on Air Force Onewhile evincing little interest in major policy questions, such as a long-promised replacement for Obamacare.
At times, Trump has described his role in practically messianic terms: I alone can fix it, he infamously said at the 2016 Republican National Convention. He has claimed to be the worlds foremost expert on a wide variety of subjects, and he often disregarded the views of policy experts in his administration, complaining that they tried to talk him out of ideas (when they didnt just obstruct him). He and his allies have embarked on a major campaign to ensure that staffers in a second Trump administration would be picked for their ideological and personal loyalty to him. Axios has reported that the speechwriter Stephen Miller could be the next attorney general, even though Miller is not an attorney.
Perhaps as a result of these different approaches to the job, people who have served under the men have divergent views on them. Whereas Biden can seem bumbling and mild in public, aides accounts of his private demeanor depict an engaged, incisive, and sometimes hot-tempered president. Thats also the view that emerges from my colleague Franklin Foers book The Last Politician. He has a kind of mantra: You can never give me too much detail, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has said. The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it, because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last weekend. (As Jon Stewart noted on Monday night, the public might be more convinced were these moments videotaped, like the gaffes.)
Former Trump aides are not so complimentary. Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump a person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law, adding, God help us. Former Attorney General Bill Barr said that he shouldnt be anywhere near the Oval Office. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described him as unfit for office. Of 44 former Cabinet members queried by NBC, only four said they supported Trumps return to office. Even allowing for the puffery of politics, the contrast is dramatic.
Read: A Hail Mary to save The Daily Show
None of this is to say that Bidens memory lapses arent worth concern or that he is as vigorous as he was as a younger man. But someone voting for Biden is selecting, above all, a set of policy ideas and promises that he has laid out, with the expectation that the apparatus of the executive branch will implement them.
Voting for Trump is opting for a charismatic individual who brings to office a set of attitudes rather than a platform. Considering the presidency as a matter of individual mental acuity grants the field to Trumps own preferred conception of unified personal power, so its striking that the comparison makes the dangers posed by Trumps mentality so stark.
But in a leaked recording obtained by Sky News, Chris Philp, now shadow home secretary, said Britain’s exit from the EU – and end of UK participation in the Dublin agreement which governs EU-wide asylum claims – meant they realised they “can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.
Mr Philp appeared to suggest the scale of the problem surprised those in the Johnson government.
Image: Chris Philp is the shadow home secretary. Pic: Reuters
“When we did check it out… (we) found that about half the people crossing the Channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe.”
In response tonight, the Tories insisted that Mr Philp was not saying the Tories did not have a plan for how to handle asylum seekers post Brexit.
Mr Philp’s comments from last month are a very different tone to 2020 when as immigration minister he seemed to be suggesting EU membership and the Dublin rules hampered asylum removals.
In August that year, he said: “The Dublin regulations do have a number of constraints in them, which makes returning people who should be returned a little bit harder than we would like. Of course, come the 1st of January, we’ll be outside of those Dublin regulations and the United Kingdom can take a fresh approach.”
Mr Philp was also immigration minister in Mr Johnson’s government so would have been following the debate closely.
Image: Philp was previously a close ally of Liz Truss. Pic: PA
In public, members of the Johnson administration were claiming this would not be an issue since asylum claims would be “inadmissible”, but gave no details on how they would actually deal with people physically arriving in the country.
A Home Office source told journalists once the UK is “no longer bound by Dublin after the transition”, then “we will be able to negotiate our own bilateral returns agreement from the end of this year”.
This did not happen immediately.
In the summer of 2020, Mr Johnson’s spokesman criticised the “inflexible and rigid” Dublin regulations, suggesting the exit from this agreement would be a welcome post-Brexit freedom. Mr Philp’s comments suggest a different view in private.
The remarks were made in a Zoom call, part of a regular series with all the shadow cabinet on 28 April, just before the local election.
Mr Philp was asked by a member why countries like France continued to allow migrants to come to the UK.
He replied: “The migrants should claim asylum in the first safe place and that under European Union regulations, which is called the Dublin 3 regulation, the first country where they are playing asylum is the one that should process their application.
“Now, because we’re out of the European Union now, we are out of the Dublin 3 regulations, and so we can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum. When we did check it out, just before we exited the EU transitional arrangements on December the 31st, 2020, we did run some checks and found that about half the people crossing the channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe.
“In Germany, France, Italy, Spain, somewhere like that, and therefore could have been returned. But now we’re out of Dublin, we can’t do that, and that’s why we need to have somewhere like Rwanda that we can send these people to as a deterrent.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Has Brexit saved the UK from tariffs?
Mr Johnson announced the Rwanda plan in April 2022 – which Mr Philp casts as the successor plan – 16 months after Britain left the legal and regulatory regime of the EU, but the plan was blocked by the European Court of Human Rights.
Successive Tory prime ministers failed to get any mandatory removals to Rwanda, and Sir Keir Starmer cancelled the programme on entering Downing Street last year, leaving the issue of asylum seekers from France unresolved.
Speaking on Sky News last weekend, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said there has been a 20% increase in migrant returns since Labour came to power, along with a 40% increase in illegal working raids and a 40% increase in arrests for illegal working.
Britain’s membership of the EU did not stop all asylum arrivals. Under the EU’s Dublin regulation, under which people should be processed for asylum in the country at which they first entered the bloc.
However, many EU countries where people first arrive, such as Italy, do not apply the Dublin rules.
The UK is not going to be able to participate again in the Dublin agreement since that is only open to full members of the EU.
Ministers have confirmed the Labour government is discussing a returns agreement with the French that would involve both countries exchanging people seeking asylum.
Asked on Sky News about how returns might work in future, the transport minister Lilian Greenwood said on Wednesday there were “discussions ongoing with the French government”, but did not say what a future deal could look like.
She told Sky News: “It’s not a short-term issue. This is going to take really hard work to tackle those organised gangs that are preying on people, putting their lives in danger as they try to cross the Channel to the UK.
“Of course, that’s going to involve conversations with our counterparts on the European continent.”
Pressed on the returns agreement, Ms Greenwood said: “I can confirm that there are discussions ongoing with the French government about how we stop this appalling and dangerous trade in people that’s happening across the English Channel.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “The Conservative Party delivered on the democratic will of this country, and left the European Union.
“The last government did have a plan and no one – including Chris – has ever suggested otherwise.
“We created new deals with France to intercept migrants, signed returns agreements with many countries across Europe, including a landmark agreement with Albania that led to small boat crossings falling by a third in 2023, and developed the Rwanda deterrent – a deterrent that Labour scrapped, leading to 2025 so far being the worst year ever for illegal channel crossings.
“However, Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp have been clear that the Conservatives must do a lot more to tackle illegal migration.
“It is why, under new leadership, we are developing g new policies that will put an end to this problem – including disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters, establishing a removals deterrent and deporting all foreign criminals.”
The Foreign Office has denied reports that David Lammy refused to pay a taxi driver who drove him and his wife from Italy to France.
An anonymous taxi driver told French media the foreign secretary became “aggressive” when he was asked to pay 700 euros (£590) of the 1,550 euro bill, with the remainder covered by the booking service.
But the government department said Mr Lammy and his spouse were in fact victims in the case and that the driver has been charged with theft after driving off with their luggage.
The incident happened when Mr Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, joined the King for a state visit to Italy in April and then took a private holiday to the Alps with his wife Nicola Green.
The taxi driver took the couple more than 600 kilometres from the town of Forli in Italy to the French ski resort of Flaine.
A source said the fee was paid up front to the transfer service but that the driver nevertheless insisted he was owed money and demanded to be paid in cash.
Ms Green, who was speaking to the driver while Mr Lammy went into the house, told police in a statement that she felt threatened and that the taxi driver had showed her a knife in his glovebox according to the PA news agency.
It is understood that after he left with their luggage, a member of the foreign secretary’s office contacted the driver to get it back, and it was deposited at a police station with a “considerable” sum of money missing from Ms Green’s bag.
The anonymous driver told French newspaper La Provence he was “the victim of assault and violence by members of a British embassy during an international transfer where they refused to pay me”.
He said he had decided to leave the passengers at their destination and went to the police, where officers found diplomatic passports and a coded briefcase in the boot of his car.
Ms Green does not have a diplomatic passport and Mr Lammy was travelling on his normal passport as it was a private trip.
Whitehall sources denied any sensitive material was in the holiday luggage.
Prosecutors opened an investigation into a “commercial dispute” in Bonneville in Haute-Savoie after the driver filed a complaint, according to French media.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We totally refute these allegations. The fare was paid in full.
“The foreign secretary and his wife are named as victims in this matter and the driver has been charged with theft.
“As there is an ongoing legal process, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
Proposals have been drawn up to spend millions in deprived neighbourhoods which are most at risk of failing to meet the government’s missions, Sky News understands.
Approving the money will ultimately be a decision for the Treasury in the upcoming spending review, but it has wide support among backbench MPs who have urged the government to do for towns “what Blair and Brown did for cities” and regenerate them.
Labour MPs told Sky News austerity is the main driver of voters turning to Reform UK and investment is “absolutely critical”.
The plan is based on the findings of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (ICON), which identified 613 “mission-critical” areas that most need progress on Sir Keir Starmer’s “five missions”:the economy, crime, the NHS, clean energy and education.
The list of neighbourhoods has not been published but are largely concentrated around northern cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Sunderland and Newcastle, a report said.
Some of the most acute need is in coastal towns such as Blackpool, Clacton, and Great Yarmouth, while pockets of high deprivation have been identified in the Midlands and the south.
Clacton is the seat of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who is hoping to be Sir Keir’s main challenger at the next general election following a meteoric rise in the polls.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:20
Voters turn to Reform UK
‘Residents deserve better’
However, Labour MP for Blackpool South Chris Webb said this wasn’t about Reform – but investing in places that have been forgotten.
He told Sky News: “Coastal towns like my hometown of Blackpool have been overlooked by successive governments for too long, and it’s time to change that narrative.
“The findings of the ICON report are a wake-up call, highlighting the urgent need for investment in our communities to address the alarming levels of crime, antisocial behaviour, poverty, and the stark disparities in life expectancy.”
He said he’d be lobbying for at least £1m in funding. His residents are “understandably frustrated and angry” and “deserve better”.
Image: Chris Webb. Pic: Peter Byrne/PA
‘Investment essential to beat Reform’
The spending review, which sets all departments’ budgets for future years, will happen on 11 June. It will be Rachel Reeves’ first as chancellor and the first by a Labour government in over a decade.
Southport MP Patrick Hurley told Sky News the last Labour government “massively invested in our big cities” after the dereliction of the 1980s, “but what Blair and Brown did for our cities, it’s now on the new government to do for our towns”.
He added: “Investment in our places to restore pride, and improve the look and feel of where people live, is essential.”
Another Labour backbencher in support of the report, Jake Richards, said seats like his Rother Valley constituency had been “battered by deindustrialisation and austerity”.
“Governments of different colours have not done enough, and now social and economic decay is driving voters to Farage,” he said.
“We need a major investment programme in deprived neighbourhoods to get tough on the causes of Reform.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:39
What is a spending review?
ICON is chaired by former Labour minister Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top.
The report said focusing on neighbourhoods is the most efficient route to mission delivery and is likely to have more support among voters “than grandiose national visions of transformation” – pointing to the Tories’ “failed levelling up agenda”.
The last major neighbourhood policy initiative was New Labour’s “New Deal for Communities”, which funded the regeneration of 39 of England’s poorest areas.
Research suggests it narrowed inequalities on its targeted outcomes and had a cost-ratio benefit. It was scrapped by the coalition government.
Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has already announced £1.5bn “Plan for Neighbourhoods” to invest in 75 areas over the next decade, with up to £20m available for each.
A government source told Sky News expanding the programme “would be a decision for the upcoming spending review”.